A Helpful Translation Could Be Misused
928320
It is good to have translations of good books that modern people may be kept from because they were written in ecclesiastical Latin as this work is. It appears to be a good translation, but knowing more of the background of this work I can see where it can and might be misused against authentic Lutheran beliefs.
3095477
The book is great but I am sure there must be a better translation. I compared the Spanish traslation to the English translation and it is much more easy to read it in English than in spanish eventhough I am more fluent in Spanish. So I would recommend finding another edition if it exists.
179227
The English translation was hard to understand sometimes. Reading it in German allows us to study Von Rad's work with out the translation confusion.
3809352
I am not providing a review of the book itself, as Beyond Good and Evil is simply beyond the need for critical input.  Nietzsche, right or wrong, is simply brilliant, positively enjoyable to read, and easily misunderstood by those who do not read deeply.  This, rather, will be a review of the translation.

Marion Faber's translation is, for the most part, well done. She keeps alive much of Nietzsche's wit and rhetorical spirit, but there are some major flaws in this translation. The first is positively unacceptable: the paragraphing in this text is not Nietzsche's own. Walter Kaufmann is guilty of the same sin; I guess they are trying to make Nietzsche more "accessible". Nietzsche has quite a unique style, and usually indicates where a different subject is being pursued by having a dash before the sentence. Faber and Kaufmann both opt to break up Nietzsche's paragraphs along these dashes, which really does Nietzsche a disservice. If Nietzsche wanted his work to be broken up into those paragraphs, he would've done it himself. This further does a disservice to the reader, because he is missing a key anomaly of punctuation and style. If you don't want to spend the time figuring Nietzsche out, then don't bother reading his works at all.

The second major problem I had with this translation was the laughable attempts to make Nietzsche's language sound more politically correct. This is simply a ludicrous endeavor. If you want a book that is inoffensive, go read something else. Nietzsche is not a writer meant to be understood and appreciated by everyone. The German word for 'man' ought to be translated as 'man', not 'human'. The most ridiculous instances are when Faber translates 'overman' as 'overhuman', a clunker of a word that really unnecessarily bogs down the text.  Words like 'man' and 'human' are not interchangeable, and it really is necessary to have continuity in the terms. But, thanks to the translator, anyone will surely miss key aspects in Nietzsche's application of the term 'man' and when he uses 'human' (and he does distinguish between them).

Between the translation by Kaufmann and that of Faber's, I would probably recommend Faber, as her work is livelier than Kaufmann's. But it isn't without it's major problems that really should've been avoided, because she had to work to put them in. Mistranslations of terms are much more forgivable (that's the difficult part, and she has errors here too), but tampering with the style and structure simply did not and should not have been done.
4455183
I don't particularly find it easy reading or studying, as it lacks side to side translation. I bought it because it had great reviews. This book can be more effective with pictures, transliteration, an audio and translation.
1065960
I really like this Bible and translation. I did find some things that are translated oddly to me. It kind of changed the meaning from the KJV and if people aren't careful, it can be misleading.
1753769
Anyone who can read J&uuml;rnjakob Swehn der Amerikafahrer in German ought to. Anyone who reads it in this translation needs to know that J&uuml;rnjakob didn't sound like a hick before the translator got to him. The translator (who otherwise did a reasonable job, adding historical context and inserting a Biblical reference to make the humor clearer for those who might lack that context) inserted too much of himself and too many of his elder relatives' favorite expressions into the text.
The authors of the letters on which the book is based may have used all the same expressions in conversation, but I'm sure that they didn't write them in every letter to their old teacher back home. Even if they did; if they used "vun dummboozled" as often as the translator does, then Gillhoff (the author of the novel) did readers a favor in leaving it out.
3203788
The translation in this book is indeed smoothly readable, but what are you reading?  In Bhikkhu Bhodi's lectures on the Sutta Nipata, he assigned this text, but was forced to retranslate words in *just about every single line* because the translator had failed to accurately render the intent of the Pali text.  These are minor errors; however, they are also not superficial, but rather fundamental misconstruals.  Bhikkhu Bhodi even theorized that this translation was not the work of Ven. Saddhatisa himself, but an English editor, due to the fact that a learned monk such as Ven. Saddhatisa would not have been expected to make such errors.  Certainly, it is valuable to have the text in English, but perhaps the only way to learn what the Buddha meant to convey is through more extensive study of the etymologies and contexts surrounding the Pali text.
1820535
This is new translation. I think a new translation is a terrible idea. Ill return it. The English language continues to get butchered- why would I want a new translation?!? There is magic in the composition of words - or should I say there Once was? A new translation is honoring changes in speech. Might as well delete the words all together and only have pictures.
448504
The first thing that the potential buyer should know is although De Rerum Natura is a poem, this translation doesn't even attempt to be poetic but simply translates everything as prose. On the other hand, this choice may aid readers who are trying to follow along in Latin as a poetic translation would have to be less faithful.
Secondly, the translator seems to be trying to weaken Lucretius' arguments deliberately  -- for instance, a major theme of the first book is a rebuttal of the tired assertion that religion leads to morality-- but the translator always uses "superstition" as a translation for the Latin word "religio". While it is true that "religio" can also mean "superstition", it is clear from the context that Lucretius was criticizing mainstream supernatural beliefs -- in other words religion -- rather than oddball beliefs that are termed superstition.
3186505
Every translator knows how difficult it is to translate idiomatic expressions to other languages. For this kind of translation one must be fluent in both languages and also both cultures. Many biblical expressions that seem obscure, contradictory or that make no sense are explained in an accurate manner.
4826819
I don't actually recommend using one translation when engaging in major study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. But if I had to pick one translation to start major study with, it would be this one.

It's a little old--the translation dates back to the turn of the 20th century--so the editor (Knoch) didn't have access to quite as many copies of scripture as modern textual critics do. But the differences are relatively minor, and can be easily supplemented by a good copy of the UBS or Nestle-Aland collated text. Knoch usually follows the critical scholars of his day (Westgott and Hort), although on occasion he uses material from the Textus Receptus.

This is not an interlinear work--it doesn't show Greek with English nearby. There are several fine printed (and internet) tools for that, including Green's Textus Receptus. But Knoch's translation is at least as useful in its auxiliary details as Green's two literal translations (I would say moreso, although Green's is very useful too); and more importantly the text features a compiled concordance helping locate all examples of every unusual and most usual words in the New Testament text. (Not every use of "and", for example, but every use of common important words like "God" and "Jesus", as well as every relatively uncommon word.) Knoch's translation tends to be a little more helpfully literal than Green's (and others I own) as well. No other source I own (more than a dozen) or have read (dozens) bothered to explain that the Greek word for "righteousness", dikaiosune, is a compound word meaning "just-togetherness", for example. But when I checked around I found Knoch was right about that. It makes quite an exegetical difference in translation, too! (Although it should be noted that Knoch still translates it as "righteousness", as usual, in the actual text.)

If any readers are bothered that Knoch was a trinitarian universalist, I can report that I used this text for years (even as a trinitarian universalist myself) without realizing the author believed God would save all sinners from sin. (Edited to add: several months after writing this review I discovered that Knoch was a high Arian instead, not a trinitarian. Frankly I think it is to his credit as a translator that I have been using his text for years for help in my trinitarian apologetics!) The only peculiarity I can think of in regard to that issue, is that he typically translates the adjective 'aionios' as 'eonian', leaving readers to figure the meaning by context. (There are many other uses of similar prepositional phrases in the NT, like "into the eon", which are often translated in English as "eternal" or "everlasting", which he renders back into their original and textually correct prepositional phrases, too. But non-universalists shouldn't have any problem with that, if they're actually reading their beliefs out of context: this is a literal concordance tool, so phrasing is going to be rather odd-sounding to English readers anyway!)

Certainly I would (and do) include this in a library of research materials without giving it overall priority. But I can also say that I've learned from and have been helped more by this translation than any other I've owned. It was long held as a serious (if introductory) research tool by scholars, and still deserves that place today 100 years later. I never write exegesis on a term, or a passage, without first checking this (among several other works).

(Edited to add: I bought my copy from another site years before writing this review; but since then I have bought a copy from Amazon, or one of its resellers rather, as a present for my Sunday School teacher. I mention this in case it lists my purchase date which would naturally post-date this review and so might seem strange.)
3256029
It's probably my fault for misunderstanding the description in some way, but I was expecting a side-by-side translation when they said "line-by-line". This, however, is JUST the translation. If you want to compare it to the original language or use it to aid in or confirm comprehension while citing the original work, you'll need to also purchase a copy of the original text. This isn't necessarily a reflection on the quality of the translation, as I found it very suitable and retained the lyric verse of the original, it just wasn't what I expected and I feel that the description was a bit misleading.
2455698
This english translation of Madhyanta Vibhanga offers some salient points in its interpretation of the Sanskrit classic. However, I found myself bewildered  by some of the English words chosen for the Sanskrit counterparts. It doesn't clarify the 'Mind Only' 'distinction' but seems to muddy the waters, as other Tibetan Tenant system proponents seem to do as well.
  As a previous reviewer said in his commentary on this book, 'it is complex and requires a lama to help one practice'. I would concur that that is indeed the case with this translation of the 23 verses of the text.
  A much better translation is in the book, 'A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience' by Thomas A. Kochumuttom, published by Motilal Banarsidass. Mr. Kochumuttom does an admirable job of dispelling the myth of the 'Mind Only School' that is purported to assume all object are 'all is mind'. With this book one may practice from the text as is, learn to distinguish the middle from the extremes and understand how one's mind clothes the subjects and objects that it encounters, day to day, with an appearance of what those objects are. That appearance is vijnapti, consciousness encountered and created fabrication.
4285025
It's a great novel.  However, the Spanish translator mistranslated a few things.  For example, Kansas State Universty, along with another American university, was called an  "instituto."  Doesn't the word carry the nuance of a high school?  There was another place or two where the choice of words in Spanish gave me the impression the translator had misunderstood the English original.
2968619
It seems that the reviews listed for this translation pertain to other editions of the book.  I wish Amazon would keep reviews relevant to the title/author/translator listed.
38421
EVERY Bible translation (or paraphrase) is also an interpretation.  That means that the translation carries with it the translators agenda, with linguistic, theological and philosophical biases throughout.  Several negative reviewers have commented that because this one apparently conveys interpretations that conflict with their own, that the Mirror Bible is somehow "heresy," "not-inspired," or "not the word of God." Hopefully thoughtful readers can recognize this fact and not review based on disagreement with interpretation.  I like a lot of what the author did with this Greek translation/paraphrase.