The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Edward D. Andrews — EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored ninety-two books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

This is the wrong question. It is impossible to say which translation all Bible scholars may prefer because there is no survey of them specifically. Being that I am a Bible scholar and I have many Bible scholar friends, so I can say the better question is “which type of translation do they prefer”: literal (word-for-word) vs dynamic (thought-for-thought), or should I say what God said by way of the human authors (literal AKA Form) vs. what the translators think God meant by those words, interpretative (dynamic equivalent). This answer is attainable. Most conservative Bible scholars use literal translations. It should be noted that when it comes to working, it is likely that all Bible scholars use dynamic equivalent translation and literal translations. We are talking about what they prefer to use, that is, their preferences. Largely, this comes from 32 years of conversation with literally thousands of Bible scholars and having read more than 5,000 books by Bible scholars.

LIBERAL TO MODERATE BIBLE SCHOLARS

Most liberal and a number of moderate Bible scholars (that this author has read or come into contact with) prefer the dynamic equivalent because many of these scholars have forsaken the Word of God as being inspired, fully inerrant, and authoritative, and see it only as the Word of man, i.e., infallible.

Many liberal to moderate Bible scholar does not believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible but rather believes that they were penned by several people hundreds of years later. They do not believe that Isaiah wrote Isaiah but rather there are three Isaiah’s, who wrote it long after the real Isaiah lived. They do not believe Daniel from the sixth century B.C.E. wrote the book that bears his name but rather they believe it was written in the second-century B.C.E. They do not believe that Jesus said all of the things as recorded by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount or that Jesus said all of those things in Matthew chapter 23 about the Pharisees. The scholars argue that Matthew made up the things Jesus said about the Pharisees because he hated them. Over the last 120 years especially, there have been very drastic changes in three subject areas that evidence how they feel about the Word of God. The liberal to moderate Bible scholars is as follows concerning these three areas of studies.

The Complete Guide to Bible Translation-2

Hermeneutics: Liberal to moderate Bible scholars use the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, which is subjective (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.), which is dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception. Conservative Bible scholars use the historical-grammatical interpretation method of biblical interpretation, which is objective, which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Bible Translation: Liberal to moderate Bible scholars use dynamic equivalent, interpretative Bible translations, such as the CEV, TEV, GNT, NIV, NRSV, NLT, and so on. These translations with their translation committees take the literal translation and then alter it (go beyond what was written) to give the reader what they believe the Bible author meant in place of the actual words. Conservative Bible scholars prefer literal translations, such as the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, LEB, CSB, UASV.

Textual Criticism: Liberal to moderate Bible scholars are trying to use the art and the science of textual criticism to get back to the earliest text possible. The conservative Bible scholars are trying to get back to the original text.

Even though conservative scholars prefer literal translation because that is the Word of God in modern languages to the best of the abilities of the translators, they have a philosophy. They believe you should use several literal translations in your Bible study and at least a couple of dynamic equivalents (CEV and GNT), but that you should treat the dynamic equivalents not as translations but as mini-commentaries.

The preferred translation for this author is a literal translation, the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) that is underway right now. Yes, I am biased being that I am the chief translator. However, everyone is biased and bias does not necessarily mean it isn’t true. Does the translation evidence that grammar rules have been violated to get the desired outcome, that is, theological bias? Does the translation evidence that evidence is being ignored as to textual decisions or that there is an inconsistency? These examples and others would be evidence that bias is impairing the translation work.

UPDATED AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (UASV)

OUR PURPOSE

Our primary purpose is to give the Bible readers what God said by way of his human authors, not what a translator thinks God meant in its place.—Truth Matters!

OUR GOAL

Our primary goal is to be accurate and faithful to the original text. The meaning of a word is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e., reader), not the translator.—Translating Truth!

Why UASV?

The translation of God’s Word from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is a task unlike any other and should never be taken lightly. It carries with it the heaviest responsibility: the translator renders God’s thoughts into a modern language. The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is a literal translation. What does that mean?

Removing the Outdated:

Passages with the Old English “thee’s” and “thou’s” etc. have been replaced to modern English.
Many words and phrases that were extremely ambiguous or easily misunderstood since the 1901 ASV have been updated according to the best lexicons.
Verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been translated into correct English grammar and syntax, for easier reading. However, if the word order of the original conveyed meaning, it was kept.

More Accurate:

The last 110+ years has seen the discovering of far more manuscripts, especially the papyri, with many manuscripts dating within 100 years of the originals.
While making more accurate translation choices, we have stayed true to the literal translation philosophy of the ASV, while other literal translations abandon the philosophy far too often.
The translator seeks to render the Scriptures accurately, without losing what the Bible author penned by changing what the author wrote, by distorting or embellishing through imposing what the translator believes the author meant into the original text.
Accuracy in Bible translation is being faithful to what the original author wrote (the words that he used), as opposed to going beyond into the meaning, trying to determine what the author meant by his words. The latter is the reader’s job.
The translator uses the most reliable, accurate critical texts (e.g., WH, NA, UBS, BHS, as well as the original language texts, versions, and other sources that will help him to determine the original reading.