|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 4/29/2009 5:36:13 PM
|
|
|
AmyJoGarner
Posts: 6
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline
|
On a day to day devotional basis I use the NASB, NRSV and NIV. For research and in depth study I have Logos Gold Bible software which allows me to study and compare what seems to be an endless number of translations and original language texts!
_____________________________
Amy Jo
The Virtual Hermitary
featuring daily devotions and weekly sermons
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 4/30/2009 12:29:49 AM
|
|
|
Judson50
Posts: 68
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline
|
I think people to dogmatic about translations and about 90% of those "dogmatic" types don't know what they are talking about, they just say what they say because that is "what they were told" or "what their parents do".
It seems best to understand <b> how </b> and <b>why</b> a translation was translated. For instance there are thought for thought and word for word translations. Each one has their "purpose".
With that said I do the following
- I read the New Living Translation (NLT - A Thought for Thought translation) when I just want to kick back and read the Bible.
- I primarily teach out of the New American Standard (NASB - A Word for Word Translation) at times I will defect to the English Standard Version (ESV - A Word for Word Translation).
When I study I study mutliple translations via e-sword (Free Bible Study Software) where I use GNB, NCV, LITV, NET, RSV ect.
For more information regarding "How to choose a translation" please read my blog entitled "Which Version Should I Purchase?"
Grace and Peace
Judson
_____________________________
Blog | Facebook | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/2/2009 3:16:50 PM
|
|
|
timetunnel
Posts: 31
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline
|
Mainly KJV, NKJV, AMP and Luther 1545.
_____________________________
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/2/2009 5:40:12 PM
|
|
|
billbaileybfafan
Posts: 447
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline
|
The one I use almost all the time is the NKJV. A Nelson's NKJV Study Bible to be more precise, though I do love my Inspirational Study Bible edited by Max Lucado (also NKJV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/2/2009 10:13:47 PM
|
|
|
Gail7364
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/14/2009
Status: offline
|
May I ask this question here? I don't want to debate which version is THE BEST or get into all that discussion. I have only one question. I get confused when everybody names all those long Greek or Jewish names, and historical years and dates and so on. What I want to know is this: what version was the FIRST version that was translated into English from the Greek and Hebrew, Latin and whatever other languages the Bible was originally written in?
I just want to know what was the FIRST English version.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/3/2009 12:51:27 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 205
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I think the first full Bible in English was Wycliff's translation. He translated from the Latin Vulgate. You can read it online at Studylight It is interesting but difficult to read because of the older style of English and spelling - late 1300s.
The first English translation from the Greek New Testament was William Tyndale's in 1525 (or thereabout). He also started translating the Old Testament, but died before he could finish. You can also find it at Studylight. I don't know if it is still available, but, I got a print version of it with the spelling changed to the modern spelling.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/3/2009 1:40:35 AM
|
|
|
GodsMusic
Posts: 713
Joined: 4/3/2006
From: Arkansas
Status: offline
|
I believe the KJV is the first "WIDELY PUBLISHED" English Bible. The Geneva Bible was about a half century before it, but I don't believe it was as available as the KJV.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/3/2009 2:38:33 AM
|
|
|
Little_1
Posts: 1202
Status: offline
|
NKJV and NASB but I use other versions as well.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/3/2009 7:01:55 AM
|
|
|
timetunnel
Posts: 31
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline
|
Martin Luther got the Greek Textus Receptus from Erasmus for translation in German (1522-1534). Erasmus took the common scripts out of the byzantine line. The same TR was taken for the KJV years later. The first English Bible was the Tyndale-Bible out of 1526, printed in Worms (Germany).
_____________________________
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/4/2009 12:27:41 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 205
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe the KJV is the first "WIDELY PUBLISHED" English Bible. The Geneva Bible was about a half century before it, but I don't believe it was as available as the KJV.
Actually, for about the first 40some years after the publication of the KJV, the Geneva Bible outsold the KJV. It was a very popular translation, the one the people chose to use. The pilgrims brought the Geneva translation to the New World on the Mayflower. It wasn't until the Geneva was essentially outlawed and became unavailable, that the KJV began to sell more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/4/2009 5:40:03 AM
|
|
|
raoooul
Posts: 168
Joined: 3/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JHerr
I ask this question because I have been using the NIV version (Student Bible), and while I love it for the inserts and explanations of different things, I have noticed a very large conflict with other version.
I was reading over a thread before at the scripture 1 COR 7:1 was stated. It appeared as follows
1. Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(NKJV)
In my NIV is appears as so:
1. Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. (NIV)
As you can see, they have a very distinct difference. I love the Study Bible portions of my bible, as they help to break things down for me, but I am suffering a conflict of interest for what it is sharing.
Any one have any advice on a study type bible that would be beneficial to me?
When reading the NIV, which i refer to as the 'New Evil Version', one must remember that it is not a literal translation. Rather it's main purpose is to sell a theology that has no backing in the original manuscripts.
This is why i prefer the original KJV, because it's intent is to be a literal translation.
_____________________________
Are our beliefs biblical ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 5/4/2009 9:12:58 AM
|
|
|
timetunnel
Posts: 31
Joined: 5/2/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raoooul
Rather it's main purpose is to sell a theology that has no backing in the original manuscripts.
The basic text is important. At least as important is the type of translation. And what words are ambiguous and which are not.
_____________________________
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/2/2009 12:34:00 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
I use the NASB.It is my favorite.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/2/2009 2:21:34 PM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
i personally look at the kjv, nkjv, av7 and the joneva. the niv has taken to many important words, verses and phrases out of it. leaving it to claim contrridictions in the word where we no that god never contridicts himself.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/3/2009 10:04:18 AM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
i personally look at the kjv, nkjv, av7 and the joneva. the niv has taken to many important words, verses and phrases out of it. leaving it to claim contrridictions in the word where we no that god never contridicts himself.
of course there are differences - kjv was based on newer and more error filled manuscripts than niv. in terms of leaving out "important words, verses, phrases" you do also realize that the italics likely in your KJV Bible mean that they were added by the translators to help explain things they thought weren't clear. this is because they were based off later manuscripts geared toward a culturally and geographically changed people. different target audience, thus the manuscript authors felt they needed to add things to explain. so your so-called-omissions are almost like scribbling your Pastor's notes in your margins then saying that is part of the Bible.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/3/2009 1:29:07 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10981
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
AND...
...the continuation of that line of discussion will now take place in the KJV one-stop thread. CLICK HERE to go to it.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/4/2009 12:51:24 PM
|
|
|
Rhomphaia
Posts: 69
Joined: 5/27/2009
Status: offline
|
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
There are a number of reasons for multiple translations in English.
The first is that the English language is in constant flux, with new words being added, old words dropping out or being replaced, and many words even changing their meaning. More up to date translations can therefore relate the message of the Bible to the current generation with more accuracy, as well as producing increased comprehension and retention.
The next is that as time passes and more manuscripts are discovered, scholars are able to eliminate copy errors with more and more certainty. The primary manuscript currently used is in its 27th edition (it has been updated and corrected 27 times). Most of the changes are extremely minor (in fact, many of them are so subtle the change cannot be illustrated in English).
The third reason is that Hebrew and Greek do not translate into English very well, as both languages have words, constructions, grammar, and so on that are not even found in English. It is often true that one translation captures one nuance, while another captures a different nuance, both of which are accurate reflections of the original. Thus having several translations available is a very good idea.
Finally, we are actually learning more about the Biblical languages as time passes, and this allows us to produce more accurate translations. There are STILL words and constructions within both Hebrew and Greek that scholars are not completely certain as to the exact meaning or nuance intended. As new manuscript discoveries are made, these difficult passages can be translated with more certainty, and thus, with better clarity.
The two most common approaches to translation are the “Word for Word,” also called “formal equivalent” translations; and the “phrase for phrase,” also called the “functional equivalent” translations. At the far end of the “functional equivalent” approach are the paraphrases (when functional equivalent goes all the way to producing a paraphrase, it is usually called “dynamic or cultural equivalent”), as they attempt to use wording that has roughly the same “force” or “intention” as the original wording, but is more culturally relevant to American readers. Paraphrases are more accurately described as reading an “explanation of” or “sermon on” the verse, as opposed to reading the verse itself. The exact manuscript used in paraphrases is pretty much irrelevant, as the wording is “loose” enough that it could be tied to almost any manuscript.
There are also translations that are somewhere between. For example, the NIV is a true phrase for phrase, the NIrV is a true paraphrase, and the TNIV is somewhere in between. I have listed the TNIV as a “paraphrase,” although strictly speaking, it is more accurately a “cultural phrase for phrase.” In other words, the basic approach is phrase for phrase, but the translators have used some translations that are closer to ‘cultural equivalents” than translations, which is a trademark of paraphrases. The most common example of this is the use of gender neutral language in reference to people, changing most references to people that are masculine in the manuscripts to neutral or both masculine and feminine language (for example, substituting “them” for “he,” or adding “and sisters” where the text just says “brothers”). Contrary to what some have claimed – it does NOT use gender neutral language for God, as it still calls God “the Father” and references God with the pronoun “He.”
In General, it is NOT correct to say that a "word for word" translation is more accurate than a "phrase for phrase" translation, as the Bible is filled with so many phrase based constructions and idioms that a word for word translation can often be very difficult to understand in some places, or can inadvertently give the wrong impression of what a particular verse is saying. On the other hand, a phrase for phrase translation has to be very careful NOT to interpret each and every idiom, as some of them have multiple levels of meaning that can be lost if interpreted rather than translated..
There is also a fairly recent approach to translation that is a mixture of the two approaches (“formal equivalent” and “functional equivalent”) that tries to steer a careful course between literal word for word and idiomatic equivalents. This approach is called the “literal-idiomatic,” and can be thought of as a compromise between the word for word and the phrase for phrase (very much yielding the best of both without sacrificing much in return). Scholars who use this approach believe (taken from the introduction to the ISV) “…the literal-idiomatic translation is the only choice that avoids the dangers of over-literalness and of over-interpretation discussed above.”
Even though I can read Greek and Hebrew, I often read the Bible in English, and I rotate between more than 20 different translations when I do. Each translation philosophy serves a purpose, and if you understand that the purpose of a particular translation, ANY translation can serve you well.
Just keep in mind that most of the time, the differences between translations is NOT accuracy (both "word for word" and "phrase for phrase" translations are highly accurate), but choices on how to relate something in English that is simply very difficult to translate.
Even the most ingenious of translations probably misses about 15 to 20 percent of the information that is actually contained in the Greek and Hebrew, so switching between translations can really help narrow that percentage down (as one translation will illuminate one nuance, while another will illuminate a different nuance, both of which are contained within one verse). Most of this extra information is in the form of emphasis or in constructions and words for which we have no exact equivalent, and so we have to use approximations in English.
I have produced the following guide to help those who wish to select a translation or two or three to use for themselves. This is NOT a comprehensive list, but does list many of the more popular versions. Personally, I think everyone should have at least one word for word, one phrase for phrase, and one paraphrase (for those times when you are not actually "studying" the Bible, and just want ease of reading).
OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS USED:
Almost all versions use the Masoretic text for the OT, although more recent translations also consult the Dead Sea Scrolls. Greek Orthodox translations (none of which I list below) use the Septuagint, and occasionally consult with the Masoretic text.
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS USED:
TR (Textus Receptus)
UBS/NA (United Bible Society/Nestle-Aland – currently in the 27th edition)
BMT (Byzantine Majority Text)
WORD FOR WORD (FORMAL EQUIVALENT) TRANSLATIONS:
KJV (King James Version – TR)
NKJV (New King James Version - TR)
MKJV (Modern King James Version - TR)
ASV (American Standard Version –UBS/NA – old edition)
NASB (New American Standard Bible – UBS/NA – recent edition)
RSV (Revised Standard Version – UBS/NA – old edition)
NRSV (New Revised Standard Version – UBS/NA – recent edition)
EMTV (English Majority Text Version – BMT)
ESV (English Standard Version – UBS/NA)
WEB (World English Bible – a revision of the ASV with cross reference to the BMT)
HNV (Hebrew Names Version – WEB with names as they appear in Hebrew)
ALT (Analytical Literal Translation – BMT)
MRC (Messianic Renewed Covenant – UBS/NA)
LITV (Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, commonly called the KJV-3 – TR)
YLT (Young’s Literal Translation – TR)
RYLT (Revised Young’s Literal Translation – TR)
PHRASE FOR PHRASE (FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT) TRANSLATIONS:
NIV (New International Version – UBS/NA)
NEB (New English Bible – UBS/NA)
REB (Revised English Bible – UBS/NA)
HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible – UBS/NA)
LITERAL IDIOMATIC:
ISV (International Standard Version)
PARAPHRASES (DYNAMIC OR CULTURAL EQUIVALENT):
MSG (The Message)
GNB (Good News Bible)
NLT (New Living Translation)
CEV (Contemporary English Version)
GW (God’s Word)
BBE (Bible in Basic English)
NIrV (New International Readers Version)
TNIV (Today’s New International Version – UBS/NA - literally a cross between a paraphrase and a "phrase for phrase" translation)
There are also a few other versions available, that do not fall into the categories above.
There are a few people out there who, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, believe the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, for them, there is the following translation, which is taken from Syriac, a third or fourth century dialect of Aramaic.
PESHITTA (TRANSLATION FROM ARAMAIC)
Murdock (James Murdock Translation – Word for Word from the Syriac Peshitta – Aramaic New Testament)
The most common translation used by Catholics, who tend to prefer a translation from the Vulgate (Latin):
VULGATE (TRANSLATION FROM LATIN)
DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible – Word for Word from Latin Vulgate)
_____________________________
Grace and peace to you,
Rhomphaia
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/4/2009 6:07:04 PM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 316
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
i personally look at the kjv, nkjv, av7 and the joneva. the niv has taken to many important words, verses and phrases out of it. leaving it to claim contrridictions in the word where we no that god never contridicts himself.
of course there are differences - kjv was based on newer and more error filled manuscripts than niv. in terms of leaving out "important words, verses, phrases" you do also realize that the italics likely in your KJV Bible mean that they were added by the translators to help explain things they thought weren't clear. this is because they were based off later manuscripts geared toward a culturally and geographically changed people. different target audience, thus the manuscript authors felt they needed to add things to explain. so your so-called-omissions are almost like scribbling your Pastor's notes in your margins then saying that is part of the Bible.
i am talking about things that can easily mislead or take power from the lord. such as the lords prayer. for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever amen. yes the italisized words in the kjv state clearly that they were not taken from the original. however they do not take away the power of the lord, lead people to contridiction statements with in the word and the kjv is honest enough to tell it straight out. there is also nothing in the words of the kjv that suggest christ and lucifer as being the morning star. the niv does state this. sorry. i can go and retrieve a study that was done on the niv in another forum and show you if you would like.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/4/2009 7:03:09 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
i am talking about things that can easily mislead or take power from the lord. such as the lords prayer. for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever amen. yes the italisized words in the kjv state clearly that they were not taken from the original.
so added by man at a later date ... hmmmm ... seems like a big inconsistency to complain about for people opposed to dynamic equivalence translations ...
quote:
however they do not take away the power of the lord, lead people to contridiction statements with in the word and the kjv is honest enough to tell it straight out. there is also nothing in the words of the kjv that suggest christ and lucifer as being the morning star. the niv does state this. sorry. i can go and retrieve a study that was done on the niv in another forum and show you if you would like.
ummm you do realize this so-called inconsistency came about due to a problem in KJV translation misapplying the term Lucifer. so KJV basically created itself a controversy trying to pass over on other translations. there is nothing in that because of a "mistake" they made.
< Message edited by iwillfearnoevil -- 6/4/2009 7:17:01 PM >
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/4/2009 8:21:24 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10981
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
AND...
...the continuation of that line of discussion will now take place in the KJV one-stop thread. CLICK HERE to go to it.
Next time I'll delete posts.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/10/2009 8:45:19 AM
|
|
|
AndyBern
Posts: 50
Joined: 5/17/2009
Status: offline
|
I like literal versions. I main personal studies are in a J. N. Darby version with the full translator notes. I also like the NKJV, ESV and some of the others. Although I don't prefer paraphrases, there are some verses where they may be more accurate than some literals (i.e. compare John 21:15 KJV with TLB). No translation is perfect.
I don't like the Message - it changes the original meanings.
_____________________________
- Andrew
(ex-enemy of God)
http://dtjsoft.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/10/2009 4:14:50 PM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 4932
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
quote:
I guess I will just have to keep collecting bibles and see which ones work best for me. There's your best answer. Except don't collect, use your library or online bibles. It's way cheaper.
If you like the study notes in your NIV, Zondervan also publishes a New American Standard Study Bible that uses those same notes, or ones very similar. With that bible you'll get the (debatedly) most literal translation and study notes you're comfortable with. I have a copy of this bible in my office. I use a plain NASB text bible as my church bible.
_____________________________
"It don't do to fight with God cuz He always wins.
He bloodies your nose and then gives you a ride home on his bike"
Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/13/2009 12:49:02 AM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
What version? I prefer the unabridged version with all 73 books. ;)
That said, I tend to use the RSV edition of the Scripture from Ignatius press. I happen to think that the best translation though would be the one that actually gets a person reading the scriptures. I know some friends who would struggle with the KJV, but they love the NIV because it's easier for them to understand. Given a choice between them not reading the Bible at all or reading the NIV, I think most people here would agree that reading the NIV would be better. :)
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Which Bible do you prefer? - 6/28/2009 9:19:20 AM
|
|
|
nuclear_sidewalk
Posts: 206
Joined: 6/8/2008
Status: offline
|
I grew up with the KJV and NKJV, mostly, but my preference is now NASB or NKJV. I hear good things about the ESV, too.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
