Versions of the Bible

[squishyg]

Hello there Turtle Soup/Monkey Business/Bumpage Citizens,

I know I'm an infrequent visitor to your land, but I come seeking an answer to a question. While I've read and even studied snippets of the Bible over the years, I've never sat down and read the whole thing. So for my summer reading, I've downloaded the Bible app for BlackBerry (as Jesus intended) and I have a choice of many, many versions.

Which version of the Bible do you suggest? King James, American Standard, Contemporary English, etc.? There are ones I've never heard of before on here. With no disrespect intended, I'd like to read an authentic version, not a skewed translation that fits a particular denomination's world view.

Your recommendations and advice are welcome! xoxo, squishy

[nietzsche]

King James'

[tdans]

i would definitely recommend King James, not "The New King James", just "The King James" version , i find it much easier to understand and it is the original version..

[Night Strike]

North American Standard Bible (NASB) is closer to a literal translation, but it's not as literal (old) as the King James or New King James.

New International Version (NIV) is probably the most popular version in the United States. It has more paraphrasing to help it read in more modern English, but it does not go as far as The Message version does.

Those two are the most popular and denominational-neutral Bibles. I've heard the Holman Bible (don't know an acronym) tries to blend the upper two versions, which should make it a better balance, but it was written by Southern Baptists if you don't want a denominational one.

[2dimes]

In my opinion the only one I noticed to have been altered are the "watch tower plublications" versions.


Other wise they're the same but just in different wording.

The king james is tricky if you're not a huge olde Englifh fan. Where fore some hath chosen it? putting all others asunder, causeth me to question.

Go to http://www.biblegateway.com read the same chapter or verse in several translations and pick the one that reads the most like you would have written it.

[Night Strike]

The king james is tricky if you're not a huge olde Englifh fan. Where fore some hath chosen it? putting all others asunder, causeth me to question.

No matter what you use, it must be of a version published after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and interpreted. They corrected many errors in the old translations (mainly King James), even though none of the errors dealt with the large and important matters.

[2dimes]

This might be helpfull. It has a verse from many of the versions.

http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp

[Caleb the Cruel]

English Standard Version(ESV)

Here is a link that explains the different qualities of a variety of translations.
http://www.esv.org/about/other.translations

[Army of GOD]

I like the Dr. Seuss version.

And Jesus was dead.
Jesus had died.
What can be said?
Oh my, oh my.

[Army of GOD]

(he was a bit drunk when he wrote it, so his rhymes were way off)

[2dimes]

I like the Dr. Seuss version.

And Jesus was dead.
Jesus had died.
What can be said?
Oh my, oh my.

Then on the third day.
Something odd happened then.
He rose from the grave.
Jesus lives once again.

You're invited to heaven.
Because he's the way.
Jesus paid for your sin.
On a cross on that day.

[Army of GOD]

The who's of Jerusalem,
Stood there with awe.
As Jesus went over,
and removed a girl's bra.

[john9blue]

He pulled out his handgun,
then opened fire.
No Jews could escape
from His sacred ire!

[tzor]

The New American Bible

On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: "We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text."

Early in 1944, in conformity with the spirit of the encyclical, and with the encouragement of Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine requested members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America to translate the sacred scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form of the text, and to present the sense of the biblical text in as correct a form as possible.

The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate. In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined.

The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that "correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books," but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."

The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.

Where the translation supposes the received text--Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be--ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the scriptures at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament was added originally in an appendix to the typical edition. (It is now obtainable in a separate booklet from The Catholic Biblical Association of America, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064.) These notes furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.

The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.

The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944,1 19452 ). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.

The translation of Sirach, based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved and corrected from the ancient versions, is often interpreted in the light of the traditional Greek text. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24-91, chapter 13 and chapter 14 [these are Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively in WORDsearch]), the basic text is the Greek text of Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.

In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zechariah there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. The verse numbers given in such cases are always those of the current Hebrew text, though the arrangement differs. In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader's attention by footnotes.

The Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961; and the Historical Books, Samuel to Maccabees, in 1969. In the present edition of Genesis to Ruth there are certain new features: a general introduction to the Pentateuch, a retranslation of the text of Genesis with an introduction, cross-references, and revised textual notes, besides new and expanded exegetical notes which take into consideration the various sources or literary traditions.

The revision of Job to Sirach includes changes in strophe division in Job and Proverbs and in titles of principal parts and sections of Wisdom and Ecclesiastes. Corrections in the text of Sirach are made in Sirach 39:27-35; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44:1-17 on the basis of the Masada text, and in Sirach 51:13-30 on the basis of the occurrence of this canticle in the Psalms scroll from Qumran Cave 11. In this typical edition, new corrections are reflected in the textual notes of Job, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach. In the Psalms, the enumeration found in the Hebrew text is followed instead of the double enumeration, according to both the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate texts, contained in the previous edition of this book.

In the Prophetic Books Isaiah to Malachi, only minor revisions have been made in the structure and wording of the texts, and in the textual notes.

The spelling of proper names in The New American Bible follows the customary forms found in most English Bibles since the Authorized Version.

The work of translating the Bible has been characterized as "the sacred and apostolic work of interpreting the word of God and of presenting it to the laity in translations as clear as the difficulty of the matter and the limitations of human knowledge permit" (A. G. Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 6, [1944], 389-90). In the appraisal of the present work, it is hoped that the words of the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu will serve as a guide: "Let all the sons of the church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected."

Conscious of their personal limitations for the task thus defined, those who have prepared this text cannot expect that it will be considered perfect; but they can hope that it may deepen in its readers "the right understanding of the divinely given Scriptures," and awaken in them "that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, who from the throne of his majesty has sent these books as so many personal letters to his own children" (Divino afflante Spiritu).

[Army of GOD]

This thread is now about,
Dr. Seuss's Holy Book.
If you have a problem,
I don't really give a fook.

[pimpdave]

NIV - New International Version

[PLAYER57832]

The most accurate full Bible is usually said to be the Greek Bible. This is because unlike the Latin church, the Greek church never translated their Bible.
The King James version was the only "accepted" English version for a long time. It, however, was written to be "poetic", to be a literary masterpiece as well as a sacred religious text. It is accurate where it matters, but most scholars find issue with some details.

The Revised Standard version, used primarily by Protestant churches, was written to update the King James and, to correct a few perceived errors (again, nothing that truly impacts the real message). Still, knowledge of translation has increased and some scholars still saw issue with the RSV.

The New International Version was designed to correct those problems. Some felt it went too far and therefore there is also a New Revised Standard version.

Bottom line.. you can come to know Christ through any. The things where they differ are necessarily not important. We are to study the text, but not fight over the number of angels that sit on a pin. Some ambiguities, I believe are intentional because there is not always one, single answer for human beings. As any parent knows..

[daddy1gringo]

As said previously, the old King James is actually the most word-for-word accurate, but all the "thou wouldest"-s make it more difficult to understand for most people. Also some words have changed meaning since 1611, for example "suffer" used to mean "let" (suffer the children to come to me) and "quick" used to mean "living" (...to judge the quick and the dead). The closest more modern ones I know of are the NASB (New American Standard) and the New King James. King James purists object to both though because they use the Nestle Greek NT instead of the "Textus Receptus" and use the dead sea scrolls changes to the OT, which they consider corrupted, while most other scholars consider them older and better.

The NIV (New International Version) is interesting; it could be considered either more or less accurate. It focuses more on translating the sense of whole phrases rather than of individual words. That makes it "more accurate" for the casual reader (as well as more pleasant to read), but less accurate for detailed study.

Then you might just want to take tzor's advice, and read the Catholic New American Bible. My Presbyterian professor for theology classes says the Catholic Church has the best translators, but then he speaks Spanish.

In short, you can't lose with any of those I've mentioned.

Edit: I substantially agree with what players said.

[tzor]

The most accurate full Bible is usually said to be the Greek Bible. This is because unlike the Latin church, the Greek church never translated their Bible.

Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha ... my that's a good one.

You do know that a significant portion of the old Testament is in Hebrew.
One of the gospels (I forget which one) was originally written in Aramaic.

Even the books written in "Greek" wasn't written in classical Greek but in the Common or Koine Greek. Please note that the reason they never translated their Bible is because they think all translations are not "inspired."

The Bible: Its Original Languages and English Translations

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES - THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD

The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from which all the translations have been derived. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations.

[pimpdave]

Hey, tzor, are you ever not a condescending pedant with everything? I mean, we all know when you're full of shit because you just leave a thread and never respond again, so maybe just this once you won't simply ignore being called out.

How is your behavior (all across the forums) Christlike? You make such a big deal about being so pious and righteous, yet I don't see the "fruit". Help me understand.

EDIT: And I'm honestly not trolling, or baiting, or flaming. You claim so often and loudly to be a Christian, yet I really, honestly don't see the fruit of the Spirit.

[PLAYER57832]

The most accurate full Bible is usually said to be the Greek Bible. This is because unlike the Latin church, the Greek church never translated their Bible.

Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha ... my that's a good one.

You do know that a significant portion of the old Testament is in Hebrew.
One of the gospels (I forget which one) was originally written in Aramaic.

Which is why I said the oldest full Bible

If you disagree, feel free to discuss this with the experts. Roman Catholic scholars, as a rule hold to the King James (though not all, even so), others tend to disagree.

Even the books written in "Greek" wasn't written in classical Greek but in the Common or Koine Greek. Please note that the reason they never translated their Bible is because they think all translations are not "inspired."

Exactly .

Bottom line -- any authorized Bible translation can give us what we need to know. (some, like the word, etc never pretended to be true translations).

The Bible: Its Original Languages and English Translations

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES - THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD

The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from which all the translations have been derived. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations.

This is pretty much as I said. I highlighted the pertinent part. (Again, note that I said "complete Bible") However, most churches accept translations as being accurate through inspiration (or just plain good scholarship). At any rate, most of us don't study ancient greek, so we have little choice but to read translations.

[PLAYER57832]

As said previously, the old King James is actually the most word-for-word accurate, but all the "thou wouldest"-s make it more difficult to understand for most people.

This is pretty much the Roman Catholic position, but is definitely not the position of most Protestant churches. I leave the debate up to the true experts. Any Bible will give you the truth, provided you don't try to play cames like looking for "codex" (which I think is largely a Jewish "pasttime" anyway -- and based on the original Hebrew, not translations), or bare minutia.

Also some words have changed meaning since 1611, for example "suffer" used to mean "let" (suffer the children to come to me) and "quick" used to mean "living" (...to judge the quick and the dead). The closest more modern ones I know of are the NASB (New American Standard) and the New King James. King James purists object to both though because they use the Nestle Greek NT instead of the "Textus Receptus" and use the dead sea scrolls changes to the OT, which they consider corrupted, while most other scholars consider them older and better.

Again, this is a debate among scholars. Most Protestant churches believe either the Revised Standard (or the New Revised Standard) or the NIV (or the new NIV) are the best versions. I am Protestant, so tend to follow their guidelines. In truth, I don't think any of us here are expert enough to really debate the point with much expertise. It is interesting to discuss, but I don't think there is a lot to be gained by arguing over which version to use, except as an intellectual or "within church" (that is, which Bible(s) should a congregation follow for school and study)

The NIV (New International Version) is interesting; it could be considered either more or less accurate. It focuses more on translating the sense of whole phrases rather than of individual words. That makes it "more accurate" for the casual reader (as well as more pleasant to read), but less accurate for detailed study.

I personally do not like this translation at all, but a lot of the more "Evangelical" or "Charismatic" type churches do. One pastor I respect a great deal uses it exclusively and trained in seminary under one of the translators. (I myself studied under one of the translators of the New Revised standard and one of the NIV).

Then you might just want to take tzor's advice, and read the Catholic New American Bible. My Presbyterian professor for theology classes says the Catholic Church has the best translators, but then he speaks Spanish.

I believe Wycliffe would disagree.. lol

In short, you can't lose with any of those I've mentioned.

I would agree. Other than as a pure "intellectual" excercise, getting too hung up on this translation or that translation takes us away, not toward God's message. If you worry, then get one of the "side-by-side" versions. Then you can see how the text in all compare together. (suggest getting one from a library, they tend to be a bit pricey).

Edit: I substantially agree with what players said.

I am not trying to argue, just pointing out the different church views. This is just one of many areas where there is no "one, true" answer... at least in English.

[2dimes]

Ορισμένος αλλά, γιατί αγγλικά εδώ;

[PLAYER57832]

Ορισμένος αλλά, γιατί αγγλικά εδώ;

Translated using Yahoo! Babel fish:

Certain but, because English here

[Queen_Herpes]

The most accurate full Bible is usually said to be the Greek Bible. This is because unlike the Latin church, the Greek church never translated their Bible.

Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha ... my that's a good one.

You do know that a significant portion of the old Testament is in Hebrew.
One of the gospels (I forget which one) was originally written in Aramaic.

Even the books written in "Greek" wasn't written in classical Greek but in the Common or Koine Greek. Please note that the reason they never translated their Bible is because they think all translations are not "inspired."

The Bible: Its Original Languages and English Translations

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES - THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD

The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from which all the translations have been derived. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations.

So you're saying the Bible was written by Moses, the prophets, and the apostles? *snickers*