Earlier this week when we were having bedtime devotions with the children, we mentioned one of Jesus’s followers, the apostle Peter. Our four-year-old son piped up: “Like Peter Tchaikovsky!”
There are times when you just can’t help but bust out laughing. This was one of those times. When I came up for air I looked over at my wife and asked, “Where did THAT come from?”
“He learned about Peter Tchaikovsky on Starfall.”
Starfall is an online educational tool for younger children. Chalk one up for Starfall.
As mentioned yesterday there are four kinds of approaches used by modern Bible translators, but two of them are dominant*: formal equivalence and functional equivalence. Today I want to share a few powerful arguments for preferring formal equivalent translations (word-for-word) over functional equivalent translations (thought-for-thought).
Arguments for Preferring Formal Equivalent Translations:
1. Formal translations are more faithful to the original languages.
2. Formal translations use the only translation philosophy known to scholars prior to the middle of the 20th Century.
3. Formal translations protect the reader from translators’ opinions and biases.
When translating the Bible from the original languages, modern English Bible translators do not all use the same approach. Here are the four different kinds of translations available:
1. Formal Equivalent Translation Bible – a.k.a. literal translations, word-for-word translations. This philosophy seeks to translate as close to the original languages as possible and yet understandable to the modern reader. Emphasis is on the ancient text. Tends to be favored by conservatives/fundamentalists and verse-by-verse teachers.
Strength – considered very faithful to the original languages. Traditional approach; the modus operandi for Bible translations up through the mid-20th Century.
Weakness – considered awkward reading with often obscure words and thus difficult to read and understand for some people.
Examples – New King James Version (NKJV), English Standard Version (ESV), and New American Standard Bible (NASB).
There, I said it. Yes, I know I am a Bible design geek and I even laugh at myself about this fact. And I know that most people, upon reading the first sentence of this post would probably react, “And the price of tea in China is…?
But I also have the heart of a pastor, which is another reason why I want to devote this post to this rather obscure subject of double column vs. single column Bibles. As a pastor I want to help people in whatever ways I can to read the Bible more. More pleasurably. More often. And with greater impact. And I truly believe that a single column Bible will in a small way help people experience those things in a greater way.
Like many people, I never paid much attention to the difference between single column vs. double column Bibles, until I came across J. Mark Bertrand’s outstanding blog (Bible Design Blog). Truth be told, I previously preferred double column Bibles, albeit subconsciously. I remember back in college days looking at a friend’s Life Application Study Bible one time and saying to myself, “Something about this Bible doesn’t feel right.” That something was the single column. It didn’t feel right because I had a preconceived notion of what a Bible was supposed to look like, and that was double column. In other words, I was bound by tradition, familiarity.
ESV PSR Bible photograph by J. Mark Bertrand (www.bibledesignblog.com)
Noted travel show host Rick Steves has publicly expressed his opinion on the legalization of marijuana. He has also confessed his recreational use of the drug. To top it off, he has sought to buttress his opinion with an appeal to his Christian faith. Oooooookay…(without the dokay)…read about it HERE.
…is being exposed for what it really is: a bunch of bunk. Pardon my poor English, but if there is one thing that continually causes me to scratch my head it is how easily people jump on a bandwagon driven by “science.” I still have no doubt that global warming is a total hoax. The scientists in the mid-70s said we were entering an ice age as Time Magazine reported.
The leaders of the movement cast themselves as caring about the planet, saving the human race, and all this noble sounding blah, blah, blah. But far too many of them are more concerned about securing funding for research or finding ways to line their pockets with the profits of being an expert about the subject. Al Gore has become far more rich than he already was by flying around the planet in a big jet, polluting the environment with his huge carbon footprint, preaching the gospel of environmentalism, all for the worthy cause of saving the planet.
The followers of the movement are people who need a cause. Everyone needs to feel part of a cause bigger than themselves. They need to feel like they are contributing their money and efforts and thoughts toward something great and grand and noble…say like…saving the planet! So they believe the “scientists” who say that humans are causing our planet to warm up and so they start recyclying (not a bad thing) and they buy a smaller car or even a hybrid and they “go green.”
The only problem is that it’s simply not true. The founder of the weather channel, John Coleman, has called global warming the “greatest scam in history.” He recently produced and hosted a show to debunk the scam. You can watch that HERE. I encourage you to watch it, and then pass the word along. Let’s put an end to this ridiculous hoax.
soundoftruth.org 