Which version is more literal?
New American Standard Bible or New Testament TransLine by Michael Magill?
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
The Messiahist wrote: New American Standard Bible or New Testament TransLine by Michael Magill? 77: I can't back up my choice with anything other than what my gut tells me: when in doubt, the NASB. In...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Reviewing the New Testament TransLine by Michael Magill on Amazon just now (I'd never heard of it before), it seems to be a study aid, rather like Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation of the New...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
The Transline is a very good New Testament. You will find many a "literal" translation in the notes on the facing pages. Has far more Text critical notes than all other committee versions put...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Sawbones makes an excellent point, that bears repeating: literal and accurate need not be the same thing; if anything, they almost never are. The NASB is as close to a word for word translation as one...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
77 said: "...such as the long out of print American Standard Version..." Actually, its earlier printers (Thomas Nelson & Sons, Holman, others) have long since discontinued it after the copyright...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Yes, Star Bible. Mediocre printing, and all those horrid pronunciation helps. Makes one wonder if they don't have a hieroglyphics text when they first open their copy...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
I tend to prefer the 1881-1885-1894 (Apoc.) ERV to the ASV, though they're pretty close.
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
77 wrote: There are more literal translations, such as the long out of print American Standard Version . . . That's one thing about having an electronic Bible such as the PC Study Bible, they often...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Yes, I think that often (not always) the KJV is more literal than the NASB (for example, "my bowels were moved for him" in the Song of Songs, or "girding up the loins of your mind").
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Even my own translations: I follow a rather Metzgerish philosophy of translation, but there's some unusual readings in my translation, mostly as a result of literal renderings (in my case usually from...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
I have been using the Clementine as edited by Michael Tweedale (http://vulsearch.sf.net look around a bit, it's there), except for Psalms and the New Testament, for which I do not use the Vulgate as a...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Thanks! Ever look at Wycliffe or The Anglo-Saxon Gospels since they were translated from Latin? I have The Gospel of Mark and Luke in Old English with the opposite page has an Old Latin/Vulgate text...
View ArticleRe: Which version is more literal?
Not really. I can barely make out the Douay-Rheims, and do most of my comparative work on the Vulgate with the Challoner.
View Article
