Which version to read through?

[SoundCard]

This is likely to cause a stir among the patrons here and I apologize in advance if it gets anyone's feathers ruffled, but what version of Scripture should someone use for study? I find myself a tad uncertain since I read of a difference in Isaiah 43:20 as an example:

NIV:

20 The wild animals honor me,
the jackals and the owls,
because I provide water in the desert
and streams in the wasteland,
to give drink to my people, my chosen,

KJ:

20The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Why does one version depict jackals, and another dragons? Do the root words allow for both interpretations?

 

[SoundCard]

Hm, Strong's concordance says that it can be translated as dragon or jackal... huh.

 

[ahiggs]

i have looked into which translation is most accurate, and from what i have found NASB is the most accurate. it isn't very poetic or seem to flow as well as other translations. when i am studding i tend to have several different translations out. i personally like NKJV, it is a little easier for me to read than KJV

 

[Cris413]

I agree ahiggs...I like the NASB and the NKJV...when I study...I like to use eSword...it is an awesome study tool...and it's really easy to use the parallel and compare features and see mulitple versions as well as word by word concordance.

(KJV+) Let thy mercy,2617 O LORD,3068 be1961 upon5921 us, according as834 we hope3176 in thee.

(NAS+) Let Your lovingkindness , O LORD3068 , be upon us, According as we have hoped3176 in You.

(NKJV) Let Your mercy, O LORD, be upon us,
Just as we hope in You.

(NIV) May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD,
even as we put our hope in you.

this is how the compare feature looks...and you can hover over the referrence number to see the original language

...I just love it!

 

[JTLauder]

Yeah, you will get a lot of fanatical responses to people's favorite translations, but remember that they are all just translations or paraphrases. And make sure you understand the difference between the two.

First, I would draw distinctions between reading and studying the Bible.

For casual reading and personal devotions, you don't want to be mired in ancient cultural and language difficulties that will detract you away from just taking in God is putting into your heart. If the language causes you to stop and look up every word, then that translation probably is the most helpful for this purpose. I have no problem with using a more modern translation or even a paraphrase for casual and devotional reading.

But for Bible study purposes, which is more academic in nature, you will want to get to the actual text as much as possible to understand the cultural and language background of the piece of Scripture you are studying. Short of taking intense ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic language courses, which most people are not inclined to do, I suggest 2 things every Christian must do:

1) Get a concordance (not the one at the back of your Bible), such as Strong's Exhaustive concordance. This is a must. Second highly recommended reference is Vine's Expository Dictionary of the Bible (make sure to get the one for the whole Bible, not just the NT version).

2) Do not stick to a single translation. Refer to multiple translations for comparison.

As one person mentioned, get e-sword. It's an excellent free Bible software program that has numerous translations and other references, including Strong's. It has some really nice features such as allowing you to compare verses in multiple translations in a single view. Some of the Bible translation modules are not free, but many of them are.

As you can tell, I'm a BIG advocate of referring to multiple translations. If you are going to study the Bible, do not stay with only a single translation. But if I have to make a recommendation for a translation for a primary Bible, I would suggest the ESV (English Standard Version). It's a newer translation that is very dedicated to accuracy.

 

[JTLauder]

Hm, Strong's concordance says that it can be translated as dragon or jackal... huh.

Actually, there's a project to translate the Bible in Klingon---really, seriously.
I don't think that's the best use of one's time, since they could be putting the effort into a legitimate human language, but interesting none the less.

 

[JTLauder]

Actually, there's a project to translate the Bible in Klingon---really, seriously.
I don't think that's the best use of one's time, since they could be putting the effort into a legitimate human language, but interesting none the less.

Oh, I'm terrible sorry, I totally misread your post. I guess I missed that last part of the OP message and didn't understand you were answering a question of the translated word. I thought you were being facetious and saying that the Bible could be translated into a dragon or jackal language. My bad.

 

[Ryan897]

two things from me.

1.why are their sooo many diffrent translations, and in alot of them they are on the other side of the room compared to older translations. i notice in youth class most when we are asked to read along with the teacher (he uses the KJV we have NIV/ NLT) and we get lost because some words are taken out others replaced with diffrent words and i think that their shouldent be that many translations for one language.

2.do dragons exist in the bible? other than this verse? or are they refering to reptiles?

 

[JTLauder]

two things from me.

1.why are their sooo many diffrent translations, and in alot of them they are on the other side of the room compared to older translations. i notice in youth class most when we are asked to read along with the teacher (he uses the KJV we have NIV/ NLT) and we get lost because some words are taken out others replaced with diffrent words and i think that their shouldent be that many translations for one language.

Why?

I love this analogy, and it will demonstrate the problem with translating not only language but cultural idioms and phrases as well.

How would you translate the phrase "raining cats and dogs"?

Literalists will argue that everything has to be translated word for word literal translation. But that would have to mean the people reading the translated text have to understand that this phrase means it's raining really hard and not that cats and dogs are literally falling down from the sky.

To illustrate further, in one African language, the similar phrase for heavy rainfall literally translated into English comes out to: "It's raining old women with clubs." Try telling that to your friends and see what they think that means without explaining it.

That's why some translators go for a more understandable translation. But to do that, they have to put their interpretation into what the text is suppose to mean, and that interpretation may not be correct, and you lose the original text.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages do not follow the same grammatical or sentence structure as in English. They don't have punctuation marks. The sentences, paragraphs, book chapter and verse separations did not exist and assumed for the translated versions.

That's why if you can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek, we can't rely on a single translation.

 

[brotherChristian]

Don't worry about it. Part of being non-denom is not worrying about what some specific person says about a particular verse. Whatever translation you read, God will not allow His meaning to be lost without you understanding it. Regardless who the "expert" who translated it is. Just read, believe, and live.

 

[Corin]

This is likely to cause a stir among the patrons here and I apologize in advance if it gets anyone's feathers ruffled, but what version of Scripture should someone use for study? I find myself a tad uncertain since I read of a difference in Isaiah 43:20 as an example:

NIV:

20 The wild animals honor me,
the jackals and the owls,
because I provide water in the desert
and streams in the wasteland,
to give drink to my people, my chosen,

KJ:

20The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Why does one version depict jackals, and another dragons? Do the root words allow for both interpretations?

They both mean the same exact thing if you read it correctly.

 

[SoundCard]

I just ask mainly because of a video I saw where this man is referencing different areas in scripture as evidence for dinosaurs existing with man, but I don't think he's doing a good job as it's not really talking about that sort thing in most of the passages he cited.

 

[Caeroth]

As mentioned by others, for a more literal translation use NASB, for poetry refer to KJV or NKJV, and for modern language go to the NIV or NLT. Like others, I refer to eSword all the time, and I have gone ahead and sprung for the NKJV module so I could better study what my pastor likes to use. I rely heavily on Strong's, but when in doubt I am not shy about asking my pastor, who is fluent in ancient and modern Middle Eastern languages.

As for dinosaurs in the Bible... Well, it's kind of like that "raining cats and dogs" analogy, because the euphemisms and cultural context often determine the sense.

But to get back to your bigger question anout WHY there are so many translations: Because times change. At the time of King James of England, there was just one English translation of the Bible, and it was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible rather than the original Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James endeavored to return to the original langauges, but even the King James Version fell prey to human errors and centuries of well-intentioned "additions." Later, as older original-language manuscripts became available and the English language changed, it became necessary to re-translate for new generations. In the past 200 years there have been dozens of major English-language translations that started from scratch with the latest accepted manuscripts. If you really want to learn a bit more about translations and the history of such things, check out Michael Marlowe's Bible Research site. It's very informative and interesting, and he compares similar translations so you can see some of the differences.

Peace,

 

[ahiggs]

I just ask mainly because of a video I saw where this man is referencing different areas in scripture as evidence for dinosaurs existing with man, but I don't think he's doing a good job as it's not really talking about that sort thing in most of the passages he cited.

i think that there is, but that is a debate for a different thread. read Job specifically where it talks of the behemoth and the leviathan.
check out these websites
http://www.creationmuseum.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

[Ryan897]

Why?

I love this analogy, and it will demonstrate the problem with translating not only language but cultural idioms and phrases as well.

How would you translate the phrase "raining cats and dogs"?

Literalists will argue that everything has to be translated word for word literal translation. But that would have to mean the people reading the translated text have to understand that this phrase means it's raining really hard and not that cats and dogs are literally falling down from the sky.

To illustrate further, in one African language, the similar phrase for heavy rainfall literally translated into English comes out to: "It's raining old women with clubs." Try telling that to your friends and see what they think that means without explaining it.

That's why some translators go for a more understandable translation. But to do that, they have to put their interpretation into what the text is suppose to mean, and that interpretation may not be correct, and you lose the original text.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages do not follow the same grammatical or sentence structure as in English. They don't have punctuation marks. The sentences, paragraphs, book chapter and verse separations did not exist and assumed for the translated versions.

That's why if you can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek, we can't rely on a single translation.

makes sense and i see your point. but i think that in bible school their should be one translation. then have eveyone tell what they think a certion passage meens. because its to confusing trying to read along with 4 diffrent translations.

you are right tho i dident think about the interpretation tho lol. i was just mad cuse i cant keep up in class

 

[JTLauder]

makes sense and i see your point. but i think that in bible school their should be one translation. then have eveyone tell what they think a certion passage meens. because its to confusing trying to read along with 4 diffrent translations.

I think in seminary, you're required to know the original Hebrew and Greek, not translations.
And in any serious Bible study or Bible school, even if you read Hebrew and Greek, you should be able to refer to original word and its meaning; such dependencies on translations is a bad sign.
But I agree, everyone reading the same translation makes it easier to follow along.

 

[Ryan897]

I think in seminary, you're required to know the original Hebrew and Greek, not translations.
And in any serious Bible study or Bible school, even if you read Hebrew and Greek, you should be able to refer to original word and its meaning; such dependencies on translations is a bad sign.

im talking about like sunday school youth class. none of use are gonna know hebrew or greek. they should have 1 type to learn from that dosent require studying of another language

 

[Caeroth]

im talking about like sunday school youth class. none of use are gonna know hebrew or greek. they should have 1 type to learn from that dosent require studying of another language

In the case of a Sunday school youth class, stick with whatever translation the lead pastor uses, but keep a copy of a modern language translation around for casual use to illustrate passages in modern language and idiom. I have found that any pastor worth the title will see that certain translations are closer to the word and intent of the old languages, and so they require less explanation. It can be tough finding that balance between literalness and ease-of-reading, which is why the NIV has been so popular: it's very readable. But if your lead pastor reads from the King James or the New King James or the New Living Translation, then that's what every ministry in that church should be using, so that when a kid comes home from Sunday school and asks mom or dad about a passage from Scripture, the text is read and understood the same.

I recently visited a friend's new church, and although the teaching was sound, they relied a little too much on the modern language of their translation (the New Living, I think). Why do I say "too much"? Because the worship leader who spoke the message that day relied on the word the translator had used rather than referring to anything in the original language or even in a closer translation. It worked for his sermon, but it obscured part of some more subtle meanings that he might have found and used if he'd dug a bit deeper. In seminary, most pastors are taught (especially at the tougher schools) to begin their messages by referring to the original languages, not translations. Real exegesis begins with the old tongues, not modern translations, and then once the exegesis and message is written, at the service the pastor can read aloud from their church's typical Bible -- but the pastor hasn't allowed a committee of translators to obscure the many shades of meaning he or she will extract from the original language.

Some denominations prefer (or even require) their pastors to use certain translations. Again, for consistency's sake, stick with what the lead pastor uses.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Why?

I love this analogy, and it will demonstrate the problem with translating not only language but cultural idioms and phrases as well.

How would you translate the phrase "raining cats and dogs"?

Literalists will argue that everything has to be translated word for word literal translation. But that would have to mean the people reading the translated text have to understand that this phrase means it's raining really hard and not that cats and dogs are literally falling down from the sky.

To illustrate further, in one African language, the similar phrase for heavy rainfall literally translated into English comes out to: "It's raining old women with clubs." Try telling that to your friends and see what they think that means without explaining it.

That's why some translators go for a more understandable translation. But to do that, they have to put their interpretation into what the text is suppose to mean, and that interpretation may not be correct, and you lose the original text.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages do not follow the same grammatical or sentence structure as in English. They don't have punctuation marks. The sentences, paragraphs, book chapter and verse separations did not exist and assumed for the translated versions.

That's why if you can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek, we can't rely on a single translation.

Translation telephone can yield hilarious results. Translated through french, spanish, modern greek into russian, then back into english the phrase "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" becomes "The meat is bad but the vodka is good".

Translation--its a hard racket.

 

[No Swansong]

The best translation is always the one you will read. The same applies to everyone. Thus the students in your class should all own whichever one they will read. Your teacher is missing a great opportunity by not pointing out that different passages can be legitimately translated different ways. My family reads Bible together everyday. We purposely all have a different translation. (I prefer the Holman Christian Standard btw) We take the opportunity to investigate different renderings of the same passage.

Remember no translation does you any good if you don't read it.