For those of you who are giving advice on which bible to study, your advice is way off base. Several versions were said to be closer to the original text. Not true at all! The Spirit of the Word authenicates Word, not a version. The truth be known, the NIV is actually more updated because of its direct translation from Hebrew and Greek and because of the number of scholars used in its translation. Be that as it may, we do not need to start a doctrine that one is supreme over all others. "The letter killeth, but the SPIRIT giveth life." It is not the book but the Spirit of the book. I read several versions for study purposes.
I have attended three religious institutions and one seminary. No one bible reigned supreme in school. We all have preferences, but that is the extent of it.
I was raised on the KJV, but I read the NIV when I meditate.
There are thousands of bibles in various languages, and they all are effective if in Christ!
What bible should I study?
Me, personally, I read the NIV. Study from the NKJV, and memorize the KJV. But whatever works for you. I believe there are advantages to studying more than one version. There are way too many extremists out there who believe it's either KJV or nothing! That's probaby why they don't learn anything.
Reply:The most accurate versions are those written in the original languages, Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. These are the versions to be compared with whether the translations, be it NKJ, NIV, NASB, etc are true to the original languages of the Bible. I agree that it is the Holy Spirit who gives us revelation of the truth and the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:10) and not just by our reading or hearing alone..
Reply:Why I use the NWT:
Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
New Testament:
While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.
“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:
King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.
The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:
John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University
Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Concerning the NIV:
Bruce Metzger: (NIV) "It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of scripture" should take liberties with text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts."
.
Reply:BUT ... you did not ask a question!
Try the Anchor bible.
Reply:no book stands without the rest of the library study it all and get a well rounded education ....it's only as good as the person who regards it. take a step back and look at the big picture the tree of life has more branches than just religion and it requires them as well. plenty of wise and brilliant dead men to read .
Reply:Try the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for a change dear.
It's available on Amazon.
Reply:Not quite right. Try comparing an Interlinear Bible with the NIV and you will find the NIV is not that accurate. An Interlinear gives the original Hebrew and Greek with a word for word translation.
Reply:This is the advice I give. Please let me know if you still believe (as stated) that it is way off-base:
OK, here's my "what bible should I pick" answer:
1st, I'll assume that you are not a member of a sect that demands using the King James Version (KJV) or any other particular version. (Unfortunately, most of these sects do not actually use the whole KJV.)
At this stage you want to decide what your bible should contain. Do you want a bible that contains 1) all scripture or 2) a selection of scripture? Besides editions that contain all scripture, there are editions that contain only new testament books, others containing only books from the Hebrew bible, and still others (the majority) which exclude several books in a somewhat cavalier fashion.
I will assume that you intend to read the entire bible, or at least wish to have the entire bible at your disposal. In this case, you must obtain a bible that includes the Apocrypha. There are some sects teaching that the apocrypha is not inspired scripture, and if you are a member of one of these sects then simply avoid reading these books. There is no other reason for avoiding the so-called apocrypha and every reason to get a bible which includes them. Here is a more in-depth discussion about this topic: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/dc.htm .
In my conclusion I will consider two cases:
1) You want a "complete" bible (Complete)
2) You don't care if the apocrypha is included or not (Open)
The next stage is to decide if you want a bible merely for reading and learning the text of the bible itself, or if you intend to study scripture more deeply and intensely in order to gain a greater understanding and to help you interpret the scriptures accurately. This is the difference between a "standard" edition bible and a (scholarly) study bible. I will refer to this as "purpose" when I make recommendations below.
Finally, you need to decide whether you want a translation that offers 1) ease of reading 2) literalness of translation or 3) accuracy of translation. I separate these even though they are not *necessarily* mutually exclusive. Different versions *do* (must) follow primarily one of these three criteria, however, and so should you when you make a decision. I will refer to this as "style" when I make recommendations below.
A note about the KJV: although excellent for its time, and including nearly the entire body of scripture, as well as marginal notes from the translators providing possible alternate translations (making it a passable study bible), the KJV uses 400-year-old English, 400-year-old scholarship (read: they didn't know as much as scholars today), and texts that lacked the last 400 years of archaeological discoveries. By no means was the KJV the first English version of the bible. It's main advantage today is that most people use some form of the KJV and it is often useful to use the same version as others in discussions of scripture.
Recommendations: you can look at a fairly thorough comparison of technical details of different versions here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.ht... , but what follows are my recommendations.
Comparisons of "literalness" of translation can be found here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/tool_commen... and here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/re... and here: http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibl... . An important note: "literal" does *not* equate with "accurate". A translation that is more literal does *not* equate to a translation that is more accurate. Indeed, in *any* language translation, literal translation is likely to lead to significant failings in accuracy of translation.
Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading (Ease of Reading is not a relevant style for a study bible purpose)
........Content: Complete
............CEV (Contemporary English Version) - may have difficulty finding a complete version in print http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?i... , but available as an e-book on CD http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?i... . Second choice: NAB (New American Bible) - not as easy to read but still easy, translation accuracy may be slanted slightly by Roman Catholic bias.
Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NIV (New International Version) - one of the easiest-to-read modern translations with higher marks for accuracy than most easy-to-read bibles
Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible, Expanded Edition - one of the most literal translations with some of the most scholarly study notes, though somewhat archaic language. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - literalness uncertain but copious translator's notes help the reader achieve this goal. Deutero-canonicals incomplete.
Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............NASB (New American Standard Bible), Scofield Study Bible - most literal modern translation, but study notes are for the most part independent of the translation. 2nd choice: RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible - not as literal as the NASB but more comprehensive and scholarly study notes, available without Apocrypha.
Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............RSV - most literal complete version, but somewhat archaic language. Make certain to get a version that includes the Apocrypha. (All "Catholic" bibles include *most* of these books, and "Expanded Edition" includes them all).
Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NASB - most literal modern-text bible, high marks for accuracy
Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Regular Edition - copious study notes, word use demonstrates great concern for accuracy of translation, my favorite version. 2nd choice: NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - includes complete deutero-canonicals, excellent scholarly study notes on par with NJB, but translation suffers slightly from over-zealous use of "inclusive" language
Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............Same as above. New Oxford Annotated available without the Apocrypha.
Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............NJB Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET - copious translator's notes may make this the most accurate translation, but requires study to absorb the translation; deutero-canonicals incomplete.
Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NJB Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET. 3rd choice: NIV (New International Version) - highly regarded non-biased translation, not as careful as NJB but easier to read.
Recommendations for the true bible student (who doesn't know Greek or Hebrew):
1) Software including NASB, KJV, NRSV, NJB and NIV - I use Ellis (lacks NIV) but there is at least one other *affordable* (under $100) package providing this selection. Make certain a Strong's Concordance is also included.
2) NJB Regular Edition - get it if you can, don't settle for the Standard Edition. (My review here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm )
3) NASB - make certain to get the latest version. Get it in print if your software doesn't have it. Most literal translation.
4) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - NRSV translation demonstrates over-zealous use of inclusive language but the study notes are invaluable, perhaps better and less biased than NJB.
5) Oxford Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?i... - the complete books of the 1611 King James Version with printers errors removed and spelling modernized. No marginal notes.
6) KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?i... - the complete 1611 edition, *including* marginal notes, with modernized spelling. Probably more valuable than 5), but it's a tough call.
7) A good bible dictionary, such as HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. There are a few equally good alternatives.
Honorable mentions:
1) Tanakh, 1995 edition, by the Jewish Publication Society - scholarly translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish scholars, very highly regarded.
2) NWT (New World Translation), With References - a very literal bible with some excellent though incomplete study notes. Shows significant but infrequent Jehovah's Witness bias and is available only from the WatchTower Organization (Jehovah's Witnesses). Reading this with the awareness of the bias (which is mostly documented in the bible itself) can be quite worthwhile to a student of the bible.
I hope this helps.
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
Reply:New RSV Life application is great..
Reply:NWT (New World Translation) %26amp; NAB (New American Bible).
I've also read the Jason BeDuhn book. Liked it alot. I wish there was more secular books regarding comparative translations.
Take Care Everybody.
Reply:The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Reply:For clarity of thought, I prefer the New International Version. But for the poetic or literary value, I like the King James Version. Different versions of the Bible are good if they do not omit or alter any thought in the original Hebrew or Greek as some do.
Again, I agree we must know and have the Logos word, but it is the Rhema (revelation) word that transforms and gives life.
When the Logos word becomes the Rhema word then we understand the will of God.
Reply:You weren't really asking a question were you?
Reply:So you have answered your own question... well done... good answer!!!
Reply:science book
No comments:
Post a Comment