Bible Versions - Literal and Paraphrased (tradition, beliefs, translation, choice)

[powder21]

*If this needs to be posted in a different forum, please let me know.*

OK. I have decided that I am probably never going to get through the King James Version so I have decided on Modern English. I would like to have a more "literal" translation AND a "paraphrased" translation. I have decided on the New International Version as my more "literal" one (please correct me if that's not a more "literal" rather than "paraphrased" translation), but I'm having a bit of trouble deciding on my "paraphrased" or "dynamic equivalence" translation.

The two I'm deciding on are both (I think) renditions of The Living Bible.
1. The Contemporary English Version which is the latest edition published by the American Bible Society
2. The New Living Translation which seems to be more of a new translation of available texts in original languages rather than a revised version of The Living Bible. One of my worries with this one though is something I read on Wiki: "a bit more literary in style and flow than the others." (others meaning the CEV and TLB)

What I would like to know is YOUR personal opinion on which YOU think is better, the Contemporary English Version or the New Living Translation. That's assuming you've read them (or at least read more about them then I have). I hope to hear from as many of you as possible.

P.S. I posted this here rather than the Christian forum so that I can get opinions from people of different faiths who may know a little about the bible translations.

Also, please tell me if you know of any, let's say, scholarly / secular / non-religion-affiliated versions or translations. I'd like to look at that too.

[MidnightBlue]

This is a subject on which I have strong opinions.

The original Living Bible was crap. Having passed through a series of revisions -- the claim that the NLT was freshly translated isn't very credible -- the publishers now have a New Living Translation that's much better than the original Living Bible, but still not very good at all. (The worst of the popular versions today is The Message.)

The CEV is a better work of scholarship, but its goal is to present the Bible to people who don't read English very well. This translation is on the fourth grade level, and while it's good for what it is, I don't see any reason for an adult to bother with a translation that includes, in Luke's nativity story, the passage "... she dressed him in baby clothes and laid him on a bed of hay ... "

And I know you didn't ask, but I have to say the NIV is a very poor version, too.

I'd suggest you junk all of the above, and check out the New American Standard Version for your "literal" translation. It's one of the most literal translations available. For a freer translation, try the Revised English Bible, or even the New English Bible, if you can find a copy.

For my money, the Catholic translations are almost invariably superior to the Protestant translations, and I like the New Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, and Monsignor Knox's translation. If you're open to using Catholic translations, get the NAB for a closer translation, and Knox's version (if you can find a copy) for a freer translation.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

This is a subject on which I have strong opinions.

The original Living Bible was crap. Having passed through a series of revisions -- the claim that the NLT was freshly translated isn't very credible -- the publishers now have a New Living Translation that's much better than the original Living Bible, but still not very good at all. (The worst of the popular versions today is The Message.)

The CEV is a better work of scholarship, but its goal is to present the Bible to people who don't read English very well. This translation is on the fourth grade level, and while it's good for what it is, I don't see any reason for an adult to bother with a translation that includes, in Luke's nativity story, the passage "... she dressed him in baby clothes and laid him on a bed of hay ... "

And I know you didn't ask, but I have to say the NIV is a very poor version, too.

I'd suggest you junk all of the above, and check out the New American Standard Version for your "literal" translation. It's one of the most literal translations available. For a freer translation, try the Revised English Bible, or even the New English Bible, if you can find a copy.

For my money, the Catholic translations are almost invariably superior to the Protestant translations, and I like the New Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, and Monsignor Knox's translation. If you're open to using Catholic translations, get the NAB for a closer translation, and Knox's version (if you can find a copy) for a freer translation.

I agree wholeheartedly (though my local dialect makes me have a soft spot for the English of the KJV which means I prefer it for worship to more modern translations). I particularly agree with you about the NIV - it's absolutely awful. Personally, I would avoid that one like the plague and, to be frank powder21, what you're actually suggesting with this is that you get one free translation and one even freer one. The NIV is not really literal.

James

[FFH]

There is only one correct English translation of the original Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testament text

Given to Joseph Smith by inspiration from Christ, who is the God of the Old and New Testament.

The Inspired Version of the Bible

[powder21]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I'd suggest you junk all of the above, and check out the New American Standard Version for your "literal" translation. It's one of the most literal translations available. For a freer translation, try the Revised English Bible, or even the New English Bible, if you can find a copy.

I have read up on the ones you suggested and I think they may be a better choice. I saw that there is a more current derivative of the New American Standard Bible called the English Standard Version published in 2001. I would like your thoughts on that. The Revised English Bible does look good for a more literary translation, so that's probably the first thing I'm going to buy as it would be easier for me. Unfortunately, I'd have to say I'm more Protestant than Catholic so I'm not sure if the Catholic translations are for me. However, I've always thought that the Latin Vulgate could be a good read and I was not aware that there was an English translation based solely on the Vulgate which is what the Knox's Translation seems to be, so I may look into that. Thanx again and please let me know your thoughts on this post.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by powder21

Unfortunately, I'd have to say I'm more Protestant than Catholic so I'm not sure if the Catholic translations are for me.

The King James Version is probably without parallel among English versions, but it's the one, lonely star in the Protestant crown. The Catholics have less to prove dogmatically, since they see the Bible as "their" book, to be understood in accordance with their tradition. This gives them greater freedom to concentrate on textual integrity and felicity of expression. Protestant translations are almost always more forced. Believing they have to justify all their beliefs and practices from the Bible, they have a tendency to try to force the Bible to fit the mold of those beliefs and practices. That makes for bad scholarship, and all too often for artificial and dishonest translations.

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by FFH

There is only one correct English translation of the original Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testament text

Given to Joseph Smith by inspiration from Christ, who is the God of the Old and New Testament.

The Inspired Version of the Bible

yes, but science ( DNA, linguistics, and archaeololgy) has already proved that the race of people decribed in that book did not exsit. So we can throw that one out. ( left jab, right cross)

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by rocka21

yes, but science ( DNA, linguistics, and archaeololgy) has already proved that the race of people decribed in that book did not exsit. So we can throw that one out. ( left jab, right cross)

You didn't look at the link did you? It's a link to the KJV Bible. If you are all for throwing out the Bible, then go ahead, but next time you think you've
'won', take a harder look instead of falling on your ***.

[*Paul*]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

You didn't look at the link did you? It's a link to the KJV Bible. If you are all for throwing out the Bible, then go ahead, but next time you think you've
'won', take a harder look instead of falling on your ***.

Becky , it is a link to the Joseph Smith "inspired" translation not the KJV.