1 Jn 2:5

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
What do You think is the best version, or do You have a different suggestion perhaps from the Rheims Bible?:
But when anyone does obey what he has said, (1966 Jerusalem Bible=JB)
or: But whoever keeps his word, (1986 New American Bible=NAB)
or: But anyone who does keep his word, (1985 New Jerusalem Bible=NJB)
...
God's love comes to perfection in him. We can be sure that we are in God (JB)
the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
in such a one God's love truly reaches it's perfection. This is the proof that we are in God. (NJB)

Context:
1st John 2:1-4 I am writing this my children, to stop you sinning; (JB) But if anyone does sin, (NAB) we have one to plead our cause with the father, Jesus Christ (New English Bible=NEB), the upright. He is the sacrifice to expiate our sins, and not only ours, but also those of the whole world. (NJB) We can be sure that we know God only by keeping his commandments. Anyone who says, "I know him," (JB) but disobeys his commandments (RSV-2) is a liar and a stranger to the truth; (NEB)
...
1st John 2:6 only when the one who claims to be living in him is living the same kind of life as Christ lived. (JB)
 

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I don't know if You'll be satisfied with this answer, right now I haven't yet written much about how I actually choose word-for-word which translation to use, and my brother arrives in 8 minutes from now for the Christmas celebration. But I'll edit this post when I'm able to put down in writing more fully what my reasons are! EDIT: now I'm continuing to add some things but not much about the method.
Unix,

What criteria do you use to determine the "best version" for any Bible translation?
Thank You, OzSpen for bringing up this thread and that subject! In both regards I've waited "nervously".

Well, first of all it's the question about how to determine which Bible versions to compare. It seems like most Christians, during their life, compare at least 2 versions, but it seems to be often mere happenstance which ones.

So, to avoid the same errors many are doing when selecting Bible versions, I've done two or three things:
1) What I can do, is to read as many opinions about Bible versions as I have the chance to. In other words that means that I browse forums and search internet for comparisons and tidbits, quite often, and continue to do after I think I have settled my mind.
I've read opionions saying that JB has often brilliant renderings, and that's what I've also noticed myself often.
2) What I can also rather easily do, is to collect Bibles during a very long time period, now I've been collecting them both in the mid-'00s and during 2011. I've also got rid of Bibles, that is also important, otherwise the curiosity towards certain versions would cause over-usage of those. Another thing that effectively held back my curiosity and most, and foremost usage of, the Bibles I would otherwise used the most, was the fact that I was atheist for 5 years somewhat recently, about until a year ago.
To not place orders on Bibles in a haste, I have so far not had an bankcard, but depended on others through whom I've made the orders.
3) To not make the layout a significant question, or the binding, or the extras. The Bible I use the most frequently, an 8-translation parallel New Testament is bulky (due to that it has wide space in between the translations and somewhat wide margins) and paperback and lacks parts of the footnotes.

* Christians often use electronic editions of Bibles to get hands on different versions. But I avoid that approach, since that effectively excludes Bibles that are not on the internet, or at least the footnotes are missing, such as REB is entirely missing, and RSV-2CE (only RSV-CE and the regular RSV(-P) is on the internet, although the differences are of course scarce) and CENT (Common English New Testament, from the 19th century), and 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalms, and Phillips NT, and 1971 GNB 3rd edition (and perhaps the 1976 4th edition is equally missing from the internet, I haven't checked since I have it, the NT, in printed form), and 2004(-2005) Good As New.
* Another usual error Christians do, is that they don't pay attention to the fact that versions are often revised and newer is almost always worse. Comparing for example Confraternity version (done in the '40s-'60s) with the newest NAB (OT done in 2010, NT done in 1986) the older is better, but the oldest is the worst: (the Douay-Reims done + revised in the 16th-19th centuries)! I use the 2010 NABRE OT for many long passages, but those are mostly such passages which never or almost never get read by me nor most Christians.
Another case when the newer, but not newest, is the best edition, is the Common English New Testament, (from the 19th century), being better than both the AV from the 17th-18th century and the Third Millenium Bible/21st Century Version. Another case is of course that NJB in very few short passages which are only in Mt, Lk and 1 Jn 2-5, is better than JB which is far superiour, despite that I've often read that people choose to place an order on the NJB without regarding the JB or CTS New Catholic Bible.

Secondly, mostly the word-for-word translation is not of interest. I'm OK with a slant of what the translators thought the passage would mean. JB is just on the spot in regards of dynamic equivalence. English is so far from Hebrew and Greek, and the tought-pattern of the modern man has changed since Biblical times.

Thirdly, footnotes are important, that, among other reasons, is what weighs down such versions as NAB and NJB, and adds to the value of JB and Confraternity version a lot.

Book introductions are also good to have in some Bible, and JB fills that need excelently.

Now to the question how I actually handle the about a dozen NT translations that I read side-by-side:
Firstly, I would like to say, that I read only one or a few words at a time, not even an entire verse. It's fine by me that this process will cause many years of slow reading and a lot of use of time. I don't even want to read the entire Bible since I find reading-through to be a completely unnecessary procedure and I've almost read through hastily almost 20 years ago in Finnish, except the Deuterocanonicals.
I don't forget which version I chose, since I do a rectangle around it with a pen.
Well, one aspect, is that it has to closely reflect Catholic teaching, which means that there is no obvious translation to choose, NAB is far from so Catholic as people use to think, and JB is in the middle-grounds between Protestantism and Catholicism. 1992 GNT-CE is not among the most reliable versions, it's just fever-worded and that's a reason why I use it and 1971 GNB 3rd edition and 1976 GNB 4th edition. I'm OK with Bibles that omit the Deuterocanonicals wholly or partially, after all there's just one fairly good translation that includes 2 Esdras: REB, and it's too harsh to let that limit the selection.
I've divided the Bible in different portions and use different approaches to each portion:
* Genesis 2010 NABRE, 1948 Confraternity Version, 1989 REB, 1966 JB
* Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy 6:5, Deuteronomy 34 UNDECIDED
* Ruth REB
* The rest of the books of the OT NABRE and Confraternity Version, except not the Confraternity Version for those books which had not been translated for the 1961 edition, (see Wikipedia for details)
* Ezra NABRE
* 1 Maccabees Updated Bible Version 2.16 and NABRE
* 2 Maccabees UNDECIDED
* Parts of Job NKJV, the rest NABRE
* Minor parts of the Psalter REB (135:12-144:4), the rest UNDECIDED, I have practically never read the Psalter, so I'm completely lost there for now. I have the 1997 Revised Jewish Publication Society Psalter, perhaps that's what I'll use to most part!
* Sirach Confraternity Version. But note that I don't read the entire Sirach: I limit it by what UPDV Updated Bible Version - The Wisdom of Sirach says. The modern scholarship I get from the Updated Bible Version 2.16.
* Isaiah JB
* Daniel 7:13 I compare several versions, such as REB and NABRE and Confraternity version. The rest of Daniel, IF I'll read it: NABRE
* Obadiah, Micah I've planned to compare REB and NABRE
* Jonah REB and JB
* Parts of Nahum, Haggai REB, rest from NABRE
* For the OT I also have the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, but UNDECIDED for which passages I'll utilize it!
* 2 Esdras REB of course

* Mt 1:18-17:6 mainly CPDV with a lot of corrections; Mt 27:64 1962 NASB
* Lk 7:37 HCSB, 9:1-:22 CPDV
* Jn 20:8-21:5 CPDV
* Ro 1:1 RSV-CE; 3:25c, 4:1 1971 GNB 3rd edition; 5:6, 8:24 NEB; 8:1 CPDV
...and so on... using about a dozen versions in the NT, among which are also in addition to the ones I didn't mention in this post: NEB, Phillips, 1973 NIV for very few verses, RSV-CE limitedly, sometimes only the footnote from it, LB just for some verses where I feel certain, 1992 GNT
The epistles of the NT REB - this is where I use the REB the most. A few verses from the Common English New Testament, and also Updated Bible Version 2.16 for some of 1 Corinthians
* 1986 NAB NT for for example Ro 6:11, 8:38-:39.
* 1 Jn 1966 JB, 1989 REB, 1972 Phillips revised edition, 1976 GNB 4th edition, 2012 Updated Bible Version 2.16, 1986 NAB NT, NEB, 1941 Confraternity version NT, 1971 GNB 3rd edition NT, 1985 NJB, RSV-CE, 1992 GNT-CE, '60s-'70s LB, 1973 NIV NT, 2008 Comprehensive New Testament, 2009 CPDV, 1970 NAB. A TOTAL OF 17 VERSIONS compared side-by-side

Sorry that I don't have time to list which version I use for each book! This list above was summoned in a haste, I could have done it a bit more specific.

I'm really thinking right now, how is it that I select a certain version for a specific passage?! Well, I choose what's:
the most advanced,
gives meaning (but NO I don't try to search for the one that "opens up", because that would be a contradiction to the advanced-criteria),
I prefer Brittish over American English but that's of course not something I can use as a preference all the time,
and he right literary style - this is the point that is the hardest to explain
...

Do you read Greek and/or Hebrew to know the accuracy of any translation?

Oz
For just a few verses and words inte the entire Bible, yes I do, for very decisive verses, such as Is 7:14 (there are proof for that it should read maiden or virgin), that's one reason why I regard the Jerusalem Bible (JB) to be the best all-in-all. In addition to that Jerusalem Bible is what the Church here in the EU recommends, plus a feature of it, is that not all Deuterocanonical books are included, only the ones still in actual use by the RCC (nowadays).

Pick up a copy of the Jerusalem Bible with annotations -- while based on a Catholic viewpoint (and including the deuterocanonicals), they're scrupulously fair about annotating every time a verse is of debatable origin or of unclear meaning in the original Hebrew (or Greek -- it's rare in the NT). They give what the translators believe to be a clear rendering, and then footnote it to give alternate readings, manuscript sources that include, omit, or give variant readings for that passage, etc.

For Jas 1:2-2:2, 2:14-5:20 I use somewhat much Greek, since I have a commentary by Richard Bauckham, Routledge 1999.

I have chosen which manuscripts to follow for Mt and Lk: Codex Bezae, plus for Mt the ones I mention in:
http://www.christianforums.com/t82033/#post1504317
... I don't anymore recommend the manuscript for Mt I mention in that post!

For the NT it's not that hard to follow the Greek, since there is the book I mention in http://www.christianforums.com/t782894/#post9102981, plus there's COM (Comprehensive New Testamant, by Clontz), of course it has bias, a lot, but at least it's word-for-word with footnotes about what the Greek actually says, and follows strictly the NA27/UBSGNT4-text.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
What do You think is the best version, or do You have a different suggestion perhaps from the Rheims Bible?:
But when anyone does obey what he has said, (1966 Jerusalem Bible=JB)
or: But whoever keeps his word, (1986 New American Bible=NAB)
or: But anyone who does keep his word, (1985 New Jerusalem Bible=NJB)

They're the same. The difference is stylistic, and that's a judgement you can only make when looking at the whole passages.

Keeping his word is the same as obeying his word.
His word is the same as what he said.
Whoever = anyone who
keeps = does keep
Of those the NAB seems the most straightforward.

NRSV is "whoever obeys his word".
CEB is "whoever keeps his word".
They mean the same thing, but keeps is probably the smoother English in this context (not surprising, given how the CEB was done).

A lot of the NAB is very good. My main problem is that it seems more uneven than other major translations. Different books have slightly different styles. At least in the edition I have. Maybe there's a newer one. I agree that the JB was known as having brilliant readings. In that respect it's the Catholic equivalent of the NEB. I actually like the REB (the newer version of the NEB), but both seem to have disappeared into the sands of time. I'm just starting with the CEB. I'm becoming more impressed as I use it. I still use NRSV for study (thought in a program that can bring up the original Greek, with literal translation and pointers to lexicons).

Fortunately most current translations are very close to each other.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Judging by Your latest Bible choice, You seem excited about a new version just because it's new, or?!
They're the same. The difference is stylistic, and that's a judgement you can only make when looking at the whole passages.
I want to make that stylistic choice anyway, so I ask people here on the forum to help me choose! First I choose a Bible version for each word, later on I read. Slight differences can either distort the meaning to what it's not, or blur the meaning, or signify correctly.
Keeping his word is the same as obeying his word.
His word is the same as what he said.
Whoever = anyone who
keeps = does keep
Of those the NAB seems the most straightforward.

NRSV is "whoever obeys his word".
CEB is "whoever keeps his word".
They mean the same thing, but keeps is probably the smoother English in this context (not surprising, given how the CEB was done).
This Bible verse is a test of how dynamic equivalent a translation is. Now the question is: is dynamic equivalence a good thing in this verse?
A lot of the NAB is very good. My main problem is that it seems more uneven than other major translations. Different books have slightly different styles. At least in the edition I have.
In all the 1970-2010 editions it's uneven with different styles in different books. To make things worse, the footnotes of the New Testament edition which most people use, the 1986 one, are inconsistent with the newest Old Testament, the 2010 one.
Maybe there's a newer one.
Of the New Testament? Not really, the chances are slim. The 1986 NT is somewhat better, especially in the Gospels, than the 1970, but not much, You probably have a 1986. I have all the editions of the NT: 1941, 1970, 1986. The 1941 Pauline epistles that were really written by Paul, and the general epistles, are better than both the 1970 and the 1986 edition. There is no newer than that, and the translators have answered publicly that there is not going to come a new edition. If You have the 1970 New Testament, it's not worthwhile to upgrade to a newer edition. In any case, avoid the one which has these 3 copyright years, even if You would get it for free: 1970 OT, 1991 Psalter, 1986 NT! In a few verses, the 1986 edition is extremely word-for-word from the Greek. For Sirach and about Joseph in Genesis, 1961-1969 Confraternity version is the best, choose the one which has Sirach in the title or the 1965 mass-market-paperback OT Amazon.com: The Old Testament of the Holy Bible: Confraternity Version: Rev. Joseph A. (intro and Commentary by) Grispino: Books!
I agree that the JB was known as having brilliant readings. In that respect it's the Catholic equivalent of the NEB.
Yes, I use it a lot for for example Gn 15:6; Mt 16:20, 17:6 (although same in most versions); Mt 19 (with corrections to correspond to the NA27/UBSGNT4); Mt 20:14; Mt 21, 22:15-16a; Mt 24; Mk 15:45; 16:1c-3, :6; Lk 1-2; 7-8; 18:41; Jn 5, 14-15; Ro 2, 4:3; 2 Cor 2; 2 Peter 2; 1 Jn 2-5.
I actually like the REB (the newer version of the NEB), but both seem to have disappeared into the sands of time.
NEB has very Brittish language, which hinders it to be used by a wider audience in for example the US, the REB dealt with some of that. I use NEB a lot for Mt 27; Mk 1, 6; Lk 7, 22; Jn 1:1, 14:23; 2 Cor 1-2; 2 Peter 2:-10a-b; 1 Jn 2:1b, :4c, 7a, 27a, 3:19a, 4:2, 5:13-14.
Many people want a fairly new Bible version and choose a Bible version in a haste: NRSV and NIV are more well-known than REB. Also, the NRSV sticks more closely to the UBSGNT3corr/NA26 -text, than the REB, in Matthew and Ephesians, which NRSV-users probably point out and therefore recommend the NRSV to others, but I, myself, think that is an insignificant aspect. REB should be able to compete with NRSV since there's equally many combinations of with/or/without Deuterocanonicals; and 2 Esdras is included (so the Greek-Orthodox, Russian-Orthodox, and Ethopian-Orthodox churches should be content). NRSV overshadowed REB since it came out at the same time in the US and there were many RSV-users, and still are, that wanted to feel familiar. What surprises me, is how easily the gender-neutralness of the NRSV was accepted. And what's not that surprising is how ESV is taking market-shares from the NRSV now in many countries, thinking of how the ESV is marketed.
I'm just starting with the CEB. I'm becoming more impressed as I use it.
I was in a haste and made a typo. I meant I use a few verses from Common English New Testament anno 1865.
The only verse where I prefer CEB, is the prayer in: Mt 6:9-:13. But the parallel Luke 11:2-:4 I want to be like this:
He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us today's bread and forgive us our sins for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt by sin to us, and do not subject us to the final test.'

A litmus-test that the CEB doesn't pass, is that in the OT (I don't remember by heart where, but I have it on paper in the folder which I don't have with me right now) the blessing is "on" a person. That's unacceptable bias!
I still use NRSV for study (thought in a program that can bring up the original Greek, with literal translation and pointers to lexicons).

Fortunately most current translations are very close to each other.
They don't have to be so current, and no they are not. The reason why the translations nowadays resemble each other, is the fact that almost all Bible versions are copyrighted, so each Bible-translation committé or Bible translator has do a lot of wordsmithing in order to avoid breaking the copyright of any Bible version (except, generally speaking, the predecessor(s), but not always, so for example the ESV had to differ a lot from the RSV altough it's supposed to be a revision of the latter. The TNIV didn't have to differ a lot from the NIrV and 1984 NIV and 1973 NIV but did anyway, I would guess in order to avoid breaking the copyright of any other version. The REB DIDN'T have to differ a lot from the NEB and hencefort copy-pastes a lot from it). A bit complicated when You first become aware of it, but it's not that strange actually when You get used to the thought!
 
Upvote 0

missjenni

Christian Warrior
Dec 25, 2011
24
2
53
Andalusia, AL, USA
✟7,655.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For readabilty purposes I prefer NIV (New International Version). I have compared verses in KJV (King James Version), NLT (New Living Translation), Message, and the Catholic Cannon. Of all of these, the Message version deviates the furthest. But the rest are very close.
 
Upvote 0

stillstudying

Newbie
Dec 31, 2011
5
0
At home
✟15,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
To be very literal:
ος δ'αν τηρηι αυτου τον λογον
'but whoever keeps of him the word'
Jesus uses the same verb, τηρεω, in Mt 19:17 (et al), for adhering to God's commandments.

αληθως εν τουτωι η αγαπη του θεου τετελειωται
'truly in this one the love of God has been finished'
Jesus use τελειοω in Jn 17:4 and 17:23, for completing something and making it thus perfect.

εν τουτωι γινωσκομεν οτι εν αυτωι εσμεν
'in this we know that in him we are'

The differences between the translation versions which you present are stylistic, and are really there for reasons of readability. As for which is "best", it might be useful to consider that translation even of very short texts is almost never perfect, but that the original language was itself a limited expression of the original idea. Choose any well-respected version and you will be pretty much okay (although I should add that I have seen a lot of very justified complaints against the NIV, which is more popular than it is faithful to its sources).
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
The question is not about which version in general is the best, but which is the best for each word or each verse. I'm progressing slowly to determine that, and marking with a pen a rectangle in my Bibles around the words/verses I've chosen. I lock the rarest Bibles I have, and the ones I make the most markings in, into a safe, for safety reasons:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7620016/

That doesn't contain many of the versions I'm using. Also, I'm allready familiar with the details which that chart contain
Check out the following link :)

Translation Comparison Charts
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EricGray

Newbie
Jan 2, 2012
8
0
✟7,618.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
plus there's COM (Comprehensive New Testamant, by Clontz), of course it has bias, a lot, but at least it's word-for-word with footnotes about what the Greek actually says, and follows strictly the NA27/UBSGNT4-text.

I looked up the COM on Amazon, but you have me concerned with the bias issue. Can you give me some examples?

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
It says righteous/righteousness when it should say the just/justification or the holy.
Compare for example:
Mt 23:35 (JB): and so you will draw down on yourselves the blood of every holy man that has been shed on earth, from the blood of Abel the Holy to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah* whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
* Possibly Zechariah, the last of the prophets to be killed, according to the Jewish scriptures (2 Ch. 24:20-22).
Mt 23:35 (COM): that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the bloof of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
... notice also the many differences! "on you may come" instead of "you will draw down on yourselves", that is due to that it's more formal equivalent. It's too formal equivalent.

Here You can see the conservative bias:
Ep 2:10 (REB, the version I prefer for Ep generally): There is nothing for anyone to boast of; we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds which God designed for us.
Ep 2:10 (2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, based on the Vulgate, the version I prefer for this verse): For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has prepared and in which we should walk.
Ep 2:10 (1970 NEB second edition): For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to devote ourselves to the good deeds for which God has designed us.
Ep 2:10 (NRSV, liberal bias): For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
Ep 2:10 (1992 GNT): God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do.
Ep 2:10 (1971 GNB 3rd edition, less bias than in 1992 GNT but more functional equivalent): God is our Maker, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good works, which he has already prepared for us to do.
Ep 2:10 (JB): We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus to live the good life as from the beginning he had meant us to live it.
Ep 2:10 (ASV, reformed conservative bias): For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (1995 NASU, conservative bias): For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (1986 (R)NAB): For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
Ep 2:10 (COM): For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we would walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (HCSB): For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Notice the intonation in JB, it strongly interprets!
Notice the highly interpretive word "devote" in NEB.
Notice how (R)NAB and NASU resemble each other, which reveals that (R)NAB is definately a too formal equivalent version for Ep!
Notice how similar the beginning of the verse is in 1992 GNT and NRSV, that reveals that GNT is much more liberal than 1971 GNB 3rd edition. "to be our way of life" in NRSV is also a liberal slant
Conclusion: CPDV is best for this verse, because it does a mild interpretation and the verse is thereby in correspondance with the message of the whole Bible!
I looked up the COM on Amazon, but you have me concerned with the bias issue. Can you give me some examples?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EricGray

Newbie
Jan 2, 2012
8
0
✟7,618.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks Unix,

I got the COM from Amazon today and I was stunned that I had never heard of it before. The book is a gold mine! I couldn't put it down for hours!

In any case, I see your concerns here, but I'm not sure exactly how they could have done it any differently. I was afraid that they would have had some kind of innovative bias, but it looks more like they were trying to give the most typical reading of those available for the Nestle-Aland. I think they were less concerned with trying to show what the New Testament SHOULD say and more concerned with showing what different textforms and translations DID say.

Being innovative would have made it more difficult to integrate twenty translations with four or five textforms.

I have to thank you for mentioning this hidden treasure. This has to be the best kept secret I've ever seen.

I've always liked the RSV, and my jaw dropped when I saw how much information this book had about my own favorite translation. And I really like the way you've corrected the texts on your own preferred translations against the COM notes when you've quoted scripture. I see what you were doing now, and it makes a lot of sense.

Eric
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Still, I wouldn't regard the word-choices as the most accurate possible. They could have done it another way. There's also the word propitiation missing in several verses, that's another example.
The correct translation of 1 Jn 2:2 would be therefore:
"Jesus Christ the righteous; and He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (I don't remember for sure from which version that was, but probably CPDV, I have printed and fastened that verse in the margin of my New Testament Epistles : Early Christian Wisdom, editor John Drane, contains REB for Acts and the Pauline epistles, NRSV for Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter and Jude, and NJB for 1-3 Jn, + introductions to those NT books + a 115 page collection of poems )
In any case, I see your concerns here, but I'm not sure exactly how they could have done it any differently. I was afraid that they would have had some kind of innovative bias, but it looks more like they were trying to give the most typical reading of those available for the Nestle-Aland. I think they were less concerned with trying to show what the New Testament SHOULD say and more concerned with showing what different textforms and translations DID say.
There is an even more well-hidden treasure which I've mentioned sparsely:
Textual Optimism - A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, by Kent D Clark, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series 138, Sheffield Academic Press 1997, 350 pages. The most useful resource of it is an index which lists all the variant letter-ratings in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament versions 1-4 1966-1993, verse-by-verse. I don't know can You get hold of an ex, it's probably sold out both used and new, I bought mine in 2004 used on Amazon. That book would help You deal with the "Minor"-text-type variants in the COM. I'm not saying You have to get this book, it's not the most important thing to do.
I have to thank you for mentioning this hidden treasure. This has to be the best kept secret I've ever seen.
Thanks! <3 Of course I do, that's not a big thing!
And I really like the way you've corrected the texts on your own preferred translations against the COM notes when you've quoted scripture. I see what you were doing now, and it makes a lot of sense.

Eric
 
Upvote 0

EricGray

Newbie
Jan 2, 2012
8
0
✟7,618.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I was quite intrigued with their notes on propitiation, now that you've pointed it out. I had no idea of it's connection with the LXX term for the Mercy Seat on the ark of the covenant.

There's also Comfort's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Comfort seems to be taking up where Metzger left off. I have both commentaries and love them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ptomwebster

Senior Member
Jul 10, 2011
1,484
45
MN
Visit site
✟1,922.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Unix,

In all your stuff I see no mention of the original languages of Scripture. If you really want to know what the Scriptures say you need to learn a little Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

I notice you also say in your "about me" area: "I converted to Bahà'ì, and now I have fully converted. I'm not a Christian, but occasionally (one or a few times a year) I attend some Orthodox church." That is why you have trouble understanding Scripture. Instead of storing your Bibles in a safe take them out and read them.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
It would be nice to also get more replys on my OP!

I have mentioned Hebrew and Greek in one post. (Aramaic is not needed.) I use it very little.
In all your stuff I see no mention of the original languages of Scripture. If you really want to know what the Scriptures say you need to learn a little Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Well, thank's for noticing that! Because I'll have to edit that a bit. Because I never fully converted (I extremely rarely look through the oldest parts of my profile, so that mention slipped unnoticed by me until now).
You missed that it said:
"<-- That was valid until spring '05"
Maybe my formatting was unclear?
At the end of the text on my profile, it says: "since the winter 2010/2011 Catholic."
The other day, saturday, I asked the priest that has the the mass in english, that I would like to start to convert to the Catholic Church. That can take 2 years, that's the custom over here.
Do You think that I shouldn't say so "much" before I've fully converted to Catholicism? IMHO there are many others on CF who say much more, and the longest posts I've made have berely been about listing which Bible versions I use and which not, which books I think are Scripture and which not - and I feel it's important to mention such things, otherwise people don't get a picture about what my views are. I've been interested in different Bible versions both in the mid '00s, and now in the '10s.

I'm Christian
http://www.christianforums.com/t7575124-post58226318/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7575124-post58441232/
I have to point out that, I believe there in afterlife.
And might I add: I believe in the resurrection.
I pray very briefly, not long prayers.

I haven't looked at the clock how much I spend time with the Bibles. I usually get up at 5 AM local time and start, first I look through discussions on CF. But I'm going to spend much time reading them and theology from commentaries. I've just placed an order last week, almost all of those books were from the U.S. so it's going to take several weeks before I get them here, and then I'll be reading more than I do right now. I've had a bit of household tasks occupying my time recently.
I converted to Bahà'ì, and now I have fully converted. I'm not a Christian, but occasionally (one or a few times a year) I attend some Orthodox church." That is why you have trouble understanding Scripture.

The ones that are in the new safe I have to take out frequently, because one of the barriers in that safe is water, and the inside of the safe collects condensation over time which has to be aired-out.
I read the Bible's regularely. I just don't progress all that fast because I keep comparing most of the versions I have +CPDV and 1992 GNT from the internet, at every verse.
Instead of storing your Bibles in a safe take them out and read them.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Bump! If anyone has anything to say regarding the OP or How to determine which Bible version to choose, then feel free to post in this thread!

Here's a really good book: The Translation Debate, by Eugene H. Glassman, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1981. It's very well written and gives a lot of things to think about. He often quotes what other say and has an opinion about that. Here's 3 examples from it:
1. In the minds of the average Bible reader today the word paraphrase commonly means a very free, loose and therefore inaccurate translation, in which the translator is subjective rather than objective, and puts his or her own ideas into the text, thus biasing the resultant translation. Bibe translation specialists are hence reluctant to use the word at all. Beekman and Callow do not apply the term to the types of translation they discuss, saying that "when used to characterize a translation, it is generally with a pejorative sense meaning that an attempt has been made to render the text in a form that is clearer to us than it was to the original readers with the result that extraneous information and unnecessary interpretations are found." * Beekman and Callow p. 21
In other words, a translation which deviates from the meaning of the original writer or speaker is not a translation at all. But neither should it be called a paraphrase, for "the usage of the word 'paraphrase' in linguistic circles is not applied to translation but rather to two different statements in a single language which have the same meaning. One statement is called the paraphrase of the other." * Ibid. Italics by Eugene H. Glassman
2. Clearly Phillips has produced one of the most readable and meaningful versions of the New Testament in present-day English. Further, there is no denying that "time and time again The Living New Testament [LB, an acknowledged paraphrase] is a faitful, clear, idiomatic and expressive representation of the meaning of the original." * Robert G. Bratcher, "The Living New Testament Paraphrased," book review in The Bible Translator, 20 (July 1969), 39, 131.
Yet, 1972 Phillips revised edition renders Luke 13:11 as "In the congregation was a woman who for eighteen years had been ill from some psychological cause;..." and 1962 Living Letters translates 2 Timothy 3:16 as: "The whole Bible [all sixty-six books, some of which had not even been written at that point in history] was given to us by inspiration from God." These particular renderings must be rejected on the ground that they are not legitimate paraphrase (in the sense of having been restructured on the level of the sentence kernels). Rather, they provide new information not intended by the original authors.
The question is not whether one happens to be in agreement with the underlying philosophical or theological reasons for the renderings. It is whether such translations are really saying the same thing as the original (that is, are paraphrased on the level of the kernel structures), ore are saying something different (that is, paraphrased on the level of surface structure, with additions, deletions or skewing of the original meaning).
3. [...] It is surprising that it took so long for biblical scholars to reach the conclusions that Deissmann through a stroke of genius came to almost overnight. What is even more surprising is that today, over three-quarters of a century later, many still argue that Bible language ought to be somewhat mysterious, so that to translate it in a way that makes sense to the common person is somehow an offence to God. To be sure, the jargon labeled by Hendricks as the church's "fog index" is quite acceptable to those who seem to revel in every new translation in the formal-correspondence style. Such translations tell them what they allready know (or suppose they know). But these translations say almost nothing to people who have never heard the message before.
In contrast, those who seek dynamic equivalence in translation attempt to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent to the message contained in the source language, keeping in mind both the meaning and the style. They recognize, of course, that no translation can succeed one hundred per cent; every translation suffers some loss of information, some addition of information and possibly some distortion of information. For all that, however, one can try to find the closest equivalence possible. Nida clarifies this outlook:
"By "natural" we mean that the equivalent forms should not be "foreigh" either in form (excpept of course for such inevitable matters as proper names) or meaning. That is to say, a good translation should not reveal its non-native source....
It is recognized that equivalence in both meaning and style cannot always be retained—in the acrostic poems of the Old Testament, to cite an extreme example [thus, Psalm 119]. When, therefore, one must be abandoned for the sake of the other, the meaning must have priority over the stylistic forms." * Nida, Language Structure and Translation, p. 33, italics by Eugene H. Glassman
Secondly, mostly the word-for-word translation is not of interest. I'm OK with a slant of what the translators thought the passage would mean. JB is just on the spot in regards of dynamic equivalence. English is so far from Hebrew and Greek, and the tought-pattern of the modern man has changed since Biblical times.
[...]
I'm really thinking right now, how is it that I select a certain version for a specific passage?! Well, I choose what's:
the most advanced,
gives meaning (but NO I don't try to search for the one that "opens up", because that would be a contradiction to the advanced-criteria),
I prefer Brittish over American English but that's of course not something I can use as a preference all the time,
and he right literary style - this is the point that is the hardest to explain
...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sdmsanjose

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,772
405
Arizona
✟23,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 Jn 2:5
What do You think is the best version, or do You have a different suggestion perhaps from the Rheims Bible?:

I like the New Living Translation (NLT) the best.

The reason is that it seems to not exclude anyone that is trying but only partly obeying God's word from having some love for God. That is just the way that I read it. On the other hand I trust the NIVs a little more so I would compare the NLT with the NIVs



1 John 2

New Living Translation (NLT)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.
3 And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. 4 If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. 5 But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. 6 Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.




1 John 2

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love[b] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.


1 John 2

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Love and Hatred for Fellow Believers

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Those who say, “I know him,” but do not do what he commands are liars, and the truth is not in them. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

Other versions
1 John 2

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
1 John 2

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

2And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


3And hereby we know that we know Him: if we keep His commandments.


4He that saith, "I know Him," and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.


5But whoso keepeth His Word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him.


6He that saith that he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.


1 John 2

American Standard Version (ASV)
1 John 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
3 And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him:
6 he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.


1 John 2

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 John 2

Christ Is Our Advocate

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

1 John 2

King James Version (KJV)
1 John 2

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
 
Upvote 0