The Gin and Tonic is an excellent drink.
No the Good News Translation.
Well, since you asked, it is not my favorite translation, but if it is the Bible in front of me, I will read it. I am not competent to say whether it is inaccurate in any way. In my brief encounters with it, I haven’t noticed any inaccuracy. My only objection is to its style.
Great answer! When Billy Graham was once asked what’s the best version of the bible, he answered. “The one you’re reading.”
Regardless of what most people say about translstions, it does as you say, boil down to style, because very few of use are adequately literate in Greek, Latin, Hebrew or even our native tongues to really make the claim that a particular translation is lacking.
Another oddity, especially among us Catholics, is how often we add the caveat that we should have a Catholic version, yet many of us have not studied, let alone read, the deuterocanonical books.
The GNT is actually the GNP…the Good News Paraphrase…calling it a ‘translation’ gives it a validation it does not deserve.
A good starter Bible, but not suitable for study because of its far-dynamic translation philosophy.
Yes, it is a translation, not a paraphrase; it’s not that extreme on the translation spectrum.
The GNT is the first Bible I read on a large scale, as a 9 or 10-year old, and it’s largely responsible for fostering the love I have now for Scripture, because it was very easy to read and was able to impart the Bible story to my young mind. I have since moved past it, but if the GNT succeeded in introducing my soul to Scripture, then it has succeeded in its purpose, so more power to it, and God bless the people behind it.
Besides, if you like reading the Bible at bedtime, the GNT makes a better bedside Bible than the RSV.
Not really. Most scholars label it as a Dynamic Equivalence translation. Not a paraphrase like say The Living Bible or The Message. And it’s a translation endorsed by the Catholic
church among others.