And for bonus points, why that one?
And for bonus points, why that one?
King James. For the reason that it is most responsible for the current situation.
ESV -- I think it's more true to the original documents.
It's also very easy to understand.
KJV. It is more familiar to most people.
Can anyone recommend a scholarly translation (with Apocrypha)??? I'd like to be able to point out its flaws and absurdities without certain individuals claiming that the translation is flawed and thusly does not retain the meaning of the original text.
thinking a translation can never be a simple mechanical legible version of a work , just the impression of someone very like you . Was thinking language may be similar in the most concrete ways but the basic conceptual field is drastically different . Was thinking I had a friend born and raised maybe 20 miles away from me but both of his parents were Hutterite , about as culturally different as you can get . The Koran as I understand does not have "translations" but "impressions "perhaps what we should have .
maybe the term translation is essentially misleading , and the the term should rather be " x work explained by someone in a form hopefully you will understand" . Shaum's Outlines or Cole's Notes ( or God forbid Classics Illustrated ) . National Lampoon's Son-o-God comics .
Truth is never a synonym for fact rather it is the correspondence of mind with fact when understanding that whatever God may reveal, human reception and understanding of it are involved in asserting it to be Divine revelation.
Unintelligible or humanly unassailable alleged revelation, whatever else it may be, is not Divine revelation.
........Thus, I have no particular favourite translation of Holy Scripture rather am inspired to read that which comes to mind, at the moment I am moved to seek inspiration on any particular matter.
I can be impressed and moved by the wonderful, poetic language of The Authorised Version (King James) whereas, the NIV is my version of choice for its easy read, and immediate understanding.
Duay-Rheims Version (Catholic), and the New American Version.
The Clear Word...
Firstly -- it is written by one of my old Religion professors (and a family friend) -- Jack Blanco...
Secondly -- it makes the Bible much EASIER to read -- for those of us who occasionally struggle with the King's English... :rotflmao:
The NIV (New International Version) is the English translation that I am most familiar with. This is my 'go to' version for looking up, and reading, a Biblical tale.
But the KJV (King James Version) has a beautiful, poetic, melodious (although often misleading) style. The archaic language lends a sense of gravitas and profundity to even the most trivial of verses.
The Living Bible and the Good News Bible must be two of the worst versions that I have encountered; although the Living Bible is a paraphrase rather than a translation, if I recall correctly.
An interesting read on a new Norwegian translation of Holy Scripture:
The hottest read in Norway this year is packed with polygamy, prostitutes – even corporal punishment. But this isn't Fifty Shades of Grey; instead, Norwegians have been rushing to pick up copies of the Bible.
Published last October, a new Norwegian translation of the Bible has been one of the top 15 bestsellers in the country for 54 out of the last 56 weeks, jostling for position with more populist titles from the likes of EL James, James NesbÝ, Ken Follett and Per Petterson. It is now one of the bestselling books of the year, according to Dag Smemo, project manager for publisher the Norwegian Bible Society, with 157,000 copies sold in the last 14 months, and more time in the charts than both Fifty Shades of Grey and Justin Bieber's autobiography.
I am most familiar with KJV because of its keyed relationship with Strong's Concordance and because of an early and lengthy acquaintance with that particular vintage of old wine. I now like the RSV's and actually my choice might be swayed by notes giving variant readings rather than the text itself, but these do represent excellent English. NIV is acceptable. But there isn't one of those on my shelf, actually. Oh, yes there is...gotta find it someday. The reason these revised Versions are acceptable or whatever is that I don't take them with too too much deadly seriousness. But I do take them seriously in what I perceive to be the proper way to do so.
I am not one to turn up my nose or gnash my teeth at these little books. Like Homer and the other old Greek texts, they are a link to our earliest literary pasts and a great source for learning how we are a bit screwed up if read carefully--but also, moreso, a guide to the human race's stronger and nobler characteristics; in fact, certainly, misread or mis-preached it can cause various forms of depression and mental illness. Many Christians call that a form of black magic, actually, using Scripture to influence people, and to "help God." But I also think that The One We Call God uses this book to reach even the darkest souls.
To be sure, there is no lack of misuse of the Versions in our Big Global Village.
to many to choose from. simply not logical does not compute.
I am not often in the library's fiction section.
Hey guys, there are lots of places both here and in Hot Topics to debate atheist critiques of religion (even using funny pictures.)
But this thread is about translation. Let's keep it On Topic.
The most scholarly modern translations -- using the best original Hebrew and Greek texts, and with a diverse team of translators, and seeking a literal word-for-word translation -- are the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version (for North American) and the Revised English Bible (British).
The NIV is by a team of predominantly evangelical Protestant translators, and occasionally (but not too often) shows a slight bias, but 95% or more is functionally equal to the NRSV. Both also have translators footnotes, which note where the Hebrew text is corrupted and they have used the Greek Septuagint or another ancient version, or where the early New Testament manuscripts disagree.
I would recommend an annotated edition (Harper Collins Study Bible or New Oxford Annotated Bible, both NRSV, or the multi-volume New Interpreter's Bible, which gives parallel NIV and NRSV) for additional textual notes, alternative readings and cross-references.
The KJV, despite its wonderful language, is deeply flawed for serious study. First, many English words have changed meaning considerably since 1611. ("Suffer the children to come unto me" is one verse which means something entirely different in modern English). Second, it is not based on the best ancient manuscripts. Third, the KJV is not a word-for-word translation, the translators having taken occasional liberties in order to produce a version well suited to public reading, and to promote certain theological biases (see Adam Nicolson's book "God's Secretaries: the Making of the King James Bible").
Paraphrases (Good News Bible, Eugene Peterson's The Message, New Living Translation) are NOT literal translations, and the translators have in many cases made changes to the text to make them more readable and easy to understand. In any paraphrase, be aware of the biases of the translators, as they tend to come through (especially in Paul). While paraphrases are good for reading and understanding, they are not good for serious study.
There is a new translation (CEV), which I have heard good things about. As scholarly and thorough as the NRSV and NIV, but with a bit more accessible language. I haven't had a chance to check it out, so I can't offer an opinion.
Finally, for those who want to see the extremes of playing fast and loose with translation, pick up the Jehovah's Witnesses translation, and compare it to any standard Bible. I read their version of John, and hardly recognized it.
I use the ESV, RSV, NRSV with the Apocrypha, and Orthodox Jewish Bible. For extensive research in Mediterranean studies, I'll use Textus Receptus and the mGNT.
All are used in academics and I use them interchangeably to demonstrate specific points.
I advise heavily against the Queen James Bible (yes, it is real), TNIV, and The Message.
The KJV has too many translation errors.
I like using the NKJV for reading. However, I LOVE Eugene Peterson's 'The Message' paraphrase and also I like the New Living Translation, but for everyday reading it's NKJV.
I found a very old copy of the Catholic Duay-Rheims Bible (Family size) at a swap meet, and got it for only $6! It's a Red Letter edition, and I will be restoring it the best I can. Does anyone know how to fix binding, and clean the leather like cover? It still has all its pages. It's my favorite of all English translations. It's from 1966.
The one by John Marco Allegro in his VERY important book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
Because it gets right to the roots of how writ down mythologies, including the books of the Bible, were writ down and composed. They were composed in layers. The outer superficial layers are for the unitiated and are literalist tales, but 'hidden' in the text is the meaning for the intitated of the cult, and they did this through using the literary techniques of transliteration, wordplay, using 'dead' languages like Sumarian, etc etc to point to their meaning.
Well that they eat a mind-altering fungus which they related to 'God'.
They believed that mushrooms magically appeared after thunderstors, and their concept of their patriarchal god was of a massive phallus on the heavens who would rain down his semen, and this would be particularly strong in psychedelic mushrooms which after eating them brought the eater into contact with deeper reality including with their 'God'.
This made complete sense to me because I had had early psychedelic experience when 15, and many times after with LSD and magic mushrooms and I knew of their awesome power. So understanding that people from ancient times would also have had access to these kinds of experiences was very mindblowing to me.
Understanding about this makes you question everything including their interpretation of their experiences. Whereas they were patriarchal, I am more attracted to Goddess mythology which sees nature and the body and sexuality as sacred. NOT fallen. I am therefore assuming that IF they chose to interpret deep experience which including a phallic god cut off from nature, that this would affect them and entrench these beliefs via their use of these substances.
For the pagands however, who saw nature and the body and sex as nothing to be feared, psychedelics would be a celebration and not some way to 'purify' oneself so one could return to the 'father' away from nature.
Umm, well I used to be Mormon. So I would read the Holy Bible within the Standard Works, or the "Quad" as Mormons nicknamed it.
The Standard Works which is like our "canon" consist of the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price.
The Bible is the same as everyone else's, it is the authentic KJV. People think the Mormons changed the Bible, but we didn't. It is the good ole KJV that is just as responsible for all the wars as your Bible is.
Now, if you read the footnotes, there are little nuggets of insight courtesy of the Prophet Joseph Smith. But other than that it is the same. We also don't consider the Song of Solomon canonical Scripture. True! And don't believe any Mormon who says otherwise.
Its quite simple to prove, just ask for there Bible then turn to SofS, and right at the only footnote on the page says Joey Smith does not afford of Bible Porn lol.
Anyway, not to get off topic. That's the translation I use. I haven't read the Bible in years, and I read the Book of Mormon maybe like 1 or 2 years ago.
I still have my Quad with my name engraved on it (that is a Mormon tradition), but once you discover cock why bother reading the Bible......or reading anything else for that matter. ;)
Revised Standard Version (1952); Scholarship is sound, and the expression is unaffected (uncontaminated? distorted? nullified?) by secular humanism, as later versions are
I have had them running at to me when I pass trying to get me going to their church and especially take a Bible. In the past I have tried to talk with them about why I am not into all that stuff, but can see that really ALL they want is to unload a bible on your person lol.
What I do now is with a stern look-then-smile hold my arm out and hand making a strong gesture of NO!!!! They get the message. Of course there are some that are so cute I want to go to THEM hehe Don't wanna derail this thread so if you like pm me?
I prefer the New English Bible.
Keep in mind that the earliest Biblical collection we have is the Muratorian Canon which dates to the mid second century. The Council of Nicea didn't come to order untilhe early fourth century. The Council deliberated on theological issues...not what constituted scripture. Hence, the Nicene Creed.
The KJV of the Bible even included the Apocrypha.