Good info.
Quick correction - ESV is not dynamic equivalent. It is word for word as much as the NAS, NKJV or KJV.
NIV is dynamic equivalent. NLT is a paraphrase written to help children learn and was never meant to be adopted as a translation. But it sells.
There is an interesting angle to this discussion that many miss as well, having to do with the doctrinal position of translators. The NASB was translated by mostly dispensationalists. The ESV translators, led by Packer, were largely covenantalists. When one realizes this, the nuances can be picked up in certain passages.
The political motivations King James are interesting as well, if one is willing to dig deeply enough. The Geneva Bible wasn't inferior in its accuracy, but there were some interesting "adaptations" embraced by the "authorized" translators.
As you noted, there aren't really any doctrinal issues with these translations. While the Johannine comma is certainly debatable (I think history makes it clear that it was added during the Reformation), the doctrine of the Trinity hardly needs it. As far as I know, that's the only one that might even be on the table as a concern.
Enjoy your studies. They're certainly worthwhile and enriching.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: