tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6781697761111546340.post8650674846083195563..comments2023-11-25T10:57:00.267-05:00Comments on The Christian Intellect: Is a "Literal" Translation the Best?: Martin Luther Weighs InAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07544582707791837558noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6781697761111546340.post-90489172302732652502014-05-31T17:32:01.837-04:002014-05-31T17:32:01.837-04:00Great post! I use the ESV as my "everyday&qu...Great post! I use the ESV as my "everyday" translation, however, if I'm doing a study on a particular chapter or verse I will consult an NIV(1984), NASB, NKJV and the KJV. I will also go to an interlinear to see if there is a more robust meaning in either Hebrew or Greek. It can be argued that a good "literal" translation will encompass both precision to the original text and precision in translating to vernacular and language of the tongue in which it is being translating. I don't necessarily think one can separate and put "literal" and "accessible" in opposition to one another unless the translator has a bias that is dictating their translation. This is why translations typically are overseen by numerous scholars of various stripes within Christian orthodoxy. Luther was critical of the Latin translation because common folk couldn't read it and he needed to translate it both precisely and accessibly for common vernacular. Both of these ideas need to be held in tension (along with a solid understanding of the Greek/Hebrew). I think the ESV does the best job at this currently and that's why it's my everyday bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com