Friday, September 04, 2009
Bible to be revised
Shoot, considering the current climate, I expect the result to be even more exclusive, more male and more patriarchical. Twenty-five years ago, conservatives were rational at least. Now, they're ... well, they're Neil.
But when I was comin' up, the "Bible of choice" was the Scofied Reference Bible, King James Version, and later some of us branched off to the Ryrie Study Bible, I forget which version -- both premillenial dispensationalist.
I'll stick with the New Revised Standard Version, thanks, and thanks be to God for it.
The new version was a contemporizing version - with slacked attention to theological precision - but worth the gender equalizing for reading in community.
Eugene Nida came up with three main intentions of English translations as...
formal equivalency targets word order and technical accuracy, sometimes at the expense of natural expression - more concern for accuracy - KJV, American Standard and NAS, RSV and NRSV.
dynamic equivalence, which seeks to convey sense of thought, sometimes sacrificing literalness, word order, etc. - GKS's Revised English, New Jerusalem, Good News, etc.
and those claiming a mixed approach - NIV, New American, Holman (mixed because the Greek does not have enough fundie theology to suite.)