Dynamic or literal?

[col311]

I've noticed there are a lot of KJV users on this board, but I'll ask the question anyway. If you're debating someone and you want to drive a clear message to them. If you want to make them see clearly on a theological issue. What would you use? would you use a literal translation of the bible or would you use a thought for thought translation? ( Dynamic ) :popcorn

[Patty T]

Originally posted by col311
I've noticed there are a lot of KJV users on this board, but I'll ask the question anyway. If you're debating someone and you want to drive a clear message to them. If you want to make them see clearly on a theological issue. What would you use? would you use a literal translation of the bible or would you use a thought for thought translation? ( Dynamic ) :popcorn


Hi col311!

I personally am not a fan of the KJV - it's too hard to read, let alone try and deliver a clear message from - my opinion of course :thumb

If I am trying to drive a very clear message to someone, I would probably choose between my New KJV and the Amplified - which takes translation to a whole new level!!


God Bless,

Patty

[knox]

The Message - I gave it to a very liberal friend - now a Christian - he said it spoke to him in his own language

[col311]

Originally posted by Patty T
Hi col311!

I personally am not a fan of the KJV - it's too hard to read, let alone try and deliver a clear message from - my opinion of course :thumb

If I am trying to drive a very clear message to someone, I would probably choose between my New KJV and the Amplified - which takes translation to a whole new level!!


God Bless,

Patty


Thank you Patty! I appreciate your answers:wave

[chris_h]

I would use either NIV (not NIRV or whatever that ultra-lib new version is), NABS, or NKJV. Usually though, I would use the World English Bible or KJV, as they're both free to use, and on the Bible software I've got on my computer.

[Mrs. Hoppes]

I prefer KJV or NKJV

[Grimlock Prime]

I tend to prefer NIV for myself. It was what my old church used, so I'm used to it. There was an old joke there that NIV meant "Needed In Vineyard". :): So I have a pocket NIV Bible and a seperate NIV New Testament that I carry with me and that I use to share with others.

For serious Bible studies i use a parallel Bible that has KJV, NKJV, NIV and NLT and I've got a Hebrew, Greek, NIV Parallel Bible with direct English translations under the Hebrew & Greek on back order from CBD.

[Medic911]

I strongly recommend NIV or NASB, depending on reading comprehension level. (NASB is slightly more difficult to read, but a very literal translation) Both are good, IMHO.

[Patty T]

Originally posted by col311
Thank you Patty! I appreciate your answers:wave

'welcome :thumb

[chrislb]

all i know, is that if you're witnessing to someone who believes that baptism saves you, don't use an NIV. I got stuck in the middle of a "debate" w/ a good christian man over the weekend. i was rejoicing over my girlfriends grandmother (going downhill in a nursing home) was saved last week. I told my friend at work and he said she wasn't saved until she was baptised. we exchanged verses, and one of the one's that came up was the eunich in Acts 8. He kept saying the eunich went away rejoicing only after he was baptised (thus sealing his salvation). I said, but what hindered him? what did philip say? "Only if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." Then, I found out that that verse it totally omitted in the NIV! :doh

no wonder he kept side stepping the issue.

[Jacob]

I guess it depends how precise you want to be with the points you are trying to make.

Most pastors and bible teachers that I talked to throughout the years stated that the New American Standard is the closest modern English, word-for-word translation to the original languages. The one common problem that may come up with that translation is that it might sound too "technical" for devotional or even casual reading, however it is known to be an excellent study bible when trying to get the closest rendering of a word. I have found in my own bible study that sometimes a biblical doctrine can be better understood or defined simply by the precise of meaning of a greek or hebrew word, and how it is used elsewhere throughout the Scriptures.

The NIV on the other hand is easier to read, however this is a dynamic translation, which means that it is not a "word for word" literal translation. The NIV translators stated in the Preface that their goal was to communicate the meaning of what the biblical writers wanted to say based on the thought patterns, syntax, and language of those times. Hence, while I like the NIV and believe it to be an accurate rendering of the Scriptures, it can be also an interpretation of what the translators believe it to be rather than a direct translation of the word and allowing it to speak for itself. However, the NIV is an excellent bible.

[Whosoever]

"Although we are not saying
The KJV is bad;
Countless souls came to the Lord
Through the only choice they had.
But if you try to tell me
That it's the only one
That would mean Jehovah God
Would be an Englishman."
---AVB, "Growin' Up With King James"

Personally, when reading by myself I enjoy the NIV because the "ye olde English tongue once spoketh" gets to me after a while, but even then I still keep a reference handy to find out which verses/words have been modified. When debating with someone, it might be easier to use the NKJV because it's less...uh...debatable. It's still clear-cut and concise, without the "thee"s and "thou"s sprinkled about. Since it's still KJV it's a little more difficult to understand at times, but at least the "other side" won't be able to snow you under with technicalities.

[antsinmypants]

NASB, NLT and YLT.

Why? It's not only Literal but also Thought for thought. I won't use "G-d's Word" or "the message" because Several references I have studied have been changed completely from their origional thought processes and "wordage"..

THOUGH, as a "commentary" type, it can be a good thing.

[filosofer]

I have studied have been changed completely from their origional thought processes and "wordage"...

And your basis for such an assessment? How much do you know about Hebrew/Greek "thought processes" or "wordage"?

[filosofer]

As to which text to use? If they understand Greek and/or Hebrew I'll use that.

If they know only English, it depends on the other person's circumstances, not my own preference. If that person uses KJV, then I will probably use KJV or NKJV. If the person is relatively new to the faith I may use GW or CEV, depending on the passage in question. But I have used NAS, NIV, NJB, NRSV, ESV, NLT, NAB, TaNaKh (OT), HCSB, TEV, REB, Williams, Moffatt, Beck, Berkeley, etc.

[zion]

to me the best english version around is the English Standard Version (ESV), but thats just my opinion of course. I find it really good for reading , memorization and study.

I've noticed there are a lot of KJV users on this board, but I'll ask the question anyway. If you're debating someone and you want to drive a clear message to them. If you want to make them see clearly on a theological issue. What would you use? would you use a literal translation of the bible or would you use a thought for thought translation? ( Dynamic )

hmm i suppose like Jacob said its how precise you wont to be,
The NASB is well known for being very accurate and is the most literal translation available. It is actually too literal to read easily in English in many places. This is because the English actually follows the word ordering of the original language, sometimes making it difficult to read.
whereas, The NIV is not a literal translation, therefore is of limited value for study. The NIV can be a good choice for a reference while studying, but the NLT is much better for that purpose

[col311]

Originally posted by Medic911
I strongly recommend NIV or NASB, depending on reading comprehension level. (NASB is slightly more difficult to read, but a very literal translation) Both are good, IMHO.

I agree.

I'm a Nasb,Niv person myself.

I wanted and overall feedback from the people on this boards as to what would they use for debating. Literal or Dynamic.

Thank you for your answer:):

[col311]

Originally posted by Jacob
I guess it depends how precise you want to be with the points you are trying to make.

Most pastors and bible teachers that I talked to throughout the years stated that the New American Standard is the closest modern English, word-for-word translation to the original languages. The one common problem that may come up with that translation is that it might sound too "technical" for devotional or even casual reading, however it is known to be an excellent study bible when trying to get the closest rendering of a word. I have found in my own bible study that sometimes a biblical doctrine can be better understood or defined simply by the precise of meaning of a greek or hebrew word, and how it is used elsewhere throughout the Scriptures.

The NIV on the other hand is easier to read, however this is a dynamic translation, which means that it is not a "word for word" literal translation. The NIV translators stated in the Preface that their goal was to communicate the meaning of what the biblical writers wanted to say based on the thought patterns, syntax, and language of those times. Hence, while I like the NIV and believe it to be an accurate rendering of the Scriptures, it can be also an interpretation of what the translators believe it to be rather than a direct translation of the word and allowing it to speak for itself. However, the NIV is an excellent bible.

Thank you very much for your answer. I have the same opinion as you do, I just wanted to see if any body else shared my vew.

Thank you again
:D:

Jason

[Willo]

I use NKJV, but for witnessing I use whatever gets the message across bacicaly so others can understand

[Ponderin]

Originally posted by chrislb
all i know, is that if you're witnessing to someone who believes that baptism saves you, don't use an NIV. I got stuck in the middle of a "debate" w/ a good christian man over the weekend. i was rejoicing over my girlfriends grandmother (going downhill in a nursing home) was saved last week. I told my friend at work and he said she wasn't saved until she was baptised. we exchanged verses, and one of the one's that came up was the eunich in Acts 8. He kept saying the eunich went away rejoicing only after he was baptised (thus sealing his salvation). I said, but what hindered him? what did philip say? "Only if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." Then, I found out that that verse it totally omitted in the NIV! :doh

no wonder he kept side stepping the issue.

Next time ask who Baptized the thief on the cross?

:heh


Luke 23


39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


(NIV)

[filosofer]

Next time ask who Baptized the thief on the cross?

Since that event took place prior to the Great Commission of Matthew 28, it is a non-argument.

[chrislb]

"Next time ask who Baptized the thief on the cross?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since that event took place prior to the Great Commission of Matthew 28, it is a non-argument."



Thank you filo...and to add to that..it was prior to the death, burial, and resurrection

[Ponderin]

Why were others Baptized before His death, burial, and resurrection including Jesus The Christ Himself?

[chrislb]

the baptism of john was a baptism of repentance toward the nation of israel.
different than the new testament baptism which is not a baptism of repentance, since we must repent before salvation.

[Ponderin]

OK *putting back on a very serious face* Agreed


It becomes very apparent, therefore, that those who appeal to the case of the “thief on the cross,” as a specific example for conversion today, are mistaken in several particulars.


The do not comprehend the difference between the Savior’s earthly operations and his current reign from heaven; and,

Chrislb,

They have thrust aside the plain demands of the New Covenant economy.


~Wayne Jackson


Now we can all relax?

I don't believe in Baptismal Rengeration (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0573.htm) either.


"We have seen the harlot lifted out of the Stygian ditch of her sin, and made an honest woman; we have seen the thief reclaimed; we have known the drunkard in hundreds of instances to be sobered; we have observed faith to work such a change, that all the neighbours who have seen it have gazed and admired, even though they hated it; we have seen faith deliver men in the hour of temptation, and help them to consecrate themselves and their substance to God; we have seen, and hope still to see yet more widely, deeds of heroic consecration to God and displays of witness-bearing against the common current of the times, which have proved to us that faith does affect the man, does save the soul. My hearers, if you would be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."


:):

[chrislb]

:thumb