What Counts as "Literal" Bible Translation? | Word Nerd: Language and the Bible.

Word Nerd, by Mark Ward, is the back page column in Bible Study Magazine. We'll help you study the Bible with the best tools. Click here: bit.ly/3oQFlPr
(Full address: www.biblestudymagazine.com/sub...)

[@matthewfunk6658]

The greatest factor in communication is "understanding," not literalness.

[@dustyt4662]

Thank you for the video Mark. when I first started reading I only read the NKJV but now I appreciate and love other translations too. I like reading the NLT. It's so easy to understand 😊

[@dustyt4662]

@Mark Ward Amen! ☺️

[@dustinburlet7249]

Excellent as always!

[@tjhunter3530]

As I grew in my study of the Bible I often had several versions out at a time. When I advanced in my Bible study to an interlinear I discovered that a particular verse in a newer version I had that was translated thought for thought didn't come close to the original Hebrew. I often liked to pray Scriptures and found that the prayer I had based off that verse never came to pass like my other prayers based on Scripture. I then realized that prayer didn't come to pass because it wasn't really based on what the verse actually said. I have since abandoned those kinds of Bibles in favor of the more literal ones. And that's also when I started to wonder if in a thought to thought translation if I was really reading God's thoughts or the translators. Through the use of an interlinear Bible I also learned to appreciate the difficulty of translating the Bible and am glad that is not my job.

[@DustinRBattles]

One of your best videos.

[@wayiqra4399]

This has been very helpful. I've been getting caught up in these issues lately.

[@stevetucker5851]

Thank you for this. I find the NIV to be the best overall translation. Very readable and understandable but still literal enough to be considered a translation and to be accurate the vast majority of the time. It just seems to strike the best balance between understandability and accuracy.

[@19king14]

As usual, Mark, we quite agree on translating. Literal translations have their place and less literal translations are also wise to use to accompany any bible studying. And clearly you can’t be literal all the time. Incidentally, on the “ekklesia” you mention, when taking exception to “church,” words such as “assembly” make a most acceptable replacement, as Young’s Literal Translation does in both Acts 19:32 and 39. Then Young’s brings out the difference in the footnotes for both verses; “ekklesia.” That’s the way to go! My “literal” concern pertains more towards topics where veering from literal (paraphrasing or thought for thought) can influence “ekklesia” (sorry, I had to do that) doctrine on smaller or greater teachings. If there is a difference in conclusions of teachings or scriptural interpretation, then dependence on the more (or closer) literal translating of the original languages becomes critical and is less likely to stray away from the true original language, as can happen when paraphrasing. Bottom line; there is slightly more “security” in the more literal translations. Ray

[@19king14]

Please keep in mind, I’m being as kindly and respectful as possibly here, and certainly have no intention of creating controversy... The KJV is still among my top 5 or 6 translations that I use regularly. For myself, I’m not a “fill-in-the-blank-onlyist.” I can and do appreciate the “freer” translations, even the “Living Bible Paraphrase,” which is one of the very first translations I ever used and read cover to cover back in the early 1970s when it first came out. But as we all know, extreme variations of “Healthy doctrine on smaller and greater teachings” truly exists among and within the countless church denominations. Viewpoints on abortions, transgenders, gays, pot smoking, getting drunk, varying understandings of baptism, Calvinism, war, the sacraments, rapture and other basic doctrines are often widened with (and because of) the “middle-of-the-road” translations, including the NIV, that can be quite different in their wording and stray from the original meaning much sooner than the more literal translations do. Once we see how these translations veered on “such-n-such" an issue, we, or at least I, must wonder how often they veer on other topics too, as indeed they do. It can be, and is, most concerning. I find in my preaching, teaching, discussions and conversations, it’s the literal translations that have the better well grounded advantages and have weightier authority on nearly all “issues” that we face, thus my preference towards the 'safer' literal translations. That’s just me though!

[@thomashoward2170]

Excellent

[@NathanP711]

This was a very good video. Literally!

[@logosbiblesoftware]

Many thanks for stopping by!

[@delrosarioaurelio]

My mother language is Spanish, but when it comes down to English I read KJV mainly; but recently I started reading CSB , and purchased a key word ESV Bible...I must say CSB and ESV are excellent and they have helped me a lot for my studies with the KJV. I'm surprised how close to the KJV the ESV Is, and when I compare the English ones with the Spanish texts, I can understand the choices of translation of some words....ESV and CSB are great, but I always go to KJV mainly...and in Spanish, to Valera 1602.... greetings!

[@baldpastorrob]

As a novice reader/studier if the Bible. I generally study with KJV because it forces me to slow down and search information. I use CSB for my reading. Is there a better way? Should I have 100 different ones? Or can I get a clear understanding out of one two transactions?

[@TexasDude-qh7qs]

I literally agree with most of you literal stand on translations to the most literall English as impossible. I think... but realistically ( i.e. literally ), I am not sure anymore. Could you be just a bit more literal vs abstract.in your proposition?. Sorry, I tend to like things black/withe or just simple. LOL

[@donhaddix3770]

NIV

[@cls7271]

As a layman, I always wonder why none of these different translations tout itself as the more “accurate” translation? I would have thought “accuracy” is more important?

[@christopheryetzer]

Amen. Let's just use the KJV and stop fighting over it.