Paraphrase For Serious Bible Study?

[biscuit1953]

The "Living Bible" and "The Message" are about the only two pure paraphrase bibles I can think of.  After reading James White's book and listening to a couple of his videos he doesn't seem to hold a very high opinion of paraphrase editions of the bible.  He also says that all English translations aren't created equal yet he doesn't give any specifics about avoiding any particular ones although he did make a comment about the TEV I'm not sure about.  Would everyone here agree that recommending a paraphrase to a new convert is a mistake, especially when it comes to Bible study?  I guess I still like some things to be black and white when I know everything isn't.  Thanks.

 

[rsc2a]

Paraphrases have an appropriate place and usage. Whether one would be recommended would largely depend on the objective.

 

[SAWBONES]

Would everyone here agree that recommending a paraphrase to a new convert is a mistake, especially when it comes to Bible study?

If you're in the position of making recommendations about Bible versions to a new convert, why not provide a simple but straightforward explanation of the differences between "formal equivalence", "dynamic equivalence" and paraphrase as theories of translation, then show examples of each, and then furthermore point out verse examples of paraphrase or dynamic equivalence which are to be found in even the most "formal-equivalence-type" translations, explaining how idioms in one language simply may not make sense if translated directly (that is, by "formal equivalence") on the basis of a word-for-word correspondence, but also at the same time  cautioning the new convert against overmuch use of meaning-alteration in paraphrase?

(I'm reminded of the true case of a missionary to a native culture based on pig farming, who wished to use "equivalent thought" in translation of the NT, and who accordingly considered giving John 1:29 as "Behold the Pig of God!")

Obviously, some Biblical ideas simply require a bit of exegesis in order to be properly understood. Paraphrases sometimes try to accommodate this need this by effectively becoming commentaries at times, but it's really not the proper sphere of a translation to do this, IMHO.

Accordingly, it seems a good idea for persons new to study of the Bible to possess at least a good "formal equivalence" translation, a "dynamic equivalence" translation or paraphrase, and a source for responsible Biblical commentary.

 

[Ransom]

Would everyone here agree that recommending a paraphrase to a new convert is a mistake, especially when it comes to Bible study?

Mistake? That's arguable, but I don't know why a paraphrase would be the preferred choice when a decent, readable, non-paraphrase Bible like the NIV is readily available.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Would everyone here agree that recommending a paraphrase to a new convert is a mistake, especially when it comes to Bible study?

Mistake? That's arguable, but I don't know why a paraphrase would be the preferred choice when a decent, readable, non-paraphrase Bible like the NIV is readily available.

When the NIV first came out it was called a praphrase by its opponents.  Some still call it that,while others say it is only a praphrase in places.  Most people today, however, put it in the thought for thought, or dynamic equivalance camp.  I put the HCSB in that camp also, and would highly rec it to a new Christian.

I look at paraphrase versions, but treat them more as a commentary as I think they take too much liberty in places with the text, just like some commentaries do.  I am not saying they are a bad thing, but I don't carry one to church. 

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

The "Living Bible" and "The Message" are about the only two pure paraphrase bibles I can think of.  After reading James White's book and listening to a couple of his videos he doesn't seem to hold a very high opinion of paraphrase editions of the bible.  He also says that all English translations aren't created equal yet he doesn't give any specifics about avoiding any particular ones although he did make a comment about the TEV I'm not sure about.  Would everyone here agree that recommending a paraphrase to a new convert is a mistake, especially when it comes to Bible study?  I guess I still like some things to be black and white when I know everything isn't.  Thanks.

Here is why, as Ransom said, that you can't go wrong with a version like the NIV.

Romans 8:1 (NLT)
1 So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus.


Romans 8:1 (NIV)
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

The NLT is a newer version than the NIV.  Some call it a paraphrase.  I enjoy reading it, but I don't take it to church.  Notice how the NIV correctly translates "Therefore", where as the NLT leaves it out.  To me, when you read therefore, it tells you this verse is built upon previous info.  Both translations tell you there is now no condemnation in Christ, but only the NIV lets you know that you can find out why by reading the previous verses in the Epistle.  JMHO

 

[Ransom]

When the NIV first came out it was called a praphrase by its opponents.  Some still call it that,while others say it is only a praphrase in places.  Most people today, however, put it in the thought for thought, or dynamic equivalance camp.

In fact, it's neither. It's what I'd call "mostly literal."  It's a literal translation that compromises strict literalism for the sake of clarity or readability.

The NLT is a newer version than the NIV.  Some call it a paraphrase.  I enjoy reading it, but I don't take it to church.  Notice how the NIV correctly translates "Therefore", where as the NLT leaves it out.  To me, when you read therefore, it tells you this verse is built upon previous info.  Both translations tell you there is now no condemnation in Christ, but only the NIV lets you know that you can find out why by reading the previous verses in the Epistle.

Then what does "So" mean, at the beginning of that verse in the NLT?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

When the NIV first came out it was called a praphrase by its opponents.  Some still call it that,while others say it is only a praphrase in places.  Most people today, however, put it in the thought for thought, or dynamic equivalance camp.

In fact, it's neither. It's what I'd call "mostly literal."  It's a literal translation that compromises strict literalism for the sake of clarity or readability.

The NLT is a newer version than the NIV.  Some call it a paraphrase.  I enjoy reading it, but I don't take it to church.  Notice how the NIV correctly translates "Therefore", where as the NLT leaves it out.  To me, when you read therefore, it tells you this verse is built upon previous info.  Both translations tell you there is now no condemnation in Christ, but only the NIV lets you know that you can find out why by reading the previous verses in the Epistle.

Then what does "So" mean, at the beginning of that verse in the NLT?

I guess you are right.  It just didn't resonate with me like "therefore" and I didn't make the connection because of the many different parts of speech that so can be. I guess that is my fault, not the translators.  However, if I didn't make the connection, I am sure there are others.  Why not be more clear and  just put therefore, which always means "consequently"?

BTW, I would call the NIV somewhat literal, not mostly.  But hey, I can't even translate so.

 

[Izdaari]

I have a Message/NASB parallel bible, and I love it. The most popular paraphrase and the most literal popular translation, side by side. The comparison is often enlightening.

 

[thethinkingrebel]

If I was to introduce a new Christian to the bible, I wouldn't give them the message, its simply too different to what is given in church. They would be like a fish out of water. I also don't trust it.

I would likely recommend the CEB, okay it isn't perfect, but its immensely understandable. It is dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) but its very accurate.

If I were to recommend a paraphrase, I can't honestly think of one..is JB Phillips a paraphrase? If it was I would recommend that. The modern ones I would burn before I would give to a new believer. The last thing I would want is to lead a new believer to stumble. Might as well introduce them to Rob Bell.

I would say, CEB, HCSB, REB for new believers. Oh..and NCV.

 

[Izdaari]

If I was to introduce a new Christian to the bible, I wouldn't give them the message, its simply too different to what is given in church. They would be like a fish out of water. I also don't trust it.

I would likely recommend the CEB, okay it isn't perfect, but its immensely understandable. It is dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) but its very accurate.

If I were to recommend a paraphrase, I can't honestly think of one..is JB Phillips a paraphrase? If it was I would recommend that. The modern ones I would burn before I would give to a new believer. The last thing I would want is to lead a new believer to stumble. Might as well introduce them to Rob Bell.

I would say, CEB, HCSB, REB for new believers. Oh..and NCV.

Yes, J.B. Phillips is a paraphrase, but I think a very good one. He didn't do the OT, only the NT. I think he's especially good with Paul.

I'd give a new believer the NLT (2nd ed.). I mostly use the ESV myself.

I partly disagree on Rob Bell. I wouldn't give his books to a new believer, but a good many of his NOOMA videos would be just right. Not all, some are a little off.

 

[thethinkingrebel]

If I was to introduce a new Christian to the bible, I wouldn't give them the message, its simply too different to what is given in church. They would be like a fish out of water. I also don't trust it.

I would likely recommend the CEB, okay it isn't perfect, but its immensely understandable. It is dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) but its very accurate.

If I were to recommend a paraphrase, I can't honestly think of one..is JB Phillips a paraphrase? If it was I would recommend that. The modern ones I would burn before I would give to a new believer. The last thing I would want is to lead a new believer to stumble. Might as well introduce them to Rob Bell.

I would say, CEB, HCSB, REB for new believers. Oh..and NCV.

Yes, J.B. Phillips is a paraphrase, but I think a very good one. He didn't do the OT, only the NT. I think he's especially good with Paul.

I'd give a new believer the NLT (2nd ed.). I mostly use the ESV myself.

I partly disagree on Rob Bell. I wouldn't give his books to a new believer, but a good many of his NOOMA videos would be just right. Not all, some are a little off.

Yes I would give the NLT, its very good. Not really my cup of tea (try to avoid American voiced bibles. They tend to be bland to my eyes). But yeah it would be a good option. Yeah sadly Phillips died before he could get started on it. It wasn't a paraphrase essentially, but like the message was reworded from the Greek.

I don't want to derail the thread. But my point was the theology of the message and Bell. I would not recommend a single word of anything from Rob Bell, Rick Warren or any of the emergent/seeker movement. Rob Bell especially. The guy takes experience over Scripture, hes post modern, teaches relativism in relation to correct doctrine. Never mentions the gospel. Just go on his YouTube and watch some videos and compare it to any good theology textbook..doctrine is not relative (for instance, either sin is bad or good, one is right one is wrong). If you think he is good, I would hasten you as your brother in christ, to read "Faith Undone" by Roger Oakland.

God bless you
Chris.

 

[Izdaari]

Rob Bell and Rick Warren are nothing alike. Emergent is a whole different idea than Seeker.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll add it to my list.

 

[Izdaari]

I don't want to derail the thread. But my point was the theology of the message and Bell. I would not recommend a single word of anything from Rob Bell, Rick Warren or any of the emergent/seeker movement. Rob Bell especially. The guy takes experience over Scripture, hes post modern, teaches relativism in relation to correct doctrine. Never mentions the gospel. Just go on his YouTube and watch some videos and compare it to any good theology textbook..doctrine is not relative (for instance, either sin is bad or good, one is right one is wrong). If you think he is good, I would hasten you as your brother in christ, to read "Faith Undone" by Roger Oakland.

God bless you
Chris.

Being something of a student of the "emerging" thing, I'm always interested in learning more about it. However, I tend to doubt that anyone who conflates Rick Warren and the Seeker movement with it actually knows anything about it.

"The guy takes experience over Scripture, hes post modern, teaches relativism in relation to correct doctrine." Ah, so Bell is like me then? He sounds dangerous. I'll be sure to watch out for him!