Christian Publishing House Blog
Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity
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.
It is not necessary for everyone to know translation theory to the point of a scholarly level, nor is it even necessary for pastors and teachers to know everything about translation theory. However, it is necessary for pastors, teachers, and churchgoers around the world at the beginning of the twenty-first century to know something about translation theory, for two reasons.
Explore the reliability of modern translations: are they faithful to the original Scriptures? Discover the truth behind the texts.
Ecclesiastes 11:1-2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 11 Send[1] out your bread on the waters, for in many days you will find it. 2 Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what disaster may happen on earth. (Heb. shalach) does not mean to throw out or scatter but to “send,” to... Continue Reading →
Dynamic equivalent (interpretive) translations are very much guilty of over translating the words of the original text, which might be better expressed as going beyond the words of the authors.
The reader needs and deserves to know what the passage actually says, even if it is difficult to understand. A contextual interpretation that ignores or deviates from the Original Language does not provide that, and since this kind of interpretation is a basic element of Dynamic Equivalent / Functional Equivalent translation, there is little or no “equivalency” to the OL in these passages at all. So on this score, the distinction between DE/FE translations and literal translations truly is a false dichotomy. The real distinction is between translations whose philosophies permit this kind of contextual interpretation in place of literal translation and translations that formally correspond to the OL as much as possible.
Darrell Conner from Facebook asks, returning to Hebrews 5:14, I have another question for you concerning perfection in [the book of] Hebrews, which I feel must be understood to properly translate Chapter 5, which as I said...no translation has done yet. So here is another question ...: the UASV translates Hebrews 12:23: "to the general... Continue Reading →
Acts 20:28: The NRSV, RSV, LEB, and the UASV read that the church was purchased with “the blood of his [God’s] own Son.” On the other hand, the other ESV, NASB, CSB, and the ASV read that the church was purchased with “God’s . . . own blood.”
Explore the complexities behind translating ancient texts: why every word matters in shaping our understanding.
