The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Any Preference for which Original language texts for Translation?

Held amonf Reformed/calvinists, as in Baptist circles, especially among Independent ones, KJVO popular?

I think that we can use either the Majority/Critical yext for translation, as more into thephilsophy of the translators, such as formal or dynamic?

Decades and decades of debates between which is a better textual source; Received Text vs. Wescott Hort/Kurt Aland. I think that this will never be resolved. However, the subject of the method of translation; Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence is an entirely different matter. I stand firmly upon Formal Equivalence which is consistent with the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. LOTS of discussions on that subject here on the Board.

Of the big 4 back in the 80s, only the NIV used the Dynamic Equivalency. (oh, the 4 - NASB, KJ, NKJ, NIV) I'm not sure about the recent translations except the ESV uses the Formal Equivalency.

Don't forget my personal favorite for study (KJV for personal use)... The ASV (TR & Formal Equivalence).

Think the HCSB andEsv strovefor "functional equilancy", whatever that means!

Wasn't that actually nased on the revised version 1881, so that would be using critical text to update the KJV TR? And is that version even published any more?

I prefer the 1977 Nasb, the update of your version!

Yes, I should have written Formal Equivalence and Wescott-Hort and Tregelles Greek texts were used for the NT and the Masoretic Text for the OT. I prefer the ASV for study since the NT translation is quite literal from the Greek. That does make it a little less 'readable' according to some critics. But most of those who criticize it like the Good News or some other such versions.

I'm not sure if it is still in print. Nelson Publishing sold the rights and a company named "Star" picked it up for awhile. It is available online, however.

One version that you might like is the Web bible. My first bible was the new Living Bible, and glad that was for only a short time, as went into the Nasb....

I'm not overly pleased with the WEB, e.g., Rom 3:25; 1Jn 2:2; 4:10 they have translated hilasterion as "atoning sacrifice", similar to what the NIV did. Atoning sacrifice totally loses the meaning of hilasterion, which is correctly translated as "propitiation". Propitiation is a word that has a 2-parts in its meaning which is critical to the correct understanding the atonement.

1. to appease the wrath of one who is offended
2. the removing of that which has caused the offense

Thus, when Paul writes:

Redemption (payment of a ransom from the guilt, punishment, and power of sin) was accomplished by Christ Jesus who was sent to be a propitiation to satisfy God's righteousness/justice thus appeasing His wrath by enduring in Himself the punishment due to those for whom He came to save.

Hasn't there been a watering down in some translations in regards to this,as wasn't it started in Rsv/Neb version, thatthe term used was changed to less of the wrath of God meaning, like expiation for sins?

Yes

Dangerous when translations, such as NLT, changed all of the theological terms for modern day use!