Really? Look up the definition of *paraphrase* and apply it to the topic at hand, then come back if you want to bash “my facts”.

The problem is that every translation is an interpretation. (That may be what you are trying to say here.)

In essence, yes. And that even though the styles of interpretation are different, they still all lose something in translation. So it is disingenuous to say that literal FE translation is closer to the inerrant original text. FE loses just as much as DE (if not more, as you claim), just in different ways.

This has been somewhat of an awakening for me, as I’ve spent most of the last 20 years almost exclusively using traditional FE translations, primarily the NASB and ESV. When I started to read Paul’s writings in the REB 5-6 years ago, I couldn’t believe how much more sense his arguments and logic made. I not willing to say that I’ve swung the pendulum exclusively to DE, but I’ve certainly been searching those translations out to find a more fluid expression of the underlying meaning of scripture.

FE supporters mistakenly believe that you can avoid interpreting the text by sticking to something that looks like the original wording and structure. The argument that I have been making over on Better Bibles is that FE translations actually mean something significantly different than what the original text meant, i.e., a FE translation is as much of an interpretation as a DE translation, but it is the worse for the fact that the interpretation is made and accepted unawares.

Speaking in terms of losing something in translation, my claims are three:

1) a FE translation ALWAYS loses more than a serious DE translation, especially in places where it is possible to lose almost nothing, and

2) for most of the Scripture it is possible to lose almost nothing.

3) for most of the cases in which people complain the loudest about the lost associations of DE, the communicative value of such secondary meanings is so much less important than the primary meaning that the cost of trying to keep the associations at the expense of a phrasing that distorts the primary meanings is too high to be acceptable.

[T]here are far more dimensions on which to rank Bible translations than simply the literal/paraphrase scale.

Certainly! As you know, I have been exploring some of those alternate comparison methods. It just happened that the seed of this excursion was based on an observation of NASB and ESV users who promoted those translations as “closest to the original Word”.

While different people may make different values on translations, I would like to point out that the NRSV scores high in the evaluation of many people in the above criteria.

Indeed it does, and I came to a similar conclusion in the post link above. As for the categorization of the NRSV, it doesn’t materially change the nature of my post, so I’ll be happy to edit it into the form-driven grouping.

For many years I used the NKJV, recently I started using the ESV as my main translation but I use the NASB, KJV, NKJV as well as the 1599 Geneva Bible. I will be looking to purchase a NLT and a T/NIV in the near future… maybe even a NRSV as well. I am a proponent of a Bible quiver, not just different Bibles to fill specific needs but also a quiver of translations.

Seriously, there are far more dimensions on which to rank Bible translations than simply the literal/paraphrase scale.

Examples:

* theological biases (e.g., a Christianized reading of the Hebrew Scriptures),

* textual base (e.g., Masoretic text or eclectic source),

* presence of supplementary texts in other religious traditions (e.g., the New Testament, the Catholic Deuterocanonicals, the Orthodox Deuterocanonicals, non-canonical books such as Enoch),

* availability of serious reference materials (e.g., study Bibles, concordances, etc.),

* acceptability within one’s religious tradition (e.g., imprimaturs),

* acceptability in other religious traditions or ecumenical settings,

* acceptability in scholarly circles,

* elegance of language, including cadence and ability to be read aloud in religious settings (e.g., the superb English of the KJV),

* connection with historic readings (e.g., the NRSV is close to the mainstream of Bible translations; while the NEB is iconoclastic), and

* quality of scholarship (e.g., well — you can fill in your own examples — if you can’t say anything nice …)

Even in the issue of equivalence to form, there are far more issues going on (e.g., alliteration, puns) than most formal translations attempt (the major two modern translations that have attempted to capture this are those of Robert Alter and Everett Fox; the KJV also often captures this.)

While different people may make different values on translations, I would like to point out that the NRSV scores high in the evaluation of many people in the above criteria.

But I do think your clumping into three broad groups is rather unfair. The NRSV is rather close to the NASB95. Certainly the NRSV is closer to the NASB95 than it is to either the HCSB or the T/NIV.