Split-off thread: Bible translations for study

[Jesse]

So I guess there isn't an online version that I could find. I will look for it around town. Looking at all of these translations gave me an idea. How about one for Bronies? It could be titled; Bronie Bible: Jesus is Magic. Might work...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

My usual preference is the NRSV, but I also like the ESV; and for the Old Testament, I also utilize the JPS Tanakh translation.

[Truthseeker]

That's a good version for reading. Not for study.

You say the ESV is not for study. Did you write that knowing the companion website www.esvonline.org ?

[Cow Poke]

You say the ESV is not for study.

yes

Did you write that knowing the companion website www.esvonline.org ?

yes

There's a difference between "reading it" and "utilizing the study tools".

[phat8594]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but what would you say is a good version for study? I don't have an ESV, but I'm curious what you think.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-Tra...+all+its+worth


If you really want to study -- use multiple translations from different ends of the 'functional equivalent' and 'formal equivalent' spectrum.

The words 'paraphrase' and 'literal' with regards to translation miscommunicate the reality of what is going on in translation. ALL translations by definition interpret and are imperfect. Different languages have different grammar, constructs, semantic ranges, etc -- so it is really a difficult task to translate -- especially given the fact that the Bible deals with ancient languages.

So get multiple translations and use them all. Versions such as NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, NLT, are all good. Check out the book above if you want more info on choosing a translation.

[37818]

Each translation has features unique to it. The old English, the thee, thou and thine, are singular for the word "you." And ye, you and your are the plural. The advantage, don't need to know Greek or the Hebrew for singular pronouns.

The NKJV in the New Testament has notes, NU and M. NU, the N being Nestle-Aland Greek text reading, and U the United Bible Society reading. M the Majority Greek text reading. The common reading as found in the New Testament Greek manuscripts. Now also referred to as the Greek family 35 readings.

The KJV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV also use italicize words to show words provided by the translator that is not in the original language being translated. With most other translations you have know way of knowing without consulting the Greek or Hebrew, if you know how. Some translations use brackets [].

[Littlejoe]

Even though I love the rich "...marvelous expression of the English language..." found in the KJV, I think it's becoming a demarcation line of, those that are KJVonlyist's, and those that basically "shun" it...

[One Bad Pig]

In their book “How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth,” Greek scholar Gordon Fee (AOG) and Hebrew scholar Doug Stuart (Baptist) give this advice concerning the KJV and it's contemporary version the New King James Version (NKJV):

Source: Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Doug, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed." (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2003) p.40

The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed, it coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes—and we must note that there are many of them—make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language—and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV)—it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or NKJV.

© Copyright Original Source

Even though I love the rich "...marvelous expression of the English language..." found in the KJV, I think it's becoming a demarcation line of, those that are KJVonlyist's, and those that basically "shun" it...

Doug Stewart, as a Hebrew scholar, has no business opining on the New Testament text - and the NKJV footnotes the differences between the "Received Text", the Majority Text (which is essentially what the Greek Orthodox Church has been using all along), and the eclectic NU text which is preferred by most Protestant scholars today. And I disagree that the archaic way of speaking was the best feature of the KJV.

[footwasher]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but what would you say is a good version for study? I don't have an ESV, but I'm curious what you think.

Study bibles inevitably introduce denominational slants, a good reason for avoiding them:


https://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/...v-study-bible/

[phat8594]

Doug Stewart, as a Hebrew scholar, has no business opining on the New Testament text - and the NKJV footnotes the differences between the "Received Text", the Majority Text (which is essentially what the Greek Orthodox Church has been using all along), and the eclectic NU text which is preferred by most Protestant scholars today. And I disagree that the archaic way of speaking was the best feature of the KJV.

Are you being sarcastic?

After all, Gordon Fee IS a Greek scholar.

[Jesse]

In their book “How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth,” Greek scholar Gordon Fee (AOG) and Hebrew scholar Doug Stuart (Baptist) give this advice concerning the KJV and it's contemporary version the New King James Version (NKJV):

Source: Fee, Gordon and Stuart, Doug, "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed." (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2003) p.40

The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed, it coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire,” “the skin of my teeth,” “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes—and we must note that there are many of them—make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language—and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV)—it was decided by some to “update” the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text). This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or NKJV.

© Copyright Original Source

Even though I love the rich "...marvelous expression of the English language..." found in the KJV, I think it's becoming a demarcation line of, those that are KJVonlyist's, and those that basically "shun" it...

I hate that there is a line like that at all. I might not use the KJV, but there is no reason to think it is worthless. I would only shun the translations that are known to be truly faulty. Most all translations are worth reading.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I hate that there is a line like that at all. I might not use the KJV, but there is no reason to think it is worthless. I would only shun the translations that are known to be truly faulty. Most all translations are worth reading.

What do you mean by "known to be truly faulty?" I'm assuming that would include something like, say, the New World Translation, which uses the word "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament despite the fact that this word is never utilized in the Greek (amongst other questionable translation choices). However, the KJV's New Testament was based upon a tiny, incomplete, and likely inaccurate set of Greek manuscripts; I would certainly consider that to be "truly faulty" (though certainly not due to any intentional or deliberate drive of the translators).

[One Bad Pig]

Are you being sarcastic?

No.

After all, Gordon Fee IS a Greek scholar.

Yes, he is. I have no problem with Gordon Fee opining on the New Testament text.

[37818]

What do you mean by "known to be truly faulty?" I'm assuming that would include something like, say, the New World Translation, which uses the word "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament despite the fact that this word is never utilized in the Greek (amongst other questionable translation choices). However, the KJV's New Testament was based upon a tiny, incomplete, and likely inaccurate set of Greek manuscripts; I would certainly consider that to be "truly faulty" (though certainly not due to any intentional or deliberate drive of the translators).

Check out the bases for the NT Greek family 35.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nt+greek+family+35

[phat8594]

No.


Yes, he is. I have no problem with Gordon Fee opining on the New Testament text.

The only reason I asked is because the book was co-authored by Stuart & Fee... That's why I was a little confused. But -- I guess it's neither here nor there.