Updated American Standard Version
Giving Bible readers what God said not what translators think God meant
From the first verse of the Bible, we gain two significant certainties. First, the “heavens and the earth” is a reference in the Bible to the material universe, which had a beginning. Second, the “heavens and the earth” were created by God.
Jesus said to Mary, "What have I to do with you, woman?" What was Jesus indicating by talking to Mary this way? Was he being disrespectful?
Which makes for the best and most accurate Bible translation: the literal word-for-word (form) or the dynamic equivalent interpretive (meaning)?
Exactly why are we making other translations beyond the King James Version of 1611? The King James Version has been the primary translation of the Christian community for 400+ years (1611-2021). There is no doubt that this Bible alone has affected the lives of hundreds of millions and has influenced the principles of Bible translation for the past four centuries. Should the KJV still be considered a trustworthy translation? What makes up a trustworthy translation? What translations are the most trustworthy?
The debate as to where one should be in the spectrum of literal versus dynamic equivalent, i.e., their translation philosophy has been going on since the first translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic) into Greek, i.e., the Septuagint (280-150 B.C.E.).
This is a brief introduction to Bible translation basics, with other articles readdressing some areas in greater detail. Understanding how the Bible came down to us, how Bible translations are made, the different translation philosophies, and the textual issues that exist are essential for all serious students of the Bible.
A literal English translation is the word of God in English. Anything less is simply essentially the Word of God on a lower level. It is the translator's interpretation of the literal word.
Some Bible scholars have created two problems: (1) churchgoers think English is lazy and cannot convey the original language acceptably into the receptor language. (2) It also gives fuel to Bible critics.
For some time now terms ending in the word “equivalent” or one of its variations have been preferred in describing translation philosophies. I have a problem with this word, and all translators really should have the same problem with it: it begs the very question we are debating.
UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, all major English Bible translations were based on the premise that the goal of Bible translation is to take the reader as close as possible to the words that the biblical authors actually wrote.