What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by mippop

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

I prefer the earlier English when we still had a second person singular, too. However, many modern translators don't worry about number. If I recall correctly, the NRSV and other change the singular to the plural in order to be gender-inclusive. For instance, it's not "Blessed is the man who ... " but "Blessed are they who ... "

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Here's a few quotes I found from my bookshelf

I'll try to get back to that later when I can give it more time.

[mippop]

Originally Posted by Smoke

For instance, it's not "Blessed is the man who ... " but "Blessed are they who ... "

I recognize this verse as being the beginning of Psalm 1. The Hebrew for this is "Ashrei ha-ish...". I would translate it more literally as "Content is the man who...". The addition of neutral gender version tends to underscore my claim that translations are generally little more than editorial commentaries from the translator.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by mippop

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

And it is true that the KJV may be the most "accurate" word for word translation, however it also comes with frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies in translation.

Otherwise, you make some very good points. I would like to add (once again) the importance of scholarly translations and Study Bibles for in-depth study, as well as numerous translations.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Smoke

To believe that the ancient Israelites were monolatrous, one would have to be almost completely ignorant of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and of the Tanakh itself.

Vastly mistaken, and I promise you I am ignorant in neither. To begin with, the Hebrew Bible never denies the existence of other gods. The texts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah most often appealed to in opposition to that fact make no such claims, but are rather simple rhetoric meant to reject the relevance or worth of the other gods. That rhetoric is couched in only a couple ways. The texts either say, "I am God, there is no other," or "There is no god beside me," or a conflation of the two (Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 21). In Isa 47:8-10 Babyon makes the same claim. Nineveh does it in Zech 2:15. This isn't to say the author is asserting these cities were the only cities in existence, or that the cities thought they were.

The key lies in Isa 40:17, which states that the nations of the world are "as nothing" (כְּאַ֣יִן and מֵאֶ֥פֶס, same as Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 45:5, 21) to him. This doesn't mean they don't exist, but that they're inconsequential. Thus Deut 32:21 has YHWH angry with Israel for chasing after what is "no god." His retribution will be to chastise them with what is "no country" (Assyria). The country isn't non-existent, but in the Israelite worldview it is irrelevant. The texts that seem to deny the existence of other gods do not do so, but simply deny their efficacy or relevance to Israel. They are not to be worshipped. See Michael Heiser's treatment here.

That the Hebrew Bible in numerous places mentions other gods as existing is absolutely undeniable. A few more important examples will suffice. The original text of Deut 32:8 states that El Elyon divied up the nations to the "sons of Bull El" (see Jan Joosten, "A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8," Vetus Testamentum 57 [3007]: 548-55, for why this reconstruction is preferable to the more common "Sons of God"). Then verse 43 valls upon these gods to worship YHWH. They also participate in the divine council and are stewards over the several nations of the earth. See Gen 6:2; Exod 15:11; Job 1:6; Ps 29:1; 82; 89:7; 95:3. None of these texts can be asserted to reference angels or rulers.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

Actually it's Early Modern English. Middle English runs until the 15th century. KJV was executed in the 17th century.

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

And it is true that the KJV may be the most "accurate" word for word translation, however it also comes with frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies in translation.

It's not even close to the most accurate word for word translation, the use of second person plural pronouns and conjugations notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Otherwise, you make some very good points. I would like to add (once again) the importance of scholarly translations and Study Bibles for in-depth study, as well as numerous translations.

I think learning the languages is the best way to study the Bible in depth. Without that knowledge you're always working with second-hand information, committing to interpretations based on whose scholarship you prefer to trust rather than what you can discern personally.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Actually it's Early Modern English. Middle English runs until the 15th century. KJV was executed in the 17th century.

Okay, so it's kind of a "transitional" English.

It's not even close to the most accurate word for word translation, the use of second person plural pronouns and conjugations notwithstanding.

I'm mostly basing this statement on Robert Alter's complaints on modern translations in the introduction to his translation of the Torah.

I think learning the languages is the best way to study the Bible in depth. Without that knowledge you're always working with second-hand information, committing to interpretations based on whose scholarship you prefer to trust rather than what you can discern personally.

I agree. The problem is that it takes a long time to learn these old languages. It's good, therefore, to have something to go off of in the meantime.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by mippop

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

The KJV is written in Middle English, not Old English. If it was written in Old English, then you would need a translation from Old English to Modern English.

Oops!

Riverwolf has already cover that.

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Middle-English, not Old English. ^_^

riverwolf.

[Smoke]

Just a note:

Thou and thee are singular.

You and ye are plural.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Smoke

Just a note:

Thou and thee are singular.

You and ye are plural.

Additionally, in middle english and old english the "th" of "thee" and "thou" was usually a thorn.