The Best Bible Version

[Jason Gastrich]

Hey sports fans,

Before I get into the new topic, I'm curious if everyone in here is a Preterist. Forgive me if this is blunt or seemingly off-subject.

As I've been posting to some Preterists, I've been noticing that they (apparently) never quote from the NIV or Living Bible. In fact, these versions often refute or contradict the points they make (I'm partly referring to some posts in the "Preterism 101" thread in the "Eschatology 101" section).

Is there a certain version that is considered more inspired than others? Are there certain versions that are considered "anathema"?

I have studied Bible versions in great detail. I've even written a couple of research papers on them. However, I'm not "baiting" anybody. I'm simply curious what you all think and believe.

I can share my research, later.

God bless,
Jason G

[John Reece]

With one vote, the winner, by 100%, is the Greek and Hebrew versions!

:smile:

That won't last long.

:smile:

[Jason Gastrich]

O ye of little faith. Just kidding.

JG

P.S. Is there somewhere on the web where I can copy and paste Hebrew and/or Greek text into a translator and have it pop out English? I frequently use the Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary and the Strong's Concordance, but an online translator would be great.

[Robyn Banks]

Mine's the NRSV.

[Jason Gastrich]

Ok, Robyn. Why?

JG

[Robyn Banks]

Jason G:

Ok, Robyn. Why?

JG
It makes better translations of the original texts than any other you listed.

The New Jerusalem Bible isn't too bad, either. Close second.

Robyn

[Jason Gastrich]

Robyn,

Can you give a few, key passages that give better translations than the other versions?

JG

[Robyn Banks]

Jason G:
Can you give a few, key passages that give better translations than the other versions?
Yeah - but I'd have to have a look, and I can't be bothered. The NIV, by comparison, relies on some very weak translations, is loose, adds words at whim, and is more inconsistent in translation.

Robyn

[John Reece]

Today @ 09:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63867#post63867)
Jason G:

Hey sports fans,

Before I get into the new topic, I'm curious if everyone in here is a Preterist. Forgive me if this is blunt or seemingly off-subject.

As I've been posting to some Preterists, I've been noticing that they (apparently) never quote from the NIV or Living Bible. In fact, these versions often refute or contradict the points they make (I'm partly referring to some posts in the "Preterism 101" thread in the "Eschatology 101" section).



I have studied Bible versions in great detail. I've even written a couple of research papers on them. However, I'm not "baiting" anybody. I'm simply curious what you all think and believe.

I can share my research, later.

God bless,
Jason G

Hi Jason,

In response to your questions:

Is there a certain version that is considered more inspired than others? Are there certain versions that are considered "anathema"?

My answer to both questions -- speaking only for myself -- is, No.

The title of your thread is “The Best Bible Version”. I don’t think there is any such thing as the best Bible version.

For purposes of comparison, I use the following versions:

RSV
NRSV
ESV
NIV
TEV
NJB
NASB
REB


And, less frequently, others.

I value the ESV more than most. IMO, it is an optimum combination of what is good in other versions, minus what is bad in other versions.

What I consider “good” is an accurate rendering of what is said and meant in the source texts (Hebrew and Greek). I spent decades studying the source texts, so as not to be limited to what is screened through the presuppositions of translators and commentators when I read English versions. I compare the versions with the Hebrew and Greek texts to see which appears to me to be the more accurate rendering on a case-by-case basis.

What I consider “bad” in English versions are cases in which it seems clear to me that presuppositions on the part of translators purposely and unnecessarily distort the rendering in the English version.

Examples include cases in which premillennial presuppositions prevent an accurate rendering. Case in point, the failure to accurately render Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:64. The ESV gets it right where most other versions got it wrong:

Matthew 26
64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ESV)

See the exegesis for that assertion here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1545

And the reference here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2344

One major criticism I have of the NRSV, which is quite excellent otherwise, is the fact that the feminist agenda is allowed to do violence to the Hebrew and Greek meaning in most cases where sexual identity is a factor in the text.

It is quite appropriate for any English version to discard a rigid use of the English word “man” to translate the Greek word “anthropos", which does not refer to males but to people of both sexes. Most people used to be able to discern a generic sense of “man” to mean not just “men” but “people” in biblical texts wherein the context indicates that is the obvious meaning.

But the NRSV recognizes no limit to the agenda to emasculate the words of the Bible wherever possible. The examples are countless. Here are a few:

The Greek word for “brother” is almost always rendered by means of gender-neutral words, solely to avoid the use of a word that refers to males. Example: In Matthew 25:40, And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” The words in bold print are the NRSV rendering of the Greek equivalent of “my brothers”.

Wherever possible, the Hebrew and Greek words for “father” are rendered in the NRSV by the words “ancestor” or “parent”.

Where the Greek word for “sons”, meaning adult males, occurs, the NRSV rendering is usually “children”, thus not only blurring the sense of masculinity but also the sense of maturity.

I could go on and on. But I’m tired and hungry….

[GrayPilgrim]

I like John prefer the ESV. Moreover, I am rather put off by the NRSV, for hte same reason. The usual example I give is the manner in which it translates "Son of Man" in Ezekiel. I translates it as mortal. The problem is that in the NT when Jesus calls himself Son of Man he is more often than not referring to "Son of Man" as described in Ezekiel, i.e. a humble servant. Unfortunately because it translates it as Mortal then the reader will try to fit it into the Danielic "Son of Man". George Eldon Ladd in his book A Theology of the New Testament sets out the two motifs of Son of Man (it was first published about two decades before the NRSV, so it is just a good source on the use of Son of Man in the Gospels).

GP

[dizzle]

I use the NKJV the most simply becuase it is the one used by my church. The NIV I use also but it is not a word for word translation and as such translator's bias factors more into the equation than in others. I also use the NAS a lot. While Jason made the comment that the NIV contradicts preterist points, using a translation in that manner is illegitimate, if there is a disputed point such as that, one is going to have to try to go back to the original languages. It is no secret whatsoever that almost every translator of the major versions is futurist, so the more proper observation is this.... not that some passages that CAN be rendered in a more pro-preterist way are instead rendered in a more pro-futurist way BUT why some passages that forum debate participants keep insisting can be rendered a different way (i.e. generation meaning anything other than generation or soon meaning anything other than soon) are NOT rendered that way by ANY major pro-futurist translation who have no desire whatsover to throw preterists a bone. Now that is the question to ask.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64034#post64034)
Dee Dee Warren:

I use the NKJV the most simply becuase it is the one used by my church. The NIV I use also but it is not a word for word translation and as such translator's bias factors more into the equation than in others. I also use the NAS a lot. While Jason made the comment that the NIV contradicts preterist points, using a translation in that manner is illegitimate, if there is a disputed point such as that, one is going to have to try to go back to the original languages. It is no secret whatsoever that almost every translator of the major versions is futurist, so the more proper observation is this.... not that some passages that CAN be rendered in a more pro-preterist way are instead rendered in a more pro-futurist way BUT why some passages that forum debate participants keep insisting can be rendered a different way (i.e. generation meaning anything other than generation or soon meaning anything other than soon) are NOT rendered that way by ANY major pro-futurist translation who have no desire whatsover to throw preterists a bone. Now that is the question to ask.

Dee Dee,

with the preterist point of view in the Bible you may want to look for a software package called the Aqarian Bible. It has sections you can choose to create a Bible how your views work. One bad point to it is you can choose if you want parts in it like not believeing in Christ or homosexuality as well. It has been off the market for several years but if you run across it it would be a good find.

[dizzle]

Wow, NS that sounds really cool. Any suggestions on where I might find such a thing? Does anyone here have it?

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 10:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64128#post64128)
Dee Dee Warren:

Wow, NS that sounds really cool. Any suggestions on where I might find such a thing? Does anyone here have it?

I wish I could get my hands on it. It was avail. here before I started working here. Now all I have is the name and company ( Aqarian Software ) I think they are gone now!!!

[Jaltus]

The Greek and then the ESV.


I don't believe in Hebrew because it doesn't believe in me.

[John Reece]

I don't believe in Hebrew because it doesn't believe in me.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ric]

I voted the NASB as the number one favorite translation of mine. And after a lot of reading in the new ESV, that is now my second favorite translation of Scripture into English.

I also use the Hebrew and Greek texts, but if anyone could read both Hebrew and Greek like I can read English, have at it as your favorite!

We just need to beware of texts like the TNIV and the NRSV, both of those pervert God's inspired Word.

[Ric]

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64222#post64222)
Jaltus:


I don't believe in Hebrew because it doesn't believe in me.

Now that funny! LOL http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gif

[Jason Gastrich]

Can someone give me some info about the ESV?

I like reading the NKJV. However, I usually use several Bibles at once in QuickVerse. I also use the KJV with "Strong's Numbers", so I can go directly to the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Very soon, JCSM will have our "Study Center" online. It will contain numerous Bibles, study tools, ancient texts, etc. I'll give the link when it becomes available.

If you all would like to see my research on Bible translations, here are two research papers I wrote:

http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BBV.htm

http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/KJV.htm

God bless,
JG

[Ric]

Today @ 10:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64671#post64671)
Jason G:

Can someone give me some info about the ESV?

God bless,
JG

The ESV Translation Philosophy (Click Here) (http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv_philosophy/)

[Jason Gastrich]

I know some of these guys that endorse the ESV. Walvoord was an awesome man (incidentally, he wrote a fantastic book called, "Every Prophecy of the Bible"). I took Greek from Dr. Baugh at Westminster.

Is there an online ESV that I can read?

JG

[Ric]

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64726#post64726)
Jason G:

I know some of these guys that endorse the ESV. Walvoord was an awesome man (incidentally, he wrote a fantastic book called, "Every Prophecy of the Bible"). I took Greek from Dr. Baugh at Westminster.

Is there an online ESV that I can read?

JG

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Click Here) (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/)

[Jason Gastrich]

Thanks Ric! I'll check it out.

Is the ESV your favorite version, too?

JG

[Ric]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65343#post65343)
Jason G:

Thanks Ric! I'll check it out.

Is the ESV your favorite version, too?

JG

My favorite for Bible study is the NASB, and my favorite for just plain reading is the NIV (I also have the whole NIV on CD and listen to that in my car).

But the more I use the ESV for both study and reading I can say that the ESV has now surpassed the NIV as my favorite reading translation.

So I guess I would say that the order of my favs (1 being the best) is:
1. NASB
2. ESV
3. NIV
4. NKJV
5. KJV
etc...

[AVmetro]

I use the NKJV for "casual" reading but I voted for the NASB as it is the most accurate.

[Jason Gastrich]

I have the NIV on audio CD, too. Stephen Johnston speaks it and it is great for zipping through the Bible. Plus, when I REALLY want something to sink in, I'll read it and hear it at the same time. :read: :em7:

If anybody doesn't have the Bible on audio CD, I have about half of it online. I'm uploading a book or two each week. Link: http://sa.jcsm.org

God bless,
Jason

[joelkaki]

I mostly use the NKJV. I like the ESV OK, too, but I don't really use mine that much. But I still love the majesty of the old KJV. NASB is good too.

I don't quote from the NIV because it does not seem to be as accurate as others, plus I don't like how it is written. And I don't use the Living Bible because it is a paraphrase, not a translation.
I really have something against paraphrases.

Joel

[dizzle]

Some of the paraphrases though Joel do a great job with Matthew 24:34

[AVmetro]

I have the ESV but I haven't read any of it yet. I intend to though as I hear it is a good translation.

[joelkaki]

Today @ 10:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73206#post73206)
Dee Dee Warren:

Some of the paraphrases though Joel do a great job with Matthew 24:34

Maybe so. I haven't read that verse in one of the paraphrases. However, I think that though occasionally they may bring something out, it is much better to avoid them and stick with true translations.

Joel

[Ric]

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73236#post73236)
joelkaki:



Maybe so. I haven't read that verse in one of the paraphrases. However, I think that though occasionally they may bring something out, it is much better to avoid them and stick with true translations.

Joel

Matthew 24:34 Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died. (Good New Translation)

Matthew 24:34 I assure you, this generation will not pass from the scene before all these things take place. (NLT)

[doogieduff]

The Bible version closest to the original text is the New King James.

[doogieduff]

The NIV should stand for The Newly Inspired Version!

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73760#post73760)
doogieduff:

The Bible version closest to the original text is the New King James.

How do you know that? (not meaning to be critical - just interested)

[nomad]

i like the NASB, primarily because if you want to get strong's numbers in the text with e-sword, you either get KJV or NASB....and i use that feature a lot. and since the source texts don't always exactly match, having both around can be very helpful in one verse or certain words don't appear in the other...

i read the nkjv a lot, because it's the only version i have in print form.

and a friend showed me the 'literal translation' (LITV in e-sword, by jay green). apparently it is very good, he showed me a couple passages where he felt it was closer than the NASB to the originals.

[GrayPilgrim]

:huh: Ummm...I rather think the ESV is closest.

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73876#post73876)
GrayPilgrim:

:huh: Ummm...I rather think the ESV is closest.

Having read and re-read the Hebrew and Greek texts, and having compared all the major English versions, I too find the ESV to be the most consistently accurate, and the most accurate in contexts where it really matters (see the thread entitled "I Just Noticed" in this forum).

[GodisonePerson]

My favorite Bible version is the NWT.

Dan :hi:

[Ric]

Today @ 10:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73902#post73902)
GodisonePerson:

My favorite Bible version is the NWT.

Dan :hi:

Are you joking or are you a "Jehovah's Witness?"

[RevNeal]

I wrote the following for my church several years ago. It reflects my opinion on this issue.

As the Pastor of a Church, I am often asked about the many versions of the Bible that are available today and, specifically, about which one is the “best” one. This is a very interesting and often-times difficult question to answer because many factors must be taken into consideration when one is trying to determine which Bible translation to use. I mean, it’s not as if you’re trying to decide which kind of meat to put on your pizza, or even who to vote for President. No, you are trying to settle on something of far greater importance! “Which translation of the Word of God do I want to use?”

Firstly, one must remember that no matter which version you eventually buy and use, what you are buying is almost certainly a translation. There is no one single “best” or “perfect” translation on the market today. They are all the product of much research and much scholarly reflection -- they are, all of them, serious attempts to translate the Holy Word of God into other languages.

Secondly, one must remember that the tastes--the likes and dislikes--of a person are going to differ remarkably from one person to the next; hence, while Barbara may prefer the King James Version, Donald’s tastes and needs may lead him to prefer the New International Version. Now . . . is Barbara’s choice a better one than Donald’s because she has chosen to use the older, more “stately” version of the Scriptures? Or, is Donald’s choice a better one than Barbara’s because he is using a far more recent translation of the Scriptures? Not at all! At least at this level, neither judgment is true. The simple fact is that, be their translation the KJV or the NIV, Barbara and Donald both hold in their hands a translation of the Holy Scriptures which, in terms of message, is identical to the other’s.

Thirdly, the choice of a Bible should always reflect your purposes for buying it. I mean, do you want this translation for prayer-time, devotional reflection, public reading, or Bible Study? Likewise, are you buying it for yourself, or for someone else? Are you buying it to give to a child, a youth, or an adult? Are you buying it for someone with a vast education, or for someone with somewhat less? All of these factors are extremely important in determining which version to purchase. No one single version is good for “all of the above.” However, as a rule of thumb the more recent translations are going to be easier for the average person to read and comprehend for nearly all purposes. For Bible Studies the NASB is often looked upon as one of the best English versions because it is just about the most “literal” translation available. Its English rendering of both the Old and New Testaments tends to be somewhat “wooden,” but it does do an excellent job of rendering the Scriptures in a form quite similar to that of the original language. It is not, however, the best version for public reading. And, quite frankly, unless you are an exceptionally good reader, the 400 year old syntax and grammar of the KJV make it a poor selection for public reading as well. However, for devotional purposes--and, especially in the psalms--the KJV is often an excellent choice. In my opinion, the NIV, the RSV, and the NRSV are all good translations for public reading and, indeed, even Bible Study. However, certain theological and translational liberties have been taken in them that are not present in the more literal NASB. For example, the NRSV has strong Catholic and United Methodist (ie, Thomistic and Arminian) theological leanings, while the NIV tends to exhibit many particular Evangelical theological perspectives. The RSV, while also reflecting many of the same influences as the NRSV, tends to be more governed by some of the scholastic concerns of the mid-twentieth century.

The same can be said of nearly any other modern translation one might desire to use. The New King James Version, for example, cleans up many of the linguistic problems inherent in the KJV due to its extreme age, but it is still governed by the same theological convictions which governed the KJV: 17th century Anglicanism combined with some strong Calvinist and anti-Catholic leanings. This doesn’t make either the KJV or the NKJV “bad,” or “wrong.” It just means that whoever uses them for Bible Study should probably have an understanding of how the English language has changed over the centuries as well as a good working knowledge of basic Reformation Theology.

No matter which Bible you use, you will find some theological perspectives in play. There is no such thing as a “neutral” Bible, although some are more neutral than others.

[John Reece]

Welcome to TWeb, RevNeal!

[GrayPilgrim]

Great to have you and thanks for the post you wrote it shows an approach with wisdom and thoughtfulness! :thumb:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73858#post73858)
John Reece:



How do you know that? (not meaning to be critical - just interested)

The one area in which I definitely find NKJV superior is its use of the Majority text-type in the NT (the 'pew bible' without notes actually follows Textus Receptus, but the printed versions which contain notes consistently favor MajT over TR) as against ESV's preference for the Alexandrian text-type.

[Jaltus]

Why the MT over the Eclectic Text (not just Alexandrian)?

[joelkaki]

My favorite Bible version is the NWT.

Dan


Are you a Jehovah's Witness? If so, then perhaps you would care to go check out my offer for debate in the Coach's Quarters on they Deity of Christ?


Joel

[dizzle]

On the Aqarian Bible, I had just started a thread elsewhere as well about an ethical issue. If I were to find someone who has that program, would it be unethical to copy it since I can not buy it from the company? Today it seems like some Christians ride roughshod over copyright issues, so I thought this posed an interesting dilemna...thoughts?

[Blake Reas]

Does Doogie have some KJV Onlyism running through his blood?:pray: (Please God say no!)

Blake

P.S. The Textus Receptus is not all that great.

[RevSteve45]

Wow! I must be only person here who actually prefers the KJV! I believe that in most places, the KJV gives a very literal AND beautiful, poetic rendition of the Greek and Hebrew.

However, as far as the most literal of tramslations, that would probably be the NASB. The problem with this version is a lot of verses are left out. I also enjoy looking at the NKJV, particularly if the KJV language gets a bit convoluted and/or archaic.

However, I also have a 9-volume Greek/Interlinear New Testament with verse by verse commentary, and a 15-volume Hebrew/Inmterlinear OLD Testament with commentary, along with a 6-volume Greek NT Dictionary,, & 7-volume Hebrew-Chaldee OT Dictionary. The entire set is called The Complete Biblical Library, and it is an invaluable tool for Bible study!

[Ric]

Today @ 11:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98067#post98067)
RevSteve45:

However, as far as the most literal of tramslations, that would probably be the NASB. The problem with this version is a lot of verses are left out. I also enjoy looking at the NKJV, particularly if the KJV language gets a bit convoluted and/or archaic.

However, I also have a 9-volume Greek/Interlinear New Testament with verse by verse commentary, and a 15-volume Hebrew/Inmterlinear OLD Testament with commentary, along with a 6-volume Greek NT Dictionary,, & 7-volume Hebrew-Chaldee OT Dictionary. The entire set is called The Complete Biblical Library, and it is an invaluable tool for Bible study!

That's good for some lite studies! http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/poke.gif

I would like to know if all of that comes on a CD? I would break my back with all of that "lite" studying!

[mickiel]

The new scofield is by far the best i have yet to study, any king james version are the worst in my view.

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98067#post98067)
RevSteve45:

Wow! I must be only person here who actually prefers the KJV!

No. There are others. Look for Solly's posts :smile: .

[Solly]

But Solly is leaning towards the ESV.

[Solly]

04-21-2003 @ 02:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74202#post74202)
RevNeal:
I mean, it’s not as if you’re trying to decide which kind of meat to put on your pizza, or even who to vote for President.

Secondly, one must remember that the tastes--the likes and dislikes--of a person are going to differ remarkably from one person to the next; hence, while Barbara may prefer the King James Version, Donald’s tastes and needs may lead him to prefer the New International Version. Now . . . is Barbara’s choice a better one than Donald’s because she has chosen to use the older, more “stately” version of the Scriptures? Or, is Donald’s choice a better one than Barbara’s because he is using a far more recent translation of the Scriptures? Not at all!

Speaking as a minister myself, there does appear to be an amount of contradiction in these two paragraphs. Either the pastor is aware of which is the best translation, or it's peoples tastes that count. In the old days there was only one (two if you count the time when the Geneva and KJV were both around). It was simply a matter of getting to grips with the text in prayer - Bunyan did, and look what happened to him - modern people dont, they want it all up front. We live in a shopping mall mentality world, and Christians have been lured into it by publishers parading their latest version as the new standard, and sending it out in $50 study Bible editions to make money. To my mind it's time pastors stood up and said - this version is rubbish. It is most definitley not a matter of tastes, but of what is the best versions. (For me, KJV in the church, ESV & originals in my studies.) I consider the TNV, NLT and others to be not worth the papaer they are written on, and I would not kow tow to anyone's tastes in saying different.

rant over.

[RevSteve45]

Ric,

I wish The Complete Biblical Library was out on CD as well. It would make things a lot easier. Alas, it is only in book form. In fact, when the World Library Press completed the set, in early 2001 I believe, they went out of business, since that was their primary project. I am told, however, that most Assembly of God churches bought them for their libraries.

What I DO have on CD, however is PC Study Bible by Biblesoft. That has the KJV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible and Interlinear OT & NT, along with Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Dictionary, Matthew Henry Commentary, Adam Clarke Comentary, & Jamison, Fauset & Brown Commentary, Nave's Topical Bible, Nelson's Bible Dictionary, Unger's Bible Dictionary, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and Englishman's Concordance. It also has maps, photos & study outlines.

Most of those I don't use, however. Vine's is good, although not as comprehensive as my Greek & Hebrew Dictionary volumes of my commentary. Some of the commentaries are helpful too. I think the Interlinear Bible, however, is Jay Green's, and I've been told that some students have found mistakes in that version.

In His Service,
steve

[RevSteve45]

I have to say that this poll is probably not exactly accurate, imo. Notice that "Greek & Hebrew Texts" are in 2nd place, right behind the NASB. Well, yeah, but how many of us can actually READ Greek, let alone Hebrew?? I sure can't! Probably what a lot of people meant when they voted for "Greek & Hebrew Texts" was, the INTERLINEAR texts. I just felt the need to be honest & vote for the KJV, since, although I LOVE my interlinears, they are still a translation, and though the Hebrew or Greek text is right there, I cannot read it!

In His Service,
Steve

[Solly]

They also forgot the ESV in the poll, which might have changed things, and perhaps shouild have added the various literal translations, ie Green, Ricker Berry, Marshall, Bagster etc

[Jaltus]

A lot of us on TWeb actually CAN read Greek and Hebrew, though, myself being one of them.

Well, I can read Greek and stumble through Hebrew.

[GrayPilgrim]

And I can read the Hebrew and stumble through the Greek! Moreiver, at least six of us who voted for it have the ability to read at least one of the two.

Solly,

you are correct the NLT and TNIV are rubish ( I would also lump the OT of the NIV under that category as it is basically a paraphrase).

GP:solly:

[Ric]

Today @ 11:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98613#post98613)
RevSteve45:

Ric,

I wish The Complete Biblical Library was out on CD as well. It would make things a lot easier. Alas, it is only in book form. In fact, when the World Library Press completed the set, in early 2001 I believe, they went out of business, since that was their primary project. I am told, however, that most Assembly of God churches bought them for their libraries.

What I DO have on CD, however is PC Study Bible by Biblesoft. That has the KJV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible and Interlinear OT & NT, along with Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Dictionary, Matthew Henry Commentary, Adam Clarke Comentary, & Jamison, Fauset & Brown Commentary, Nave's Topical Bible, Nelson's Bible Dictionary, Unger's Bible Dictionary, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and Englishman's Concordance. It also has maps, photos & study outlines.

Most of those I don't use, however. Vine's is good, although not as comprehensive as my Greek & Hebrew Dictionary volumes of my commentary. Some of the commentaries are helpful too. I think the Interlinear Bible, however, is Jay Green's, and I've been told that some students have found mistakes in that version.

In His Service,
steve

Thanks Steve!

That sounds an awful lot like my computer, but I don't have the Unger's Bible Dictionary nor the Englishman's Concordance.

I do study from actual books from time to time, but the software on my computer shure has made life a bit more easy!

[Ric]

Today @ 11:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98623#post98623)
RevSteve45:

I have to say that this poll is probably not exactly accurate, imo. Notice that "Greek & Hebrew Texts" are in 2nd place, right behind the NASB. Well, yeah, but how many of us can actually READ Greek, let alone Hebrew?? I sure can't! Probably what a lot of people meant when they voted for "Greek & Hebrew Texts" was, the INTERLINEAR texts. I just felt the need to be honest & vote for the KJV, since, although I LOVE my interlinears, they are still a translation, and though the Hebrew or Greek text is right there, I cannot read it!

In His Service,
Steve

I noticed that too. :lol:

[Ric]

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98440#post98440)
Solly:

But Solly is leaning towards the ESV.

My fav is still the NASB, but Ric is starting to be leaning towards the ESV also!

[lostseptember]

I highly favor the NRSV, partly for the very reasons John R and GrayPilgrim dislike it!

[Ric]

Today @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99956#post99956)
lostseptember:

I highly favor the NRSV, partly for the very reasons John R and GrayPilgrim dislike it!

Yea, now that's a good reason :ahem: :no: :uhoh: :whack: :bonk: :poke:

[lostseptember]

If Scripure had been written from the point of view of a matriarchal society, I'm guessing you WOULD think it's a good reason!
:teeth:

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99956#post99956)
lostseptember:

I highly favor the NRSV, partly for the very reasons John R and GrayPilgrim dislike it!

Yesterday @ 01:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100038#post100038)
Ric:

Yea, now that's a good reason :ahem: :no: :uhoh: :whack: :bonk: :poke:

Definitely. John R and Gray Pilgrim are right, and have given good reasons for their views.

Then lostseptember continues with more politically correct nonsense.

If Scripure had been written from the point of view of a matriarchal society, I'm guessing you WOULD think it's a good reason!

You guess wrongly. For one thing, a translation is supposed to reflect the world view of the original document, not impose a foreign one. For another, if the Bible was merely a reflection of a society, then why bother at all? I take the Bible seriously only because it is written from the point of view of God Himself, ultimately.

[Sher]

:rant: Where's NKJV and YLT? :rant:


(:lol:)

I like different versions for different reasons ... I quote from NKJV and that is the one I read from ... and I study from a combination of versions .

[Ric]

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100402#post100402)
lostseptember:

If Scripure had been written from the point of view of a matriarchal society, I'm guessing you WOULD think it's a good reason!
:teeth:

Ever hear of "sarcasm"? :doh:

[lostseptember]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100430#post100430)
Socrates:



Definitely. John R and Gray Pilgrim are right, and have given good reasons for their views.

Then lostseptember continues with more politically correct nonsense.



You guess wrongly. For one thing, a translation is supposed to reflect the world view of the original document, not impose a foreign one. For another, if the Bible was merely a reflection of a society, then why bother at all? I take the Bible seriously only because it is written from the point of view of God Himself, ultimately. [/QUOTE]

So what is God's point of view on women?

[lostseptember]

Today @ 02:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100551#post100551)
Ric:



Ever hear of "sarcasm"? :doh:

Yes, but I'm guessing Socrates (or is it Socratism?) hasn't!

[Ric]

Today @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100785#post100785)
lostseptember:



Yes, but I'm guessing Socrates (or is it Socratism?) hasn't!

Okee-dokee! :teeth:

[kiwimac]

The very best version is the one you read~

Kiwimac

[Jason Gastrich]

Haha. Well put.

As Christ became real to me and as I left my life of continual sin and chose Him, I got into reading the Life Application Bible - Living Translation. It was really easy to read and understand. I couldn't put it down!

Several years later, I began to realize that it was a paraphrase and not a literal, word-for-word translation. Therefore, I generally choose the NKJV for easy reading and the KJV/Greek/Hebrew for in depth studying.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[Lazy Agnostic]

I have come to trust Thomas Paine's version:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God.

"It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel ... It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

"He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this? ...

"He despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavoured to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason ... We ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God ... when I see throughout the greatest part of this book scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices, and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonour my Creator by calling it by his name ...

"The forgery of letters has been such a common practice in the world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are genuine or forged ... That she could fabricate writings is certain, because she could write; and the composition of the writings in question, is of that kind that anybody might do it; and that she did fabricate them is not more inconsistent with probability, than that she should tell us, as she has done, that she could and did work miracles ...

"They decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, should be the WORD OF GOD. Had they voted otherwise, all the people since calling themselves Christians had believed otherwise; for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other ...

"THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaks universally to humanity ...

"It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaks an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every person can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of a man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to humanity all that is necessary for man to know of God ...

"As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made ...

"There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story ...

"Having made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded -- put Satan into the pit -- let him out again -- given him a triumph over the whole creation -- damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple ...

"After his fall, Satan becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space ...

"Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man ...

"The case can only be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries of itself; and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication. For the internal evidence is, that the theory or doctrine of redemption has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice ...

"If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself (justice). It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge ...

"This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that humanity stands in the same relative condition with their Maker as they ever did." (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)

LA, please read the forum guidelines for this sectoin of TheologyWeb. In light of those, your post was inappropriate. The pertinent section is as follows:

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107745#post107745)
kiwimac:

The very best version is the one you read~

Kiwimac

I agree........unless it's Lamsa :read::whip:

[kiwimac]

Yesterday @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107800#post107800)
IronMetro:



I agree........unless it's Lamsa :read::whip:

Ok,

ummm... Je non comprende pas, Ich Verstehe nicht, I have NO idea what you're talking about :dufus:

Kiwimac

[Ric]

Today @ 01:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107800#post107800)
IronMetro:



I agree........unless it's Lamsa :read::whip:

What is "Lamsa"? :huh:

[Starkman]

I am just amazed that nobody has mentioned the New English Translation found at the Biblical Studies Foundation (www.bible.org), a fabulous site! The translation, accompanied by 60,000 notes was put together by some serious scholars! It's on the Internet, it's free to download and it's very inexpensive when purchased.

Come on, you scholars, what's up with not mentioning this translation?

Starkman

[John Reece]

What is "Lamsa"? :huh:

http://www.metamind.net/ABorder.html

[shunyadragon]

The question mixed some choiced that created a contradiction. There is more controvercy over what is best than Greek and Hebrew texts. I feel the list may have been longer excluding G & H texts and it would be nore meaningful.

I chose NASB, because it goes the extra yard to improve the translation over the improved NKJV, which is my second. NIV is kind of loosy goosy and a bit political over word choices and some phrases. The others are not needed.

The Greek and Hebrew serve a different purpose and are important for scholarly work.

[Jaltus]

The best translation in my opinion would be the ESV anyway. It is more polished than the NASB.

[rogero]

The best translation in my opinion would be the ESV anyway. It is more polished than the NASB.


I'd like to have a go at the ESV, but I'm waiting for a Giant Print edition. :wink:


P.S. I'm currently going through the NT in the NAB. I'm also reading the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) for the first time. It's quite interesting.

Did I note an anti-RC bias in the original poll with the omission of the NAB? Also, why was the NRSV omitted?

R

[shunyadragon]

The best translation in my opinion would be the ESV anyway. It is more polished than the NASB.
I do not see a significant difference, but ESV is okay. Not on the list. I would have like to seen a biger list to comment on.

[John Reece]

The best translation in my opinion would be the ESV anyway. It is more polished than the NASB.

I do not see a significant difference . . .

Not a significant difference between the ESV and the NASB?

There is a very significant difference between the ESV and the NASB, in contexts where it really matters. My favorite test verse is Matthew 26:64.

Matthew 26

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (NASB)

Matthew 26

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on (ap' arti) you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ESV)

[rogero]

Not a significant difference between the ESV and the NASB?

There is a very significant difference between the ESV and the NASB, in contexts where it really matters. My favorite test verse is Matthew 26:64.

Matthew 26

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (NASB)

Matthew 26

64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on (ap' arti) you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ESV)

I'm sorry, but this seems a very minor issue to me. "Hereafter" and "from now on" are very similar in meaning in English, and could be considered synonymous, since both refer to a continuous future occurence. I do agree that "hereafter" can be interpreted as more vague. But is this a big deal?

As to my comment about the omission of the NAB -- I've read the NT completely in three different versions -- NIV, NKJV, and NASB (both original and "updated".) I'm now in Luke's Gospel in the NAB. I haven't found anything that would change my mind about the nature of Christ or the basic tenets that I've held since childhood in my Reformed (first Assembly of God, then Conservative Baptist, then Evangelical Free, then Free Methodist) tradition. BTW, I now attend a Lutheran church and really enjoy the form of service -- I realize the theology is somewhat different than the way I wuz brung up.

Who knows, maybe I'll run into something controversial later on with the NAB, but I severely doubt it. II Maccabees 12 -- now that's a different story. :wink:

In God's Peace,

Roger

Editted to add: It seems like you're "straining out a gnat" here with your pickiness about the Bible versions. On the other hand, in another thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=623574&postcount=82) you made a broad sweeping statement that you rejected evolution a number of years ago for scientific reasons -- without any subsequent supporting data. I realize this is way off topic, but it's important to me (and hopefully some others) regarding the general pursuit of truth. It seems to me that you're "swallowing a camel" in your anti-evolution statement, while you "strain out a gnat" about Bible translations.

I'm interested in your response. I truly don't mean to be nasty or combative, I just want to the Truth to be forthcoming.

R

[Jaltus]

The difference is to when it starts. Hereafter means "after this" whereas "from now on" includes the present moment.

[rogero]

The difference is to when it starts. Hereafter means "after this" whereas "from now on" includes the present moment.


So, why isn't this "straining out a gnat"?

R

[John Reece]

I'm sorry, but this seems a very minor issue to me. "Hereafter" and "from now on" are very similar in meaning in English, and could be considered synonymous, since both refer to a continuous future occurence. I do agree that "hereafter" can be interpreted as more vague. But is this a big deal?

As to my comment about the omission of the NAB -- I've read the NT completely in three different versions -- NIV, NKJV, and NASB (both original and "updated".) I'm now in Luke's Gospel in the NAB. I haven't found anything that would change my mind about the nature of Christ or the basic tenets that I've held since childhood in my Reformed (first Assembly of God, then Conservative Baptist, then Evangelical Free, then Free Methodist) tradition. BTW, I now attend a Lutheran church and really enjoy the form of service -- I realize the theology is somewhat different than the way I wuz brung up.

Who knows, maybe I'll run into something controversial later on with the NAB, but I severely doubt it. II Maccabees 12 -- now that's a different story. :wink:

In God's Peace,

Roger

Editted to add: It seems like you're "straining out a gnat" here with your pickiness about the Bible versions. On the other hand, in another thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=623574&postcount=82) you made a broad sweeping statement that you rejected evolution a number of years ago for scientific reasons -- without any subsequent supporting data. I realize this is way off topic, but it's important to me (and hopefully some others) regarding the general pursuit of truth. It seems to me that you're "swallowing a camel" in your anti-evolution statement, while you "strain out a gnat" about Bible translations.

I'm interested in your response. I truly don't mean to be nasty or combative, I just want to the Truth to be forthcoming.

R

Roger,

Your last question first: I am not anti-evolution; I am neither more nor less than a skeptic on the subject of macroevolution. My statement to which you provided a link was not an argument; it was just a comment about a phase through which I went a couple of decades ago, which corresponded to a similar experience recounted in the post to which I was responding. I have less than zero interest in arguing for or against the theory of macroevolution. By the way, I did not ignore your post on the thread linked above, having not seen it until after I read your comment on this thread.

Regarding the rendering of ap’ arti in Matthew 26:64, there is a significant difference between “hereafter” and “from now on”:


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

here·af·ter
1 : after this in sequence or in time
2 : in some future time or state

Premillennialists have interpreted Jesus' allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64 as referring to something still yet to be fulfilled as of July 2004. Definition #2 in the dictionary quote above allows the premillennialist presupposition to remain unchallenged by what Jesus said in Matthew 26:64.

But the more accurate rendering of ap’ arti, from now on, indicates that what Jesus said in Matthew 26:64 referred to a fulfillment within a time-frame circa AD30.

Blessings,

John

[rogero]

Roger,

Your last question first: I am not anti-evolution; I am neither more nor less than a skeptic on the subject of macroevolution. My statement to which you provided a link was not an argument; it was just a comment about a phase through which I went a couple of decades ago, which corresponded to a similar experience recounted in the post to which I was responding. I have less than zero interest in arguing for or against the theory of macroevolution. By the way, I did not ignore your post on the thread linked above, having not seen it until after I read your comment on this thread.

Regarding the rendering of ap’ arti in Matthew 26:64, there is a significant difference between “hereafter” and “from now on”:


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

here·af·ter
1 : after this in sequence or in time
2 : in some future time or state

Premillennialists have interpreted Jesus' allusion to Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64 as referring to something still yet to be fulfilled as of July 2004. Definition #2 in the dictionary quote above allows the premillennialist presupposition to remain unchallenged by what Jesus said in Matthew 26:64.

But the more accurate rendering of ap’ arti, from now on, indicates that what Jesus said in Matthew 26:64 referred to a fulfillment within a time-frame circa AD30.

Blessings,

John

Thanks for your explanation! I didn't realize that those of a certain brand of eschatology could have made such a misinterpretation. Obviously this is not an issue on the nature and grace of Christ, but since many folks make a big deal of eschatology, I see now that the (slightly) more accurate rendering of ap’ arti as from now on is better.

Now, I still need to find a Giant Print (14pt font) version of the ESV!!!! :lol:

Don't worry about my comment regarding evolution. It was just interesting to me in light of the precision with which you approach Greek translation vis-a-vis the broad-sweepingness of your statement in a scientific thread. It's because of my scientific bent -- assertions and comments by themselves mean little. You would probably say the same about my calling your commentary on ap’arti "picky." We're all just more picky in our separate areas of interest/expertise.

In God's Peace,

Roger

[HerodionRomulus]

I use the NRSVA for general reading and study. It is generally accurate, it reads well.
I have no problem with it's use of non-sexist language. The footnotes generally provide the original reading so anyone can see it.

I also like the Jerusalem Bible (1966)
and for comparion, I refer to the Revised English. Sometimes the British
word choice is helpful. I mean no American version would refer to a head covering as a 'mantilla.' No one would know what that was.

When listening on CD in my truck, I have the AV/QVJ mostly because it is most easily available on CD. Many versions are not due to lack of demand.

The NT by Edgar Goodspeed, done in the earlier part of the 20th c. is a quirky but very readable version.

[Starkman]

I use the NRSVA for general reading and study. It is generally accurate, it reads well.
I have no problem with it's use of non-sexist language. The footnotes generally provide the original reading so anyone can see it.

I also like the Jerusalem Bible (1966)
and for comparion, I refer to the Revised English. Sometimes the British
word choice is helpful. I mean no American version would refer to a head covering as a 'mantilla.' No one would know what that was.

When listening on CD in my truck, I have the AV/QVJ mostly because it is most easily available on CD. Many versions are not due to lack of demand.

The NT by Edgar Goodspeed, done in the earlier part of the 20th c. is a quirky but very readable version.
Yeah, I forgot about good ol' Goodspeed!

Starkman

[David Hayward]

Ref Posts 74, 75, 76, 78 "Lamsa"

http://www.metamind.net/ABorder.htmlFollowing this link to the disparaged translation from Aramaic, I note that one of the translations from Aramaic is the Aramaic Lord's Prayer (by Neil Douglas-Klotz, who appears to be a Sufi.) I know the Aramaic Lord's Prayer from contacts with Sufis and know that the translation has little in common with any other translation.





Imperfect memory tells me thatOur Father, who art in Heaven...




becomes
Oh mother/father, birther of the universe...
and gets worse.




Therefore any bible translation from this stable, and any claims made for it, should be treated with great circumspection.



David

[Berean Todd]

For my study I use the NASB or the new NET (New English Translation) because they appear from all reading and research to be by far the best and truest word-for-word translations availlable. I also use the NKJV, and though I wouldn't ever study from them I also like to sometimes refer to the NLT and NIV for a different perspective.

This fall I will be begining my Greek classes and am looking forward to being able to get down to the original text more than I can with just the Vine's, Concordence, and other resources like those.