Picking Translations

[Soverinth]

So its kind of annoying to find out that the bible i just got a few days ago, is good for first time readers but not so good for actual study. Some of the verses in it are not worded right.

The version i bought is the New Living Translation. It kind of bums me out to buy this and find out its just good for better understanding but not as accurate as it needs to be.

An example of an error is this:

NLT version "16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

KJV version "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

The difference here is that in the KJV is says, "For God so loved the world"

In the NLT it says, "For God loved the world so much"

The conflict is that the bible is not focusing on the quantity of God's love but the quality of it. The NLT gets this wrong sadly.


So my question to you guys is:

What translation would be best for in depth study? Possibly not using the KJV, only because i have a really hard time with the archaic language used in it.

What translation do you guys like best and which one do you prefer depending on the situation?

I don't want to read through the NLT and get myself confused with inaccurate wording.

 

[seeingeyes]

So its kind of annoying to find out that the bible i just got a a few days ago, is good for first time readers but not so good for actual study. Some of the verses in it are not worded right.

The version i bought is the New Living Translation. It kind of bums me out to buy this and find out its just good for better understanding but not as accurate as it needs to be.

An example of an error is this:

NLT version "16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

KJV version "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

The difference here is that in the KJV is says, "For God so loved the world"

In the NLT it says, "For God loved the world so much"

The conflict is that the bible is not focusing on the quantity of of God's love but quality of it. The NLT gets this wrong sadly.


So my question to you guys is:

What bible would be best for in depth study? Possibly not using the KJV, only because i have a really hard time with the archaic language used in it.

What translation do you guys like best and which one do you prefer depending on the situation?

I don't want to read through the NLT and get myself confused with inaccurate wording.

That really isn't that big of a difference.

If you want, you could have two translations. Keep the NLT and also get an NIV or ESV, or even an interlinear Bible (which has the greek/hebrew right next to the english). Or learn greek.

If you would like to see which translations are most 'literal' (word for word) and which are more 'readable' (thought for thought), here's a handy chart: Translation Comparison Charts

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

i use the free e-sword PC based Bible - it has multiple translations, commentaries and dictionaries so i can see the Bible from different perspectives; but the translation i focus on is the KJV.


having said that, i have found that there are differences between publishers of the KJV - some publishers change the wording a bit here and there, and even leave out certain verses.

so the best answer for me was to ask God what the Bible means, and try my best to follow His leading as to whether i should look at other translations, or consult commentaries and dictionaries.

and what made the big difference in my life as far as understanding the Bible was to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. when i began to speak in tongues, the Bible exploded in my understanding; things that had confused me for years suddenly became clear. i don't have anywhere near total understanding of the Bible mind you, but being able to 'hear' God's witness when i see what a certain scripture or group of scriptures means has made all the difference. are you baptized in the Holy Spirit?

 

[Soverinth]

i use the free e-sword PC based Bible - it has multiple translations, commentaries and dictionaries so i can see the Bible from different perspectives; but the translation i focus on is the KJV.

Looks really interesting, gonna check that out now.

are you baptized in the Holy Spirit

Umm, no i dont think i am. And maybe you can answer as to why i dont think i am?

 

[Eloy]

The KJV is not so difficult to understand if you keep these following basic word conversions in mind:

KJV Old English to Current English:

suffix -est, -st= singular (ie. drop the -est or -st)
suffix -eth, -th= pluralizing "s" (ie. drop the -eth or -th, and add "s")
shall= will (occasionally means should)
thine= yours
thou, thee= you
thy= your
ye= you all; all you

 

[joey_downunder]

Disciplelovestoo, why did you have to claim that speaking in tongues removes confusion to a newcomer ?!!!! Where in the bible does it suggest that? Do you realise that you are giving the impression that non-Charismatics don't understand it as well as the Charismatics do? Do you realise the arrogance in that claim? :o

The Charismatic movement didn't begin until the early 20th century. There are many wonderful bible commentaries from the Reformation era onwards. I have never read any Charismatic text that keeps the bible in context. You lot are notorious for taking verses out of context to explain and make excuses for your extra-bibical experiences. *end of rant *

Armizer, I have found the ESV version fairly good About ESVBible.org | ESVBible.org, but like you say the KJV seems to be the best version when you learn how to allow for all the "thees and thous".

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. gives many different versions. One version NOT to use is "the Message" because it is all paraphrase (the translator's opinions on the text's meaning).

 

[joey_downunder]

Umm, no i dont think i am. And maybe you can answer as to why i dont think i am?

Because you're not a first century Christian needing to spread the Gospel to other nations (and therefore other languages) before the bible is written - that's why.

 

[Leonfrost]

Looks really interesting, gonna check that out now.




Umm, no i dont think i am. And maybe you can answer as to why i dont think i am?

You're baptized in the Holy Spirit. You just are. Not everyone needs to have a seizure to prove to themselves that they are; you're probably one of those less dramatic individuals. As for translations; there's no such thing as a perfect English translation. I enjoy The Message, as it tends to attempt to translate the MEANING of the original Hebrew and Greek more than the specific wordings, wordings which cannot make full sense in English. Aside from that, I strongly recommend learning a bit about Greek, because there are certain words that the English translations just have not done justice as far as the intended meanings.

Edit: In response to Joey_Downunder's comments: The Message is paraphrased, yes. It intends to translate the meaning of the texts, not the literal words. It's a good introductory Bible. I've compared it to many other translations, and the original Greek and Hebrew. There's nothing said in The Message that was not said in the original texts. In some instances, in fact, I've found it to get the meaning across far better than the KJV, which is notorious for taking some poor liberties with the words it uses.

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Umm, no i dont think i am. And maybe you can answer as to why i dont think i am?

like everything in the Kingdom of God, it is by faith - if you don't believe you are, you're not.

this should help:

The Holy Spirit - Audio Teaching - Andrew Wommack Ministries

Hungry For The Holy Spirit | Faith Life Church - Branson, MO

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Disciplelovestoo, why did you have to claim that speaking in tongues removes confusion to a newcomer ?!!!! Where in the bible does it suggest that? Do you realise that you are giving the impression that non-Charismatics don't understand it as well as the Charismatics do? Do you realise the arrogance in that claim? :o

The Charismatic movement didn't begin until the early 20th century. There are many wonderful bible commentaries from the Reformation era onwards. I have never read any Charismatic text that keeps the bible in context. You lot are notorious for taking verses out of context to explain and make excuses for your extra-bibical experiences. *end of rant *

Armizer, I have found the ESV version fairly good About ESVBible.org | ESVBible.org, but like you say the KJV seems to be the best version when you learn how to allow for all the "thees and thous".

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. gives many different versions. One version NOT to use is "the Message" because it is all paraphrase (the translator's opinions on the text's meaning).

whether you believe it or not, i checked with God before i hit 'submit'

this is the advice forum, it is not for debate or criticism. by all means give advice to this person as best you can, but please give it without criticizing others, and you will likely receive the same grace. if you feel led to correct me, send a message - don't distract from the OP

 

[KimberlyAA]

I don't see any conflict between the KJV & NLT ... you interpret that completely different to me. NLT is my favourite.

 

[Soverinth]

I don't see any conflict between the KJV & NLT ... you interpret that completely different to me. NLT is my favourite.

Oh yeah i know, the NLT is my favorite as well, but when it adds words to verses that confuse the actual meaning, it concerns me a little.

 

[hedrick]

Choosing a translation is more complicated than it ought to be, because there are the usual differences in opinion among Christians.

It sounds like you want what's called a "formal equivalence" translation, i.e. one that stays moderately close to the original not just in meaning but in wording. There are advantages and disadvantages. Personally I don't think "so much" was intended to identify a quantity, and that it actually does capture John's intention. But if that bothers you, the most popular formal equivalence translations today are probably ESV and NRSV. That assumes you accept consensus scholarship. If you reject the use of manuscripts of the Bible found since the KJV was done, there are KJV-based translations such as NKJV.

ESV is a conservative (Calvinist) translation. NRSV is mainline translation. Both are revisions of the RSV. NRSV is what you'd use in most college Bible courses. Evangelicals object because it translates OT passages in their OT context, rather than adjusting them to how they are used in the NT (Is 7:14 being a key example). I think ESV is a bit too literal. Having half the sentences in the Gospels start with "and" distracts me. But they're both reliable translations. NASB 95 is another possibility that's not as commonly used.

NIV is considered a bit freer than the ones in the previous paragraph, but closer to the original wording than NLT. So it may be a good compromise. There are a number of other options from the Evangelical community that I'm not as familiar with such Holman. Holman sells fairly well, and seems to be well regarded. But NIV is the most popular of this genre. The newest edition has gone gender-neutral (like the NRSV), which irritates me even though intellectually I think it's the right thing to do. I use the CEB (Common English Bible), which has similar goals to the NIV but is from the mainline. (The NIV has the same problems that as the ESV, and some other translations that show what I think is an Evangelical bias. The worst is 2 Tim 3:16. Of course most readers of CF think Evangelical biases are just fine.)

This reference gives sales figures: http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf. It's from "Christian" bookstores, so it may underreport NRSV and CEB, which are more likely to be purchased through other sources.

 

[joey_downunder]

this is the advice forum, it is not for debate or criticism.

Then don't give the impression on a public forum to a new Christian that a second experience is necessary to understand the bible.

If there are bible verses that clearly state in context that speaking in tongues/ further spiritual experiences AFTER conversion are necessary to receive real insight/understanding of the bible from God then please quote them. I will then publically apologise to you.

 

[jacks]

I have the same concerns about translations at times. The only solution for me is to have several translations and compare them when I think it is necessary. I like the CEV for difficult passages in the Old Testament. I probably read the ESV for most stuff, but much prefer the KJV for Psalms. I also like the New Jerusalem Bible for study. They are all good, but like people; none are perfect.

 

[Soverinth]

It is quite annoying that the english language we use now is hard to use in terms of perfect translation from what the KJV uses.

 

[whatfor]

My current version is a KJ3 literal translation, I would not recommend it to a new believer, but it seems a lot more accurate than the niv I started with.

 

[Leonfrost]

It is quite annoying that the english language we use now is hard to use in terms of perfect translation from what the KJV uses.

I would recommend picking one that's easy to read and reading it on BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.. Then, when a verse doesn't make sense, you can immediately contrast it against (as far as I know) every translation available through a drop-down menu. e-Sword, as was recommended earlier, is also good for a purpose like this.

 

[Soverinth]

You're baptized in the Holy Spirit. You just are

like everything in the Kingdom of God, it is by faith - if you don't believe you are, you're not.

You two are not making this easy lol

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Then don't give the impression on a public forum to a new Christian that a second experience is necessary to understand the bible.

If there are bible verses that clearly state in context that speaking in tongues/ further spiritual experiences AFTER conversion are necessary to receive real insight/understanding of the bible from God then please quote them. I will then publically apologise to you.

you are revealing your heart by your words

send me a pm and i will send you those clear scriptures; save your apologies for the original poster