It seems the good folk at Mar's Hill Church are going to stop using the NIV and start using the ESV from the pulpit. I applaud the move toward a more word-for-word translation as the basis for study, preaching, and teaching... I'm personally not very familiar with the ESV (English Standard Version), though what I've read about it is encouraging.
More to the point of this post: I often get asked about why I use particular translations I do, or whether translation X is good or not, or what's wrong with translation Y... Mark has posted a well-conceived position paper detailing the issues at stake, including why they (he and the other elders at Mar's Hill Church) ended up deciding to switch to the ESV. He goes over basic principles of translation, often giving examples of the way different translations deal with a particular text. It's long, but well worth the read if you've every had questions about English translations.
Oh, here it is.
Hatushili
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
On Bible Translations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Translations are a big subject. I have heard some people who are probably not genuine Christians use it as an excuse for the Bible not being accurate.
You're right. And it's sad that people would feel this way.
If you read through the linked position paper, Driscoll does a good job of defending the authority of Scripture, even though we have so many translations.
The short answer: over 95% of the various translations of the Bible are in fundamental agreement. The remaining (less than) 5% is not theologically or doctrinally relevant. Not a single Christian teaching is based upon this "debated percentage".
Having said all that, I still prefer and recommend more word-for-word translations: NASB, NKJV, ESV (I use the NET a lot, though it's a bit less common).
Hatushili
Post a Comment