-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which English edition of the Bible is the best?
- Thread starter pgd
- Start date
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
The Scriptures > The Jerusalem Bible.
imho
http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/
i believe a collection to compare is better than 1 imo.
imho
http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/
i believe a collection to compare is better than 1 imo.
I like to read the King James Version as a result of it's poetic style. It's gotten to the point that I don't feel like I'm reading the Bible unless it's in King James style. However, each version has it's strengths and weaknesses and one should exercise judgment in that regard. In other words, I favor the King James without dismissing other editions.
Jamie
Jamie
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I like the NIV when I am not reading the Greek.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Don't be, I never read the Greek. (Gotcha!) It's the NIV for me. I do dabble in the Greek but am NOT a Greek scholar.
(Gotcha!) It's the NIV for me. I do dabble in the Greek but am NOT a Greek scholar.
t3gah
Well-Known Member
I used to like the New World Translation and I've checked out the American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, King James Version, New King James Version, Amplified Bible, New International Version, Scofield Bible, Bible in Basic English, and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible is missing Psalms 83:16-18 which is weird. I like the World English Bible these days.
Ever since I started my quest for the most accurate bible and posted them on my "Errors in Bible translations..." thread, I never really thought about categorizing any of them into a "Best Bible" league.
But, the best..... now that I seen there's "The Scriptures", I'm going to have to hold off on "the best" which I was going to say about the World English Bible, until I check out "The Scriptures". Of course I'm going to keep all of the other bibles for reference. All the translations are nice, but they all have errors. But the worst is the KJV 'unicorn' bit. Unsettling to say the least. Hope "The Scriptures" isn't like the rest......
Ever since I started my quest for the most accurate bible and posted them on my "Errors in Bible translations..." thread, I never really thought about categorizing any of them into a "Best Bible" league.
But, the best..... now that I seen there's "The Scriptures", I'm going to have to hold off on "the best" which I was going to say about the World English Bible, until I check out "The Scriptures". Of course I'm going to keep all of the other bibles for reference. All the translations are nice, but they all have errors. But the worst is the KJV 'unicorn' bit. Unsettling to say the least. Hope "The Scriptures" isn't like the rest......
I read the King James version because it was developed from manuscripts that were poured over for historical and doctrinal accuracies. The scholars gathered manuscripts and compared them one to another and to the old testament. Any scriptures that contained errors were dismissed. The King James version was formulated from the Textus receptus which is the underlying Greek text. The manuscripts that comprise the Textus Receptus agree with all known scripture 95 percent and number over 5000. All recent versions have been formulated from older manuscripts that were found that contain errors both in doctrine and historical accuracy. Westcott and Hort formulated the English Revised Edition from manuscripts found in the Vatican and the Sinaiticus (CodexAleph) which was found in a monastary wastebasket. This manuscript had over 12,000 changes to it. THe New American Standard Version uses the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New testament, which is patterned after the corrupt Westcott-Hort edition. The new versions leave out sections of scripture- some are Acts 8:37, Mark 7-9, and they change portions in many different instances. When the King James Version was directly translated from the Septuagint and the greek new testament, the scholars had to add in certain words in order for the text to flow in a logical manner. THey put these words in italics so that the reader would know for sure that these were the words of the scholars and NOT the word of God. The new versions of the Bible do NOT put words in italic, but completely change the sentence structure- the reader cannot know which is the word of God and which is not. Revelation 22:19 testifies that judgement will be upon any who change the Words that God has written.
t3gah
Well-Known Member
All of that and they, the persons who translated the KJV version, got the Hebrew word re'em, which means oxen or cow mixed up with Unicorn, a mythical animal.keevelish said:
Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalms 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalms 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalms 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalms 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
No*s
Captain Obvious
I don't think this is very easily quantifiable. I can say what of some versions I like over the others, but there are several categories to consider:
1). What text-type does it use? Depending on you theory of textual criticism, it may start off with a bad text to begin with (most modern versions are based on the basic text-type scholars agree on). We can't be more specific, because there are few translations that follow a single text.
2). What translation method does it use? The rules of evaluation are a little different based on what theory they're adhering to. You may prefer one over the other, but that simply eliminates certain methods from your evaluation.
3). Find qualified sources. While I read Greek, I don't Hebrew or Aramaic. Do you really want to take the word of someone dropping out of the blue on the net on this matter? For all you know, none of us know the languages, and I'm shooting smoke rings. Be careful who you trust.
Those are just three basic things to consider, and let everyone who reckons to answer be able to speak intelligently on those subjects. I haven't seriously evaluated enough translations to say "yea" or "nay" here. I can name ones I don't like (the NWT is one), but that's a far cry from naming the best. I'd have to have done critical work evaluating over 200 Bibles. I just haven't done the work.
1). What text-type does it use? Depending on you theory of textual criticism, it may start off with a bad text to begin with (most modern versions are based on the basic text-type scholars agree on). We can't be more specific, because there are few translations that follow a single text.
2). What translation method does it use? The rules of evaluation are a little different based on what theory they're adhering to. You may prefer one over the other, but that simply eliminates certain methods from your evaluation.
3). Find qualified sources. While I read Greek, I don't Hebrew or Aramaic. Do you really want to take the word of someone dropping out of the blue on the net on this matter? For all you know, none of us know the languages, and I'm shooting smoke rings. Be careful who you trust.
Those are just three basic things to consider, and let everyone who reckons to answer be able to speak intelligently on those subjects. I haven't seriously evaluated enough translations to say "yea" or "nay" here. I can name ones I don't like (the NWT is one), but that's a far cry from naming the best. I'd have to have done critical work evaluating over 200 Bibles. I just haven't done the work.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
thanks, i disagree with a few verses(which is like nothing in comparison to most versions imo), ex3:14 for instance but i hope you like it.it's my favorite that i've come across so far.t3gah said:
it's so refreshing to me after research in "Come Out of Her, My People"*.i don't think any one translation is perfect that i've come across.
*link to book, cheap(8$) for purchase if you're interested.
i hear "The Restoration Scriptures"^ is good as well.
^another link
here are some other translations
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/hebrewstudies/bibles.html
http://exegesesbibles.org/default.htm
http://www.onlinebible.net/bibles.html
It's called "confirmation bias".keevelish said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
As a noted humorist once remarked (and I can't think of his name), "It's not the things in the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, but the things that I do understand and don't do!".
I am thinking Will Rogers... but that's not quite right either. Maybe GK Chesterton.
I am thinking Will Rogers... but that's not quite right either. Maybe GK Chesterton.
I've read a lot of translations, and I've found that I like switching back and forth. My favorite probably goes between the New Jerusalem Bible and the King James simply because both of them sound nice. I grew up on the New Revised Standard, so I have a bias towards that as well.
For some reason not at all linked to logic I can't stand the NIV. It simply isn't fun for me to read. One of my parallel text Bibles has The Message in it (I'm pretty sure that's what it's called), and I'm not too fond of that, either.
I think my preferences are based on the literary quality of the texts more than the reliability. That may come of having been an English major.
I have a Greek New Testament. Too bad I don't read Greek.
For some reason not at all linked to logic I can't stand the NIV. It simply isn't fun for me to read. One of my parallel text Bibles has The Message in it (I'm pretty sure that's what it's called), and I'm not too fond of that, either.
I think my preferences are based on the literary quality of the texts more than the reliability. That may come of having been an English major.
I have a Greek New Testament. Too bad I don't read Greek.
Mskedi said:I've read a lot of translations, and I've found that I like switching back and forth. My favorite probably goes between the New Jerusalem Bible and the King James simply because both of them sound nice. I grew up on the New Revised Standard, so I have a bias towards that as well.
For some reason not at all linked to logic I can't stand the NIV. It simply isn't fun for me to read. One of my parallel text Bibles has The Message in it (I'm pretty sure that's what it's called), and I'm not too fond of that, either.
I think my preferences are based on the literary quality of the texts more than the reliability. That may come of having been an English major.
I have a Greek New Testament. Too bad I don't read Greek.
Well if you're just reading them for fun (while that's ok) Are you also hearing them? Because the word of God was given to us to tell of creation, of sinful man, of the saviour, and how we can have eternal life.
The reason you cannot stand the NIV should be because us humans had our filthy hands all over it (Same with the others=the KJV) And lets face it we are not and will never be smarter than God. So every time satan whispers in the ear of some scoffer, Hey you could make a better translation! They just come out sounding stupid, not to mention adding confusion to an already confusing world. God turned the heart of a King James (Yes he can do that Proverbs 21:1) who authorized the translating and printing of God's word into our language, God doesn't make errors, yet people say today that the KJV was altered, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions."Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read"(Isa. 34:16), and to "set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God"(Dan. 10:12). And "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth"(John 16:13), "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth [through Greek/Hebrew dictionaries], but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual"(I Cor. 2:13). "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."(Psa. 118:8). "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you"(I John 2:27). "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."(James 1:5) "The Holy Ghost ... shall teach you all things"(John 14:26).
Man is not perfect, God is.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Sorry dhiannian,
But the concept of an "inspired version" is NOT supported in the scriptures. If you are going to "hold" to them and them alone, then you will have to abandon this "teaching of man" as well. Either God can work through man's imperfection (as he did through Paul and Peter) or he can't. Revelation of his word does not come from reading the "correct version" but by the Holy Spirit revealing God's will for us as we study and make the effort to become more like God (grace).
You can't say "don't add one word to the Bible" and then tell us that in spite of no biblical references that the KJV is the "holy" Bible. I suggest that people read a Bible that is written in their language. No one currently speaks KJ English. Sure, some people try, but the nuances are just lost. Stick with a version you can really understand... it wil help you the most.
But the concept of an "inspired version" is NOT supported in the scriptures. If you are going to "hold" to them and them alone, then you will have to abandon this "teaching of man" as well. Either God can work through man's imperfection (as he did through Paul and Peter) or he can't. Revelation of his word does not come from reading the "correct version" but by the Holy Spirit revealing God's will for us as we study and make the effort to become more like God (grace).
You can't say "don't add one word to the Bible" and then tell us that in spite of no biblical references that the KJV is the "holy" Bible. I suggest that people read a Bible that is written in their language. No one currently speaks KJ English. Sure, some people try, but the nuances are just lost. Stick with a version you can really understand... it wil help you the most.
No*s
Captain Obvious
dhiannian said:Well if you're just reading them for fun (while that's ok) Are you also hearing them? Because the word of God was given to us to tell of creation, of sinful man, of the saviour, and how we can have eternal life.
"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read"(Isa. 34:16), and to "set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God"(Dan. 10:12). And "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth"(John 16:13), "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth [through Greek/Hebrew dictionaries], but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual"(I Cor. 2:13). "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."(Psa. 118:8). "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you"(I John 2:27). "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."(James 1:5) "The Holy Ghost ... shall teach you all things"(John 14:26).
Man is not perfect, God is.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. The KJV in my study of the original (albeit limited to the NT) certainly is flawed. It also started several regrettable translation trends IMO.
If we're going to judge things for inspiration, and do so from a Christian perspective, why aren't you out looking for a translation of the LXX? That, at least, was considered inspired by the Apostle Paul. Nobody can say something similar about the KJV. Even then, though, it still has error and has been combined with other translations over time (the Old Greek Daniel was replaced by a later verison for instance).