Brennan Says wrote:
|Pastor Eric Aschendorf wrote:
Actually, I’m sure any of you are correct. By virtue of any translation attempting to make a version that is user friendly you have a natural loss of acuracy. I prefer the KJV 1611 as a standard for preaching and memorization but if you really want acuracy I believe you need to use Young’s Literal Translation – 1887. The problem with the YLT is that it does not preach or can it really be memorized. It is a “Literal” translation and has no or little care for word flow. It was simply an attempt at acuracy.
I’m not sure what underlying text the YLT comes from but I have a Greek-English interliner by Jay P. Green that has the Greek, a literal and then the KJV translation, all from the recieved text, But you are right a literal translation is sometimes helpful when working out diffilcult passages.
Just as a thought, there are some good articles regarding this issue (I recently had to address this in a New Believer class, and used these resources)
In pastoral counseling, I use the NASB for private study, NKJV for devotions, and the NIV for teaching from the NT. More often then not, I always go to the NASB, and I am trying to figure out why many pastors, teachers, leaders, have such a problem with this translation. Is it because it says, “New American Standard Bible” and does not have some “old” historical name….maybe you could clear this up for me. The Lockman Foundation has made a great committment to the text, and most of the seminaries across the country use this translation….a good link about thier committment and answering this issue is: http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/trans/nasbov.htm
Disclaimer: I do not promote one bible over another, but promote the message of the Bible as I know most leaders do, but question the dogmatic and legalistic teaching on which version as it becomes confusing to New Beleivers and becomes a stumbling block. I propose that we stay away from “Preaching which one is best” and walking with folks to find the one that ministers to them.