I think this is going to go wider than just the Amplified so I am going to comment here instead on in the original thread.Greg: From my looking into it and from the conversation here it appears that the 'amplified bible' falls into the category of literal translations.I don't think it does. It is one of a smaller group that I would call expanded translations. The best known of these, other than the Amplified would be, Wuest's Expanded translations. That same site has a description of the Amplified which came out about 5 year later. 1965. Frances E. Siewert, ed., The Amplified Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965. Revised 1987. The New Testament appeared in 1958, the Old Testament in two parts in 1962 and 1964. Revised for the one-volume edition in 1965, and again in 1987. Produced by the Lockman Foundation. This version expands the text with alternative renderings and explanations added in parentheses, brackets, and other typographical devices. If you look at the Dictionary definitions of a word eg power: Strongs: dunamis - force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.Thayer: 1) strength power, ability1a) inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth1b) power for performing miracles1c) moral power and excellence of soul1d) the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth1e) power and resources arising from numbers1f) power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hostsWhat the expanded versions do is to try to leave nothing out. So effectively they leave you to make the choice. The Amplified is putting into the text what another version might put into the margin. The purpose of the paraphrases was to capture the whole sense of a sentence rather than just the words.Youngs Literal Translation: for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (Joh 3:16 YLT)The Message:"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. (Joh 3:16 MSG)Actually The Message makes more 'sense' here than Young's. A first-language English speaker would have to process Young's Literal before he understood it. In fact an absolutely literal translation would bein this way because loved the God the world thus the Son His the only begotten He gave in order that all the believing (ones)into HIm not be destroyed but to hold life age-enduring Now try getting your Sunday School class to memorize that! This verse is almost unintelligable unless we make it less literal. The whole problem is 'how less literal'. Modern linguists would say that what I have done above is not a translation at all, and they dislike the distinction between literal (word for word)and dynamic (sense for sense). If you were asked to translate 'respondex s'il vous plait' into English and you translated it 'reply if it you pleases' your French teacher would mark it 'wrong'. He would say it means 'please reply'. This is the question that all Bible tranlsators have to try to answer. 'do I say what it says or what it means'. Every translation will include an element of 'what it means' even the most literal. It's all a question of degree.The get the meaning of the words, which is vital for thorough Bible study, we need something closer to the literal translation. But to get the flowing sense of whole paragraphs, which is also necessary, a paraphrase can be useful. The problem is that you will get much more of the translators' theology with the latter than with the former.It is important that while holding to the verbal inspiration of scripture we also remember that it is 'all scripture' that has been God breathed and not isolated parts of it. There is micro inspiration in every word, there is macro inspiration in whole books. Amy Carmichael used to say she believed that every translation revealed facets of truth; I think she was probably right. I used to teach foreign students, ten at a time, around a large table. I insisted that they all use a NKJV version and their own first-language version. I would often ask them to translate their version for the benefit of the other students. Often their versions would highlight the very point I wanted to make. (This is a good thing to remember if you are preaching through interpreters. You may spend 10 minutes extricating the truth from your KJV which stands in clear view in their version)With some of my work with people with learning disabilities I have used a version originally created for the deaf. (sounds strange but the 'deaf' version used very few personal pronouns; it repeats the name of the speaker or doer. This makes it easier to keep track of the actors in the story for both deaf and learning disabled folk)For my personal preference I use my KJV but for study I use, heavily, the ASV, Darby, Youngs. I have tried but been disappointed with... the list is endless!
