Updated American Standard Version
Giving Bible readers what God said not what translators think God meant
Articles explaining the Bible translation process, including manuscript selection, textual criticism, lexical analysis, grammar, context, translation philosophy, and rendering decisions.
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.
Proverbs 6:26 This is a problematic verse to translate from Hebrew,[6] but most commentators agree that the verse makes a contrast between the consequences of being with a prostitute and of being with an adulteress.
As some Christians have been studying their King James Version and comparing it to other modern translations, they have discovered that in the King James Version there are verses that these other translators removed, such as our Luke 17:36 under discussion herein, as well as Matthew 18:11; 23:14 that we discussed earlier this week, and...
The 1946 Project falsely claims the word “homosexual” was mistranslated into the Bible. A linguistic and historical analysis proves this assertion is baseless.
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was one of the first major translations to adopt the gender-neutral language. The King James Version translated at least one passage using a technique that many now reject in other translations, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9). One of the last bastions of literal translation philosophy, the New American Standard Bible, has given into the gender-neutral translation philosophy.
The reader needs and deserves to know what the passage actually says, even if it is difficult to understand. A contextual interpretation that ignores or deviates from the Original Language does not provide that, and since this kind of interpretation is a basic element of Dynamic Equivalent / Functional Equivalent translation, there is little or no “equivalency” to the OL in these passages at all. So on this score, the distinction between DE/FE translations and literal translations truly is a false dichotomy. The real distinction is between translations whose philosophies permit this kind of contextual interpretation in place of literal translation and translations that formally correspond to the OL as much as possible.
