Versions of The Bible

[ourjourneys]

I am reading a lot of questions about God and the Bible. There are a lot of answers explaining different versions to go to for different answers. My question is: If you read the Bible (either for comparision/religious study OR because you believe in it), which version do you prefer and why?

I wonder how it can be translated so many time when we have lost so much of the original as it is? Any opinions?

[fhjmom]

In the past I have used the NASB and the NIV. I have recently discovered the "English Standard Version" and it has quickly become my favorite! You can read about the translation phylosophy and background of the translation team here:

http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy

 

One of our ministers from church who also authors Christian books first recomended it to me, and I highly respect his opinion.

[Jugglin'5]

I prefer the NKJV or the ESV, because they are understandable, yet preserve the beauty of the language. I like my Bible to still sound poetic.

[ScoutTN]

In the past I have used the NASB and the NIV. I have recently discovered the "English Standard Version" and it has quickly become my favorite! You can read about the translation philosophy and background of the translation team here:

http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy

 

 

:iagree:

 

We have the ESV Study Bible and find it an excellent research tool.

 

I don't believe that we have "lost" any of God's inerrant, inspired and infallible Word. If God cannot superintend the transmission of Truth throught he ages, He isn't much of a God!

[Mom2J112903]

We are Catholic and use the King James version. It has been highly regarded as most likely the best translated version.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I think there are various positives to different translations. Our religion actually uses many translations though our main Bible is the New World Translation (before it was translated from the original languages, we mainly used the KJV). I still like comparing different translations. And I'll always think of certain things (Ps 23, Model Prayer, etc) in terms of the KJV. At the same time, I LOVE how easy other versions are to read, including the NWT.

 

In the end, I mostly using the NWT.

 

There is a book called Truth in Translation that gives information regarding the accuracy of 9 versions of the Bible.

[Mommysbaby]

I also mainly use the New World Translation.

[elizabeth]

We are Catholic and use the King James version. It has been highly regarded as most likely the best translated version.

 

For a Catholic , the KJV would lack many books notably the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical. The language might be beautiful but as it is printed today intended for Protestants.

[ourjourneys]

Do any of you read the apocrophya and other books that were taken out of the Bible as supplements to understanding?

[DianeW88]

As a Latter-day Saint, the only Bible we use is the King James version.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

[Gooblink]

Do any of you read the apocrophya and other books that were taken out of the Bible as supplements to understanding?

 

Yes, I do. I'm still not 100% convinced that our Canon contains the full and complete revelation of God, but I do trust that He knows how to get His Word out and if there are differences in translations, then they are probably not impediments to Truth.

 

I use several translations, including NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, The Message, ESV, Amplified. Sometimes I'll lay them all out and study them simultaneously.

 

I also have and have studied the New World Translation; it's the only one (to my knowledge) translated specifically in rejection of a triune God.

[mommaduck]

Geneva 1560, ESV, and OSB.

[Alessandra]

I agree with the posters who use multiple versions -- some versions are better for liturgical use or for reading aloud, some better for study, etc.

 

The version I go to first is the RSV -- it is formal, but more readable than the AV (KJV). Also the RSV is good for study as it is a very close translation -- for example, when Paul has a long, difficult sentence in the Greek, the RSV preserves the long, difficult sentence.

 

When I read a familiar, famous passage -- like the Christmas story, I find I like the AV (KJV).

 

For just plain reading, I use the NIV, the NAB and the NEB. The NAB comes in a nice paperback version, with one Bible book (or several short books) per paperback, lots of notes and normal sized print. This may be picky, but sometimes I want to be able to read without eyestrain and without holding a massive volume.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Alessandra

[Pamela H in Texas]

for example, when Paul has a long, difficult sentence in the Greek

 

<smile> This is an ongoing family conversation. Your mention of it made me smile :)

[Scarlett]

I also have and have studied the New World Translation; it's the only one (to my knowledge) translated specifically in rejection of a triune God.

 

What does this mean?

[TravelingChris]

I use the NASB, my husband uses the ESV and my girls use NIV. We also have a KJV and an old English Catholic Bible in the house too.

[Melinda in VT]

I was raised with the KJV and prefer it for reading certain passages or for looking up commonly quoted phrases. It had a huge impact on English literature and speech.

 

I have an NIV study Bible, which I prefer for, well, studying. ;) I love the language of the KJV, but sometimes the gap between Elizabethan English and 21-st century American English impedes understanding (although it's great for preparing you to study Shakespeare, and vice versa).

 

I recently purchased The Message because I realized that I am lacking in my birds-eye view of the Old Testament. I can read The Message far more quickly than the KJV or NIV, so the hope is that I can read the OT quickly enough to retain the big picture. I was very skeptical of The Message, but I find it respectful of the text and not jarring. And my copy has verses marked so I can consult the NIV if I have questions.

[BigMamaBird]

I grew up on the NIV so that's what's comfortable to me. I do like hearing the KJV, it just sounds so beautiful, but I struggle to understand the wording many times and it's distracting to me for study purposes. My dh just got an ESV I really like reading it, it's quickly becoming my favorite.

[Avila]

We are Catholic and use the King James version. It has been highly regarded as most likely the best translated version.

 

Actually, the Catholic Church would disagree with you on that.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

 

I have never met a Catholic who uses KJV, so I guess I learn something new every day. If you like the poetic language, you may want to check out the Douay Rheims version. The Church in America uses the New American in liturgy, and many Catholics find the RSV a good compromise between the two for personal use. I read the RSV or (gasp!) sometimes the NRSV or Jerusalem Bibles. I also have the Douay-Rheims that I have the kids use for memorization.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Asenik

[Parrothead]

We are Catholic and use the King James version. It has been highly regarded as most likely the best translated version.

No, the bolded part isn't quite true. It is a beautiful translation, but not what I'd call an accurate translation by any means.

 

Check out a Douay-Rheims Bible when you get a chance.

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

Source and more info

 

I've got a New American Bible for general reading. It is translated into more modern English. For a deeper study I like the Ignatius Bible

[Gooblink]

What does this mean?

 

It means that the authors have removed or reworded any scriptural evidence that speaks to Jesus as God incarnate, thus strengthening their argument against the Trinity.

 

For example, in the Gospels, when scripture says that people "worshipped" Jesus, the NWT has interpreted that as "did obeisance."

 

Also, in John 1:1, when scripture says that "the word was with God and the word was God," the NWT (Incorrectly according to nearly all scholars) translates it as "the word was with God and the word was a god."

[ourjourneys]

This is interesting. I did not know that there is a translation that corrects these errors. There are many contradictions which could be attributed to the scribes or to man's thought (in particular Constantine).

It means that the authors have removed or reworded any scriptural evidence that speaks to Jesus as God incarnate, thus strengthening their argument against the Trinity.

 

For example, in the Gospels, when scripture says that people "worshipped" Jesus, the NWT has interpreted that as "did obeisance."

 

Also, in John 1:1, when scripture says that "the word was with God and the word was God," the NWT (Incorrectly according to nearly all scholars) translates it as "the word was with God and the word was a god."

[Scarlett]

This is interesting. I did not know that there is a translation that corrects these errors. There are many contradictions which could be attributed to the scribes or to man's thought (in particular Constantine).

 

True. The NWT is an accurate translation.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Thank you for clarifying Cindy.

 

As you point out in your post, the few changes simply strengthen the argument (and are done within reason; for example, see the first review on Amazon for the Truth In Translations book). The argument is pretty strong (without those few "debate causing" scriptures) with dozens upon dozens of scriptures throughout the Bible, esp the Gospels, esp the Book of John, as well as the history of triune Gods and the trinity in Christianity.

[The*A*Team]

I am catholic and use the NAB version.

 

Christina

[Scarlett]

It means that the authors have removed or reworded any scriptural evidence that speaks to Jesus as God incarnate, thus strengthening their argument against the Trinity.

 

For example, in the Gospels, when scripture says that people "worshipped" Jesus, the NWT has interpreted that as "did obeisance."

 

Also, in John 1:1, when scripture says that "the word was with God and the word was God," the NWT (Incorrectly according to nearly all scholars) translates it as "the word was with God and the word was a god."

 

Well, I guess we could get into a big discussion about the specific rules regarding the use of the definite article, but instead I will just say that the translators (not authors) of the NWT translated it with accuracy in mind...NOT to strengthen an argument of any kind.

[Greta]

This is interesting. I did not know that there is a translation that corrects these errors.

 

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe there were errors in the *original* manuscripts that need to be corrected?

[Ester Maria]

"Reading the Bible in translation is like kissing your new bride through a veil." (Ch. N. Bialik)

 

I may like King James Version because of its beauty of the language, but it remains a translation (albeit a very aesthetically pleasing one!)... and each translation is, in a way, an interpretation... and interpretations are often limiting and at times, also, directly misleading if you do not keep in mind, at all times, that what you're reading is not the original text.

 

King James Version remains my literary favorite in English though, but theologically I "talk" only to the Masoretic text (and the rabbinical commentaries for beyond-literal level) and - if I were to deal with Christianity, which I normally don't - the original Greek text of the NT.

 

I never quite understood why the familiarity with the original text was not emphasized more in the non-Jewish world. "By us", it's quite hard to find a kid amongst those whose parents cared about providing them with at least a minimal Judaic instruction (and even secular people do that) who doesn't, at the very least, read Hebrew, with a vague idea of what's being said. Of course, if you can't read Hebrew well, there is still a need to use a translation alongside the original - but that's, still, a very different situation than drawing serious theological conclusions from "translations of translations". Not attempting to criticize anybody, just a random observation that I was quite often in a situation to make - it surprises how very little Hebrew/Greek literacy there is with most of the religious people I have met over the course of the years. Not that there aren't notable exceptions, though.

[Slartibartfast]

Do any of you read the apocrophya and other books that were taken out of the Bible as supplements to understanding?

 

Yes, I use this Oxford Bible more than my others but I own King James and NIV as well

 

http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Revised-Standard-Apocrypha-Hardcover/dp/019528478X

Edited July 11, 2010 by Sis

[Gooblink]

Well, I guess we could get into a big discussion about the specific rules regarding the use of the definite article, but instead I will just say that the translators (not authors) of the NWT translated it with accuracy in mind...NOT to strengthen an argument of any kind.

 

:001_smile: It's all Greek to me.

 

Who are those "translators," though? Every other translation I own has a long list of contributors and their qualifications. NWT is uniquely silent in that regard.

 

Since we don't have access to the original mss, I guess we'll never know, this side of Heaven, what was actually breathed by God.

 

Hey, I just report. You decide. :D

[Slartibartfast]

And really, everyone is prejudiced towards their preferred translation as the most accurate. I like my Oxford but others do not. :) It's ok. I just don't want to get into that argument, I am not changing my mind and I am sure most will also not change their mind. :lol:

[Hannah C.]

I personally use the NLT 2nd edition (published 2004/2007). It is a translation (as opposed to a paraphrase) but uses modern English. It also translates the various measurements, which I really appreciate.

 

I think the KJV is beautiful but would caution anyone against using it as their primary Bible. Elizabethan English is simply not very clear to today's English speakers! Words that look like ones we have today can mean different things! The NKJV has always struck me as awkwardly worded for some reason. I enjoy the ESV, but it is also awkwardly worded sometimes.

 

The NIV is considered a good translation, very middle of the road Protestant.

 

If you want a Bible with the Apocrypha, the RSV is the first version that comes to mind. There are also the Catholic Bible translations, which I don't know much about since I'm not Catholic. Also, the KJV included the Apocrypha. Not all KJV Bibles published today have the Apocrypha in them, but the 1611 KJV had it.

[Scarlett]

:001_smile: It's all Greek to me.

 

Who are those "translators," though? Every other translation I own has a long list of contributors and their qualifications. NWT is uniquely silent in that regard.

 

Since we don't have access to the original mss, I guess we'll never know, this side of Heaven, what was actually breathed by God.

 

Hey, I just report. You decide. :D

 

You need a name and qualification? As you well know, they remain anonymous for a reason----to give glory to God not to themselves. They are qualified---a fact agreed upon by many who have studied the NWT closely. It is an accurate translation.

[OnTheBrink]

This might help:

 

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

Personally, I use the NASB and I've been looking at the OSB that someone sent me. But for daily reading and study, I use the NASB.

[edithcrawley]

When I want to read the Bible for the beauty of the words, I'll use the KJV. When I want to read it to understand something in it, I'll use the NIV.

 

ETA: I'm a United Methodist

Edited July 11, 2010 by jennifermarie
clarification

[Lovedtodeath]

I like the New World Translation because it uses God's name. I don't like having to add God's name in as I am reading when I see LORD.

 

I also really like the Jerusalem Bible because it was integral in my understanding of the scriptures and IMO easier to understand than a lot of other translations that I have tried.

 

I also have and have studied the New World Translation; it's the only one (to my knowledge) translated specifically in rejection of a triune God.

My understanding is that the main purpose was to restore God's name, since the majority of translations have replaced the YHWH with LORD.

 

John 1:1, when scripture says that "the word was with God and the word was God," the NWT (Incorrectly according to nearly all scholars) translates it as "the word was with God and the word was a god."

 

Here is a link with an explanation of the definite article ton used before the first God. (Literally the scripture says "The word was with the god and the word was god." Because the original language has a definite article, ton/the, but not an indefinite article , a) The link also sites numerous other translations that word this scripture similarly.

 

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe there were errors in the *original* manuscripts that need to be corrected?

No, that the errors are in the majority of translations. One problem with the majority of translations is that they are indeed translations of translations.

 

Since we don't have access to the original mss, I guess we'll never know, this side of Heaven, what was actually breathed by God.

We have older manuscripts available than you would guess. The majority are at least in their original languages. Where that isn't possible, there is at least a comparing of several translations, not just relying on one. I have often been impressed with Watchtower articles highlighting the history of Bible translations in many different languages and times. Edited July 11, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Bokons]

Here is what he's done so far:

 

http://www.spvbible.org/

 

He is a Bible translator who focuses on syntactic and semantic precision in his Bible translations.

Edited July 11, 2010 by ballzy
extra word

[Mrs Mungo]

I like the Oxford Annotated, it's considered the most scholarly edition and is revised with the most care toward new findings. I also use the KJV and the NSRV.

[Diana B]

For everyday use, I use NKJV. I have many translations and also use e-sword when doing studies. My husband has taught himself some biblical Hebrew and Greek (my ds and I are learning Hebrew, slowly!). So we will go to the original Hebrew or Greek for clarification if necessary. E-Sword is great for this, because we can pull up all kinds of linear translations.

 

I believe that although all translations may have some human errors in them, they are all from the inspired word of God and have their merits. If God is calling you, then you can use any of them to help you answer that call and continue your study.

[Pamela H in Texas]

they are all from the inspired word of God and have their merits

 

I agree. The truth is find-able from the information in ANY copy of the scripture. God would not allow the majority of scripture to be unrecognizable. As Prov 2:1-5 says, we must dig; but accurate knowledge is obtainable with the aid of the Bibles available to us.

[Alessandra]

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe there were errors in the *original* manuscripts that need to be corrected?

 

it is confusing! There is not an 'original', in the sense of their being one book, somewhere, that has all the correct writings. For example, for the NT, there are many manuscripts from the early years of the church -- some may be one book of the Bible, or part of one book, or just a fragment. Scholars study these to attempt to determine which are the most accurate, or 'original' -- and ii is not an easy task. For example, an early manuscript fragment might be less authentic than a slightly later one, if the older one came from a less accurate 'manuscript family'. Remember that copies were made by putting scribes into a room while someone dictated to them. Scribes could miss a word, repeat a word, mishear a word, misspell a word.... yes, it is confusing!! Studying this stuff is called textual criticism. Oh, and to be even more confusing, there was no agreement in the early church as to which books should be included in the Bible.

 

So, even Bibles that are 'word for word' translations may vary. If I were just beginning to read the Bible, I wouldn't worry overmuch about this.

 

If you are really interested in this , a good book for the NT, is Kurt Aland, The Text of the New Testament. Even though it is a scholarly book, it is an easy read!

Edited July 11, 2010 by Alessandra

[creekland]

This web page has a neat graphic about 1/3rd of the way down comparing major versions by word for word (translation) or thought by thought (interpretation). It's very interesting to consider and know where each version stands.

 

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=73521&sp=104481&event=1003SB|58674|1003|58674|1003

 

As for our house? We mainly use the NIV or ESV but also have several other versions to compare with when we're doing a deeper study or teaching.

[southcarolinamom]

The Baptist churches in our area have started using the ESV version over the last 5 years in the pulpit.

 

My kids are in Bible quiz in our community, and still use the KJV for that.

[ourjourneys]

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe there were errors in the *original* manuscripts that need to be corrected?

Someone else answered this which is my opinion also. We do not have originals. Google constantine and the bible to see how the books were chosen. Scribes wrote down the books and they spoke different dialects, spelled differently, and were human.

Have you read about who may have benn translators of the kjv? Google shakespear and the bible. I do believe that god is great, but the books were compiled by man.

I am writing from my phone so i hope this makes sense and not too much is mispelled.

Great discussion! Please don't get hard feelings toward others opinions. That is why we have such a wonderful forum. We can all learn from each other. I love hearing others opinions, :grouphug:

[Greta]

Someone else answered this which is my opinion also. We do not have originals. Google constantine and the bible to see how the books were chosen. Scribes wrote down the books and they spoke different dialects, spelled differently, and were human.

Have you read about who may have benn translators of the kjv? Google shakespear and the bible. I do believe that god is great, but the books were compiled by man.

I am writing from my phone so i hope this makes sense and not too much is mispelled.

Great discussion! Please don't get hard feelings toward others opinions. That is why we have such a wonderful forum. We can all learn from each other. I love hearing others opinions, :grouphug:

 

Oh, no, no, no. No hard feelings here, I promise! :grouphug: I'm sorry if I sounded too incredulous -- it wasn't intentional. It's just that I've heard many arguments about the accuracy of various translations, but I've never heard someone say that there were errors in the originals before. So I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant. I do realize that the definition of an original can be . . . complex. :) As you and Alessandra both discussed. I appreciate you both taking the time to clarify and explain. I can be slow, but I get what you mean. :D

 

I do have my own feelings and opinions about the authorship of the Bible of course. But being a "baby" in the faith, I'm not equipped or inclined to discuss them. I hope you understand, I'm just trying to say that there was no intention to start an argument or debate on my part. I was just a little confused and wanted to make sure I knew what you meant.

 

Thank you for a very interesting conversation!

[ourjourneys]

I didn't think you were upset. I had started the thread and just wanted to make sure it stays friendly :) thanks for sharing!

Oh, no, no, no. No hard feelings here, I promise! :grouphug: I'm sorry if I sounded too incredulous -- it wasn't intentional. It's just that I've heard many arguments about the accuracy of various translations, but I've never heard someone say that there were errors in the originals before. So I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant. I do realize that the definition of an original can be . . . complex. :) As you and Alessandra both discussed. I appreciate you both taking the time to clarify and explain. I can be slow, but I get what you mean. :D

 

I do have my own feelings and opinions about the authorship of the Bible of course. But being a "baby" in the faith, I'm not equipped or inclined to discuss them. I hope you understand, I'm just trying to say that there was no intention to start an argument or debate on my part. I was just a little confused and wanted to make sure I knew what you meant.

 

Thank you for a very interesting conversation!

[Lovedtodeath]

The Bible Canon is a particular interest of mine. I have looked into it extensively, but here are a couple of quotes to get you started:

 

The Bible Canon was established by the church of martyrs before Constantine came to power. "Writings from the first century CE that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or 'gospels that were written later were not included. This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine..."--Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune.

 

Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures: "The Church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians has always considered the authoritative Word from God."

 

Since I believe that the Bible is truth I also believe that Christians were given a superhuman gift of holy spirit to discern which sayings were truly inspired by God. 1 Corinthians 12:4,10 I also remember reading that the Bible Canon was decided in many different congregations and countries with the same results.

 

From the latter part of the second century CE some writers were already commenting on the canonicity of the Bible books. We can also see from existing manuscripts of the second and third centuries that the Greek Scriptures that were part of the Bible Canon were more widely copied and distributed. We can also see that the manuscripts that are part of the Bible Canon are in harmony with the other scriptures. (2 Tim. 1:13) The apocryphal writings are quite different.

[TravelingChris]

THe Jehovah's Witnesses use a Bible that the rest of Christians don't use. I guess it is the NWT. They do not believe in the Trinity. Neither do a very few other groups. The vast majority of churches that say they are Christian do believe in the Trinity. That includes Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and on and on.

 

The fact that JW use a different Bible is why sometimes we have disagreements here about things like celebrating birthdays.

[Lovedtodeath]

They do not believe in the Trinity. Neither do a very few other groups. The vast majority of churches that say they are Christian do believe in the Trinity. That includes Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and on and on.

True

 

The fact that JW use a different Bible is why sometimes we have disagreements here about things like celebrating birthdays.

The Birthday issue has nothing to do with our translation of the Bible.

 

THe Jehovah's Witnesses use a Bible that the rest of Christians don't use. I guess it is the NWT.

Actually we use many translations, not just the one, though the NWT is our favorite.

 

It has stood up to tests of accuracy, and the publishers often publish articles explaining their reasons for wording things differently than the majority, including information on other texts and the original languages. But, like Pamela said, one can study a different translation and still come away with Bible truth. There are people who study with the witnesses and insist on using their own translation. We are happy to oblige. The witnesses used the KJV as their main Bible before NWT was published.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The fact that JW use a different Bible is why sometimes we have disagreements

I am sorry. I just realized that I may not be understanding this right, so I need to answer this again. JWs have the same scriptures as everyone else. We don't have a separate Bible like Mormons or Muslims.