• 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!

Favourite Bible translation?

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
So, for our resident Christians:
What is your selection criteria when it comes to Hebrew scripture?​
I personally use the Jewish Study Bible. I was told that the translation wasn't anything special per se but the notes were very good.

For a Christian Bible, I look to make sure that they used the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also check Isaiah 7:14 to see if they translated it to say virgin or young woman (or the like). If it is translated to virgin, I discard it. Also, if the notes try to show that Jesus was the messiah, I also discard it.
 

Shermana

Heretic
New World - maybe the worst
New Living
Holeman Bible
Amplified Bible
The Message Bible

I'm assuming you think the New World translation is the worst because it translates John 1:1 with "And the word was a god?" (Note this is a question without intention to debate)

I at least agree the NLT is one of the worst, but it is useful for a few passages where context is often distorted, and equally bad in other places where it deliberately distorts the context.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Does anyone have an opinion on the NET?

I have thought about reading it, since it's free online.

Their note on John 1:1c is worth noting.

3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
 

pwfaith

Active Member
Hey guys

I'm curious: what is your favourite Bible translation, and why do you like it most of all?

Do you use one translation for "colloquial" reading and another for "study" purposes?


Thanks :)

My favorite is the NIrV. I just like it for it's easy reading and understandability.

I do compare other translations for study purposes - usually the NASB, NIV, KJV, Living, Message and Amplified.
 

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
I personally use the Jewish Study Bible. I was told that the translation wasn't anything special per se but the notes were very good.

I've been using the same. I like that the editors note where conflics arise and add the historical background to the books. I've enjoyed the essays as well.

I've recently picked up Fox's The Five Books of Moses. I haven't read it yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
 

Shermana

Heretic

Edit: This is not a debate board. My error. But I will point out that sources like these seem to consider the following translation inferior due to Theological rather than Grammatical issues. I particularly like the NLT in CERTAIN cases like this, whereas this comparison site considers it faulty though by calling it Mediocre, seems to agree that it is correct grammar.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]Jesus answered, “The truth is, [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]I existed before Abraham was even born[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]!” NLT[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

pwfaith

Active Member
Edit: This is not a debate board. My error. But I will point out that sources like these seem to consider the following translation inferior due to Theological rather than Grammatical issues. I particularly like the NLT in CERTAIN cases like this, whereas this comparison site considers it faulty though by calling it Mediocre, seems to agree that it is correct grammar.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]Jesus answered, “The truth is, [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]I existed before Abraham was even born[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial]!” NLT[/FONT]

This thread seems to be about preference, not which translation is most accurate/literal/etc. "Favorite Bible Translation" is purely preference based. There is another thread regarding what is considered the most "accurate" translation. As I said there, to answer that one would have to define "accurate" - is it most accurate of the "word-for-word" translations or "thought-for-thought" translations. We had a pastor come talk to our church a few years ago and I wish I had recorded him. He talked about how there really isn't an "inferior" translations, they all have different missions so to speak. If the goal is to translate from the original text directly into english, then then NASB and interlinear translations do that with the most accuracy. If the goal is to provide a translation that offers understanding of the original text while attempting to stay as close to the original/literal translation as possible, then the NIV does that with the most accuracy. If the goal is to simply offer explanation and meaning the Message and NLT does that likely the most accurate. None are truly "best" or "better" than the others. They all serve a purpose depending on the readers need or desire.

The links are not saying one is inferior to another. They give a comparison, which is what you asked for. The NLT is not a "literal" or "word-for-word" translation. Again, that doesn't make it bad, it simply means they do not attempt to translate the original language directly into english without considering how it will flow. The NLT considers how it will read to the average person and makes it more understandable.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
This thread seems to be about preference, not which translation is most accurate/literal/etc. "Favorite Bible Translation" is purely preference based. There is another thread regarding what is considered the most "accurate" translation. As I said there, to answer that one would have to define "accurate" - is it most accurate of the "word-for-word" translations or "thought-for-thought" translations. We had a pastor come talk to our church a few years ago and I wish I had recorded him. He talked about how there really isn't an "inferior" translations, they all have different missions so to speak. If the goal is to translate from the original text directly into english, then then NASB and interlinear translations do that with the most accuracy. If the goal is to provide a translation that offers understanding of the original text while attempting to stay as close to the original/literal translation as possible, then the NIV does that with the most accuracy. If the goal is to simply offer explanation and meaning the Message and NLT does that likely the most accurate. None are truly "best" or "better" than the others. They all serve a purpose depending on the readers need or desire.

The links are not saying one is inferior to another. They give a comparison, which is what you asked for. The NLT is not a "literal" or "word-for-word" translation. Again, that doesn't make it bad, it simply means they do not attempt to translate the original language directly into english without considering how it will flow. The NLT considers how it will read to the average person and makes it more understandable.

Actually, the links ARE calling them superior or inferior, that's why they have the ranking system with "Medicore" as what they highlight to use verses that don't fit to the party line. I highlighted this to show that these sites' preferences are a perfect example of the bias towards Theological doctrine than actual literal word-for-word, because sometimes the word-for-word reveals holes in their doctrine and they know they have a Trinitarian market to write to. Whereas they call a particular translation "Mediocre", I consider a version my prefered. If it were an issue of what flowed as opposed to what was accurate, anyone could make it say anything as long as it sounded good.

While the NLT is often guilty of distorting the true text for doctrine, I often prefer it for certain key verses where it is one of the only ones that gets the context right, even if liberties are taken. In the case of 8:58, it appears by saying "I existed before Abraham was" is where they do in fact translate it correctly, though this may not be the case in recent edits due to market pressure. Likewise, Young's and the Douay Rheims (often but not always) are the only ones able to get close to a difficult passage in a way that undermines the "Doctrinal" way of reading it.
 
Last edited:
Top