The Amplified Bible

[Eddi]

Recently a friend of mine introduced me to The Amplified Bible and I'd like to spread its glory

I have found it to be a most useful resource

In translation there is a continuum with "formal equivalence" at one end and "dynamic equivalence" at the other

Formal equivalence is a word-for-word translation whereas dynamic equivalence is a thought-for-thought translation. One translates the exact words, the other focuses instead on the message/meaning.

Most translations are somewhere in-between the two extremes.

The Amplified Bible is as formally equivalent as it is possible to be. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum to The Message Bible, which is in effect a paraphrase and is as dynamically equivalent as it is possible to be.

The Amplified Bible is so-called because it adds details ("amplifications") to the text to make it completely clear what the original language means. It does this by using brackets within the text. It also uses footnotes.

Here is an example, Colossians 1:18

He is also the head [the life-source and leader] of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will occupy the first place [He will stand supreme and be preeminent] in everything.

Footnotes

1. Colossians 1:18 This refers to the entire body of born-again believers (whether past, present, or future), not a local congregation.
2. Colossians 1:18 Christ is the first to be resurrected with an incorruptible, immortal body. Others who were raised had to die again.

Basically, this is communicating the notion that Jesus Christ is the leader of Christianity and also the first person to be resurrected with a new body.

 

[Kenny]

I have enjoyed this version.

 

[Zwing]

In translation there is a continuum with "formal equivalence" at one end and "dynamic equivalence" at the other

I have a few thoughts on this. Functional (dynamic) equivalence is great if you believe that you are reading the words of a man..simply a work of literature (full disclosure…this is what the Bible is for myself as I am not theistic), but if you believe that you are reading “the word of God” in any signification, then I think that one should use as literal/directly equivalent translation as possible, if not use the original language text. My rationale is this: if one is reading a literary work in, say, Latin…the Aeneid, for instance…written by a man, then one benefits by translating the concepts in a way that has meaning in one’s own language. If, however, one is reading words literally given by God to man, then I feel that the God must have given its word in a certain language for a reason, and it behooves one to learn to read that language to uncover said reason. This is the precise reason why Muslims believe that the only true Qur’an which may be called “The Qur’an” is the Arabic version; all translations of this work may not be called “The Qur’an”, but must be called “The Meaning of the Qur’an”. Within Islam, it is tacitly expected that everyone who is born into or converts to Islam should learn to read the Qur’an in Arabic. This seems to express an important point not so much about language, but more about the relationship of a man to his God.

As I have noted above, I myself am not a theist. However, I recognize that any theist/believer who would not put in the effort to understand the true and exact words (and their proper cultural context) that his God supposedly sent to mankind seems to be “playing at religion”, and engaging in religiously-based emotional masturbation. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this is precisely what a lot of the newer movements within Christianity are all about. Just one man’s opinion.

 

[Brian2]

I have a few thoughts on this. Functional (dynamic) equivalence is great if you believe that you are reading the words of a man..simply a work of literature (full disclosure…this is what the Bible is for myself as I am not theistic), but if you believe that you are reading “the word of God” in any signification, then I think that one should use as literal/directly equivalent translation as possible, if not use the original language text. My rationale is this: if one is reading a literary work in, say, Latin…the Aeneid, for instance…written by a man, then one benefits by translating the concepts in a way that has meaning in one’s own language. If, however, one is reading words literally given by God to man, then I feel that the God must have given its word in a certain language for a reason, and it behooves one to learn to read that language to uncover said reason. This is the precise reason why Muslims believe that the only true Qur’an which may be called “The Qur’an” is the Arabic version; all translations of this work may not be called “The Qur’an”, but must be called “The Meaning of the Qur’an”. Within Islam, it is tacitly expected that everyone who is born into or converts to Islam should learn to read the Qur’an in Arabic. This seems to express an important point not so much about language, but more about the relationship of a man to his God.

As I have noted above, I myself am not a theist. However, I recognize that any theist/believer who would not put in the effort to understand the true and exact words (and their proper cultural context) that his God supposedly sent to mankind seems to be “playing at religion”, and engaging in religiously-based emotional masturbation. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this is precisely what a lot of the newer movements within Christianity are all about. Just one man’s opinion.

There are benefits in the dynamic equivalence and in the formal equivalence and in learning something of the history and background customs of the Bible, and in finding out various commentaries about the meaning of different passages.
We cannot all learn the ancient languages and that does promote the idea that only those who know the languages proficiently can know the meaning.
Knowing the languages does not guarantee a better or deeper understanding, and most of us are like sheep who follow our teachers anyway and who may have knowledge but do not know God. This is most important in Christianity, to know God and Jesus whom He sent. It is Jesus who is our only teacher in the end and He teaches each of us in different ways,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, including understanding God's Word better, however we do it.

 

[Zwing]

There are benefits in the dynamic equivalence and in the formal equivalence and in learning something of the history and background customs of the Bible, and in finding out various commentaries about the meaning of different passages.

Perhaps as an accompaniment to a literal translation, sure, so long as the literal translation retains precedence. I wouldn’t say that every Christian must or should learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, but should at least use as literal a translation as possible for the “main text” in order to have a sense of what word God (this is the supposition, right?) actually sent to mankind.

The man of marginal faith is no longer required by the state or, in a secularizing age, by social pressures to perpetuate a semblance of faith or an adherence to the requirements of the church. At the same time, certain elements within Protestant Christianity have realized that fulfilling certain psychological needs of people can boost church membership and, therefore, revenues. The predictable result of this I has been that Christianity all across the board has seen a great deal of concession made to the sensibility and ‘not particularly spiritual’ needs of men, and to their demands that these be met. This is a sweeping trend in “the faith”. From Catholicism with the broad changes and concessions of Vatican 2 to the various evangelical movements in Protestantism which, variously, preach either a “prosperity gospel”, that God wants to make everyone rich, or place congregants on an emotional high weekly with “rock show” styled services complete with smoke machines and as sophisticated a light show as Earth Wind and Fire ever had (wherein the sermon is but a brief interruption to the show, and is generally designed to affirm and “uplift”, and generally excite the congregation; this is the methodology that evangelical church pastors use to sell their product of church membership), the courting of a demanding vulgus has been the name of the game. Christianity for some time, now. I can’t help but feel that the coincident rise of highly colloquial and “expanded” translations are but another manifestation of this trend, deriving from the same impetus.

EDIT: From a documentary standpoint, I favor literal translations. I can always learn the cultural context and what the various idioms mean, but I want to know what the text actually says. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a religion of revelation, and the means of that revelation is scriptural. Christian faith is not based upon the direct experience of God, but upon the revelation of God to mankind through the scriptures. If I were a Christian (which I once was) or a Jew or Muslim, for that matter, then I would want to know what the scriptures actually say, so that I might be assured that the nature of my belief will be appropriate.

 

[Brian2]

Perhaps as an accompaniment to a literal translation, sure, so long as the literal translation retains precedence. I wouldn’t say that every Christian must or should learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, but should at least use as literal a translation as possible for the “main text” in order to have a sense of what word God (this is the supposition, right?) actually sent to mankind.

Christianity all across the board has seen a great deal of concession made to the sensibility of the vulgus and its demands. This is a sweeping trend in “the faith”. From Catholicism with the sweeping changes and concessions of Vatican 2 to the various evangelical movements in Protestantism which, variously, preach either a “prosperity gospel”, that God wants to make everyone rich, or place congregants on an emotional high weekly with “rock show” styled services complete with smoke machines and as sophisticated a light show as Earth Wind and Fire ever had, wherein the sermon is but a brief interruption to the show, and is generally designed to affirm and “uplift”, and generally excite the congregation (this is the methodology that evangelical church pastors use to sell their product of church membership). I can’t help but feel that the coincident rise of highly colloquial and “expanded” translations are but another manifestation of this trend, deriving from the same impetus.

EDIT: From a documentary standpoint, I favor literal translations. I can always learn the cultural context and what the various idioms mean, but I want to know what the text actually says. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a religion of revelation, and the means of that revelation is scriptural. Christian faith is not based upon the direct experience of God, but upon the revelation of God to mankind through the scriptures. If I were a Christian (which I once was…or a Jew or Muslim, for that matter), then I would want to know what the scriptures actually say, so that I might be assured that the nature of my belief will be appropriate.

I prefer something that is more literal and wonder sometimes how some more popular translations dare to do some things that they do with the text.
We all have our biases and preferences however.
I agree that it is important to try to understand what God's message is to us but the relationship with God and knowing God is important also. (John 17:3) We have the Spirit of God and being led by the Spirit is important. Who is led by the Spirit is a child of God (Romans 8:14)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree that it is important to try to understand what God's message is to us but the relationship with God and knowing God is important also. (John 17:3) We have the Spirit of God and being led by the Spirit is important. Who is led by the Spirit is a child of God (Romans 8:14)

Provided if such a being at all exists, of which there is no evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Provided if such a being at all exists, of which there is no evidence.

I would say there is evidence... it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs.

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps as an accompaniment to a literal translation, sure, so long as the literal translation retains precedence. I wouldn’t say that every Christian must or should learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, but should at least use as literal a translation as possible for the “main text” in order to have a sense of what word God (this is the supposition, right?) actually sent to mankind.

The man of marginal faith is no longer required by the state or, in a secularizing age, by social pressures to perpetuate a semblance of faith or an adherence to the requirements of the church. At the same time, certain elements within Protestant Christianity have realized that fulfilling certain psychological needs of people can boost church membership and, therefore, revenues. The predictable result of this I has been that Christianity all across the board has seen a great deal of concession made to the sensibility and ‘not particularly spiritual’ needs of men, and to their demands that these be met. This is a sweeping trend in “the faith”. From Catholicism with the broad changes and concessions of Vatican 2 to the various evangelical movements in Protestantism which, variously, preach either a “prosperity gospel”, that God wants to make everyone rich, or place congregants on an emotional high weekly with “rock show” styled services complete with smoke machines and as sophisticated a light show as Earth Wind and Fire ever had (wherein the sermon is but a brief interruption to the show, and is generally designed to affirm and “uplift”, and generally excite the congregation; this is the methodology that evangelical church pastors use to sell their product of church membership), the courting of a demanding vulgus has been the name of the game. Christianity for some time, now. I can’t help but feel that the coincident rise of highly colloquial and “expanded” translations are but another manifestation of this trend, deriving from the same impetus.

EDIT: From a documentary standpoint, I favor literal translations. I can always learn the cultural context and what the various idioms mean, but I want to know what the text actually says. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a religion of revelation, and the means of that revelation is scriptural. Christian faith is not based upon the direct experience of God, but upon the revelation of God to mankind through the scriptures. If I were a Christian (which I once was) or a Jew or Muslim, for that matter, then I would want to know what the scriptures actually say, so that I might be assured that the nature of my belief will be appropriate.

I can agree on some points and disagree on others.

Christian faith is based upon the revelation of God to mankind, but it is also joined by direct experience. There have been many times that I have had a direct experience and then found the revelation through the scripture.

As far as "prosperity gospel", are you suggesting that God want people poor? Is the Hebraic "shalom of G-d" - a gospel of lack? Would God, if there is one, want people to by psychological whole rather than broken? Did Jesus uplift people? When he did, was it wrong, selfish and just wanting to "increase his offerings"?

Surely, you are correct that many people preach because of increase in finance, but does that translate into that all gospel preachers do so for selfish motives? Or is it the exception rather than the rule?

I would come to the conclusion, by what you wrote, that your position has more to do with your leaving Christianity and personal experiences rather than substance IMV.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Recently a friend of mine introduced me to The Amplified Bible and I'd like to spread its glory

I have found it to be a most useful resource

All one needs to do is look at Genesis 1:1-2 and Isaiah 7:14 to dismiss it as worthless.

 

[Zwing]

Christian faith is based upon the revelation of God to mankind, but it is also joined by direct experience.

Exactly how is that? In all my years as an Xtian, the big man in the sky never deigned to reveal himself to myself. Are we to suppose that this god picks and chooses whom it will favor with personal revelation? If so then the Xtian god is oxymoronic, for being avouchedky just while acting unjustly. Rather, I think that there is no big man in the sky, and those who claim to have “direct experience” are simply misinterpreting mental phenomena.

EDIT: Don’t worry, I already know the formulaic Xtian answer: my faith wasn’t strong enough.

 

[Eddi]

All one needs to do is look at Genesis 1:1-2 and Isaiah 7:14 to dismiss it as worthless.

I have done just that

No reason to dismiss it as worthless screams out to me but then I'm not you

I'm assuming your issue is with the footnotes?

Please explain

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have done just that

No reason to dismiss it as worthless screams out to me but then I'm not you

I'm assuming your issue is with the footnotes?

Please explain

My issue is with translation.

 

[Eddi]

My issue is with translation.

And what translation would you recommend that in your view gets the translation out of Hebrew into English correct?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sefaria is a useful online resource.

 

[Zwing]

Sefaria is a useful online resource.

Yes, excellent. Thanks to Mr. Foer.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Recently a friend of mine introduced me to The Amplified Bible and I'd like to spread its glory

I have found it to be a most useful resource

In translation there is a continuum with "formal equivalence" at one end and "dynamic equivalence" at the other

Formal equivalence is a word-for-word translation whereas dynamic equivalence is a thought-for-thought translation. One translates the exact words, the other focuses instead on the message/meaning.

Most translations are somewhere in-between the two extremes.

The Amplified Bible is as formally equivalent as it is possible to be. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum to The Message Bible, which is in effect a paraphrase and is as dynamically equivalent as it is possible to be.

The Amplified Bible is so-called because it adds details ("amplifications") to the text to make it completely clear what the original language means. It does this by using brackets within the text. It also uses footnotes.

Here is an example, Colossians 1:18

He is also the head [the life-source and leader] of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will occupy the first place [He will stand supreme and be preeminent] in everything.

Footnotes

1. Colossians 1:18 This refers to the entire body of born-again believers (whether past, present, or future), not a local congregation.
2. Colossians 1:18 Christ is the first to be resurrected with an incorruptible, immortal body. Others who were raised had to die again.

Basically, this is communicating the notion that Jesus Christ is the leader of Christianity and also the first person to be resurrected with a new body.

I don’t call him christ. I believe a man alive today is the keeper of existence though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, excellent. Thanks to Mr. Foer.

Such delicate name-dropping ...

 

[Zwing]

Such delicate name-dropping ...

Delicacy is not my strong suit, especially on days when I have woken up in a “mood”.

 

[Kenny]

Exactly how is that? In all my years as an Xtian, the big man in the sky never deigned to reveal himself to myself. Are we to suppose that this god picks and chooses whom it will favor with personal revelation? If so then the Xtian god is oxymoronic, for being avouchedky just while acting unjustly. Rather, I think that there is no big man in the sky, and those who claim to have “direct experience” are simply misinterpreting mental phenomena.

EDIT: Don’t worry, I already know the formulaic Xtian answer: my faith wasn’t strong enough.

No... "my faith wasn't strong enough" is not the "formula".

But, apparently, I was correct in establishing that the issue was your personal experience rather than substance.

It isn't the first time that He moved and I didn't realize that it was Him that did it. For an example, look at this scriptures:

Deut 8: , 12 (N)lest—when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses and dwell in them; 13 and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold are multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied; 14 (O)when your heart is lifted up, and you (P)forget the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; 15 who (Q)led you through that great and terrible wilderness, (R)in which werefiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty land where there was no water; (S)who brought water for you out of the flinty rock; 16 who fed you in the wilderness with (T)manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, (U)to do you good in the end— 17 then you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth.’

Notice that there is a possibility that God moved and yet man has the capacity to not recognize that it was Him working through them.

So it is quite possible He did, but you didn't recognize it and you thought it was just yourself. Simple human error.

Does God want poor people? (I think you missed that question)