essentially literal- word for word
dynamic equivalent- thought for thought
"They are so busy reading between the lines, they forgot to read the lines." C.S. Lewis
2007-02-08 12:31:55 · 12 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If we follow our Jewish roots, the literal is always going to be the best - the text is what the text says. St. Thomas Aquinas says that we should always look to the literal first - and never discount the allegorical. There was much controversy when the NEB came out...just over this point.
I use the NEB for study....never for doctrinal studies.
2007-02-08 12:41:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both have their uses. I use a formal equivalence translation when I am studying the Bible (Revised Standard Version, NIV, New American Bible) and when I want to get the precise meaning of the original text.
I use a dynamic equivalence translation (Good News Bible) for meditation and pastoral work.
Peace and every blessing!
2007-02-08 21:10:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There really is no such thing as a literal translation. Every translation is a dynamic equivalent of some sort. Having said that, translators should make an effort to get as literal as practically possible in order to avoid interpreting the scriptures for you.
2007-02-08 20:46:38 · answer #3 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NKJV is best transalation but contains little bit of old english.
NIV is good but not as much thought for thought.
KJV is all old english so if you're not familiar with the terminology it's hard reading.
NLT is all paraphrase. Neither word for word or thought for thought.
NASB I haven't read much but it seems like NIV except more 'American'.
Other versions I haven't had much reading of, and wouldn't recommend reading the newer ones. Seems to be 20 different english versions.
2007-02-08 20:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by Alien51 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
probably the new world translation of the holy scriptures is found to be the most accurate translation to english.
As a basis for translating the Hebrew Scriptures, the text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, editions of 1951-1955, was used. The 1984 revision of the New World Translation benefited from updating in harmony with the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous early translations into other languages were consulted. For the Christian Greek Scriptures, the master Greek text of 1881 as prepared by Westcott and Hort was used primarily, but several other master texts were consulted as well as numerous early versions in other languages
2007-02-08 20:45:05 · answer #5 · answered by gary d 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The newest translation of which ever version you prefer. I know people who used to translate Bibles into several languages and they say that the more research is done the better the translation, this means that the newest translation has the benefit of being more accurately translated. Hope this helped.
2007-02-08 20:35:29 · answer #6 · answered by Julia B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
literal and only read the King James Version the others take away from the word of God
2007-02-08 20:36:04 · answer #7 · answered by powerliftingrules 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither is best. They have different uses. A word for word is good for certain in depth studies. A dynamic equivalant is good for general applications. A paraphrase is good for reading through, catching the broad narratives.
2007-02-08 20:37:17 · answer #8 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would vote for the New American Standard. A general rule of thumb is that a translation should be done by a comittee of scholars, rather than a single person.
2007-02-08 20:59:29 · answer #9 · answered by Amanda M 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1.Greek-Hebrew interlinear (with Strongs concordance).
best
2.King James best English translation.
2007-02-08 20:37:55 · answer #10 · answered by robert p 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋