[Ramius]

I see. While I see the benefit of a "thought for thought" approach, I think it is important to also keep in mind the historical context of the author. It's not how somebody today would say it, but rather how somebody *then* would have said had they spoken english as we do. Subtle, but important differences.

That's the mistake that the "Living Bible" made...

[raynearhood]

Thing is though, the Living Bible is a paraphrase, not a direct translation. If I'm not mistaken (I don't own a Living Bible, so I'm not sure) it never claims to be a translation. The good that the Living Bible has done though is that it helped get people interested in the Word that would have otherwise tuned out the archaic "thees" and "Thous" of the KJB or some of the long, in depth sequences throughout any other proper translation. In that light, the Living Bible is meant to be a tool to compliment a proper translation, and it has, many times, served that purpose.

I remember a few years ago when the NIV translators said they wanted to make a "gender friendly" translation. The response from most churches and Christian publications, as I recall, was that that was a bad idea. Instead, publishers like Zondervan should simply continue to print study Bibles with commentaries contained throughout the Bible aimed at specific groups of people (i.e. The Student Bible for Teens, the Women's Study Bible, etc.). If the NIV translators wanted to make things gender friendly then it would not be treated as a translation. I guess things were forgotten.