There have been various debates concerning the proper family of biblical manuscripts and translation techniques that should be used to translate the Bible into other languages. There have been debates over the King James Version and modern Bible translations. There have been debates over literal translation philosophy and interpretative translation philosophy. There have been debates over the masculine gender used in the Bible, saying that it is patriarchal. Who is correct and which Bible translation is the best?
The American Standard Version (ASV), officially Revised Version, Standard American Edition, is a Bible translation into English that was completed in 1901 with the publication of the revision of the Old Testament.
Genesis 1:1 has long been translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Is this the correct way to render it? How do we respond to those who would say otherwise? Is there only one correct way of translating the Bible, or are there multiple ways?
Theological bias has a negative connotation as something to be avoided, and in general, I think it is. But I do not think it would be realistic to argue that Bible translation can be done without theological bias. It is not simply a matter of whether the translator has a theological agenda or not; there are passages in which all the choices of wording necessarily reflect theological positions. Furthermore, if we are going to be completely objective, even orthodoxy is a bias. That is, it is by definition an opinion that inclines or prejudices the translator toward a particular choice of wording when his choices all have theological implications.
“Functional” equivalence as a philosophy assumes that it is possible to create a translation with the exact same meaning as the OL text, without matching the grammatical forms found in the original or using words that match the meanings of the OL words, as established or recommended by lexical research. Of course, it also assumes that a translation done as a formal equivalent differs from a functional equivalent to such an extent as to be contrasted with it. In other words, two such translations will belong to these two separate categories, and there is a dichotomy between them.
The Search for the Best Translation. It is a daunting task for the new Bible student to walk into a store for the purpose of purchasing a Bible. Immediately, he is met with shelves upon shelves of more than 150+ different English translation choices: NIV, TNIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, CEV, CSB, NLT, and on and on.
An important necessity of good communication is that it be understood without difficulty. If the words that we use are not immediately understood by the one we are communicating with, it will be like they were attempting to carry on a conversation with a foreigner, in the foreigner’s language. All of this is vitally important if we intend to have effective communication.
The Book of Exodus is the second book of the Bible. It tells a story about Israelites being delivered from slavery, involving an Exodus from Egypt through the hand of Jehovah, the leadership of Moses, revelations at the biblical Mount Sinai, and a subsequent "divine dwelling" of God with Israel.
I am not going to assume but I am going to make some educated inferences about the Lockman Foundation and the NASB. First, let me preface it with I respect the NASB and every translator that has worked on it from the beginning.
The KJV and ASV translations of Gk (μονογενής monogenēs) in six NT passages (Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; He. 11:17; 1 Jn. 4:9), usually in the phrase “only begotten Son” (all the references except that in He. 11:17 are to Jesus’ relationship to God). Most scholars are against the legitimacy of the KJV rendering “only begotten” in the six passages mentioned above. It should be noted that John uses monogenēs nine times, while Luke uses it three times and Paul once.