The King James Version of the Bible: Difference between revisions

The King James Version of the Bible (view source)

Revision as of 22:05, 11 May 2016

80 bytes added , 7 years ago

→‎What is the best Bible translation?

Admin

Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, nuke, Suppressors, Administrators

11,141

edits

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 [[Image:Bible translations-620x250.png|thumb|right|250px]]
-Translations may be located anywhere between the two poles of formal equivalence (literal) and dynamic equivalence (free). A strictly literal translation would be largely unintelligible, but traditional translations, such as KJV, RSV, and NIV, have tended to translate sentence structures and figures of speech literally. These are usually perceived as intelligible and often normal, if sometimes a bit unusual for English. Dynamic equivalence (NEB, TEV) makes little if any attempt to preserve original sentence structure, but seeks to state the meaning of the text in natural contemporary idiom. Original metaphors may be retained if their meaning is clear to a contemporary readership. Today it seems clear that both types of translations have their place. Formal equivalence versions are convenient for academic study, dynamic equivalence for private reading. Both are used in public worship.<ref>Roger A. Bullard, “Bible Translations,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 183.</ref>
+Translations may be located anywhere between the two poles of formal equivalence (word for word) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought).  Click on the chart to the left to get an understanding of where various translation lie.
+A strictly literal translation would be largely unintelligible, but traditional translations, such as KJV, RSV, and NIV, have tended to translate sentence structures and figures of speech literally. These are usually perceived as intelligible and often normal, if sometimes a bit unusual for English. Dynamic equivalence (NLT, GNT) makes little if any attempt to preserve original sentence structure, but seeks to state the meaning of the text in natural contemporary idiom. Original metaphors may be retained if their meaning is clear to a contemporary readership. Today it seems clear that both types of translations have their place. Formal equivalence versions are convenient for deeper study, dynamic equivalence for day to day reading.<ref>Roger A. Bullard, “Bible Translations,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 183.</ref>
 It is interesting that the King James translators faced all the same resurrected issues that modern translations are faced with. There were those, for instance, who felt that a new translation implied that the church had been without the Word of God until then. In the preface already quoted the translators report their critics’ concerns.