Picking Translations

[joey_downunder]

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

Yes I am revealing my heart all right - I am fed up with people who claim "God told me" but won't let their revelations and experiences be tested by the *bible in context* by other people. You are potentially weakening believers' faith by those claims.

However if you show -using the bible - that I am wrong then I will definitely apologise. You sound like a very sincere Christian, therefore you would deserve that courtesy. Either way I won't PM.

 

[gypsygirl]

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.

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.

The NLT is more of a 'thought for thought" translation (like the NIV) instead of a more literal "word for word" one like the NASB or ESV (both of which are my favorites for study). From my understanding, the NLT is a means by which to get the "flavor" of the passage/Bible but by no means would anyone wanting to do accurate study use it for scholarly purpose. It serves as a good intro to the Bible for those not familiar with reading it at all.

Also, when doing study, try comparing 2 translations before coming to a conclusion (literal verses interpretation). And don't forget to get a study Bible!

 

[Radagast]

What translation would be best for in depth study?

ESV, hands down. It's the most accurate.

 

[Soverinth]

ESV, hands down. It's the most accurate.

And you are sure that there are not any verses missing, or words replaced?

Just want to make sure as i've heard good and bad things about the ESV.

 

[Leonfrost]

And you are sure that there are not any verses missing, or words replaced?

Just want to make sure as i've heard good and bad things about the ESV.

What you have to realize is, there are "words replaced" in almost every translation. There are certain Greek words that we simply do not have English words for. All we can do is try to capture the meaning as best we can. The ESV does a good job of this in some areas, but there are many areas, especially the metaphors of the Old Testament and Revelation, that are absolutely butchered by its word-for-word approach.

 

[Soverinth]

What you have to realize is, there are "words replaced" in almost every translation. There are certain Greek words that we simply do not have English words for. All we can do is try to capture the meaning as best we can. The ESV does a good job of this in some areas, but there are many areas, especially the metaphors of the Old Testament and Revelation, that are absolutely butchered by its word-for-word approach.

Well i mean it mostly by if i read it, im not constantly going to be confused because of terrible translations?

But yes i understand that one translation is not good in every area.

If i am that stumped over a verse ill just compare it to the KJV version. Actually i might compare a lot so i get the meaning down correctly.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I go to sites like this so I can see how every version says the verse:
John 3:16 - Bible Gateway

 

[Radagast]

And you are sure that there are not any verses missing, or words replaced?

Just want to make sure as i've heard good and bad things about the ESV.

There are no "verses missing." Some verses added to the Bible during the Middle Ages are not included, though.

The Greek words are translated very accurately, e.g.

John 3:16: οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

"For God so loved the world {footnote: Or 'For this is how God loved the world'} that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

The ESV would be the best for deep study. For just picking up and reading, the NIV might be better.

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Yes I am revealing my heart all right - I am fed up with people who claim "God told me" but won't let their revelations and experiences be tested by the *bible in context* by other people. You are potentially weakening believers' faith by those claims.

However if you show -using the bible - that I am wrong then I will definitely apologise. You sound like a very sincere Christian, therefore you would deserve that courtesy. Either way I won't PM.

if you really mean that you will yield to scripture taken in context, interpreted by other scripture, harmonized with the whole of scripture, and taken in such a way that reflects the God who is Love and is Just and never lies, then follow the links i provided - those two teaching series will give you all of that. if you want me to personally explain what i said (not your interpretation of what i said), then send me a pm. if you want to debate with me about this with an open mind, open a thread in the appropriate area and let me know where it is. but for the sake of those who ask for advice, please show some restraint here in the advice forum, and resist the temptation to criticize, condemn and correct people who are trying to give Godly advice from their heart

 

[seeingeyes]

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.

Just to be clear, no translation is translated 'from' the KJV. The KJV was an excellent translation for what it was. It was a widespread, easy to understand translation that allowed the 'average Joe english speaker' to have a Bible to read himself. English has changed over the last 400 years, and that's why there are translations like NKJV to update the language used.

But no Bible is translated from the KJV. They are all translated from the greek/hebrew (the newer editions of the KJV may be from the Latin vulgate...though someone may correct me on that.)

Just so you know.

 

[hedrick]

About "words omitted." If you look on the Internet about translations (and even in CF) you'll run into people who think the KJV was inspired. So if anything doesn't have the same words as the KJV they'll say words were omitted.

Let me try to summarize the issue:

The NT of the KJV is largely (though not completely) based on work by Erasmus in the 16th Cent. He used only a few original Greek manuscripts. Since that time people have found many more early manuscripts. The problem is how to deal with hundreds of manuscripts that differ from each other. One is to look at date. Since they're copied over and over, earlier ones have been copied less and are more likely to be right. But that's far from the only issue. The manuscripts comes in "families" with different characteristics. Figuring out what is original and what is change has a certain amount of guesswork, but pretty much everyone who does this work agrees that the KJV was done from manuscripts that have additions to the original text. So modern translations omit those added parts. KJV fans will say that these translations omit part of Scripture.

Almost all of the translations mentioned here use a critical text, i.e. a text that omits what we think are additions. The exception is translations with "KJ" in their name, e.g. NJKV and I assume also KJ3 (though I don't know that one).

I'm not commenting on the OT because I don't know as much about OT textual criticism, but there are similar issues with the OT.

 

[Aibrean]

ESV is a conservative (Calvinist) translation.

Oh my word, you just about had me ROLLING on the floor with that statement.

If ESV is a Calvinist translation, so is the KJV. Especially considering Lutherans use it (including The Lutheran Study Bible) and we are the COMPLETE opposite of Calvinists (we only agree on maybe half of a TULIP). It doesn't have a Calvinistic bent. ESV is a literal translation and was done so with more than 100 people being involved from many denominations. It is like the KJV with modern English (maketh is makes, thou is you, etc.). It's very similar to RSV (most Catholics use).

 

[Soverinth]

Oh my word, you just about had me ROLLING on the floor with that statement.

If ESV is a Calvinist translation, so is the KJV. Especially considering Lutherans use it (including The Lutheran Study Bible) and we are the COMPLETE opposite of Calvinists (we only agree on maybe half of a TULIP). It doesn't have a Calvinistic bent. ESV is a literal translation and was done so with more than 100 people being involved from many denominations. It is like the KJV with modern English (maketh is makes, thou is you, etc.). It's very similar to RSV (most Catholics use).

Its weird because I've heard so many bad things about the ESV. Or maybe what i was hearing was coming from "KJV only" people?

 

[Aibrean]

You can always use the parallel option at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and compare the translations. Maybe they are just jealous that Crossway makes the ESV available for free online (you can download it in the Kindle store or iTunes).

 

[Soverinth]

You can always use the parallel option at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and compare the translations. Maybe they are just jealous that Crossway makes the ESV available for free online (you can download it in the Kindle store or iTunes).

Well there is this website: Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


And every time i go to search the accuracy of a translation there is always a page from there website on the results of the search.

Its like they hate every translation. They hate the ESV, the NLT, the NIV, the NRSV, i think they hate them all. I believe these people are a KJV Only group, im going to stay away from there site from now on. Surely not all of the translations that are made in modern times today are corrupt. I mean all ya gotta do is compare the verses.

 

[Aibrean]

Well there is this website: Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


And every time i go to search the accuracy of a translation there is always a page from there website on the results of the search.

Its like they hate every translation. They hate the ESV, the NLT, the NIV, the NRSV, i think they hate them all. I believe these people are a KJV Only group, im going to stay away from there site from now on. Surely not all of the translations that are made in modern times today are corrupt. I mean all ya gotta do is compare the verses.

OOHHHH. That is the WORST site. Don't believe anything that is said on it. It's a conspiracy site and definitely one filled with nothing short of trash.

This is a partial list of Christian denominations they (plural cause I don't know who runs it) call "false religions":
- Lutheran
- Catholic
- Orthodox (Greek and Russian)
- Episcopal
- Church of Christ
- Pentecostal

I mean really, to call Catholicism the "Great Mother of harlots", I don't see how anyone can take them seriously.

 

[Soverinth]

OOHHHH. That is the WORST site. Don't believe anything that is said on it. It's a conspiracy site and definitely one filled with nothing short of trash.

This is a partial list of Christian denominations they (plural cause I don't know who runs it) call "false religions":
- Lutheran
- Catholic
- Orthodox (Greek and Russian)
- Episcopal
- Church of Christ
- Pentecostal

I mean really, to call Catholicism the "Great Mother of harlots", I don't see how anyone can take them seriously.

Yeah i almost fell into their trap. It started to bug me when they had a page that made every translation seem false i was like seriously? I really like the NLT it cant be THAT bad.

 

[Goodbook]

well..I'm trying not to give what is Holy to the dogs...so.. if you don't like the KJV or have the Holy Spirit then I'm afraid you'll just have to wade through the NLT and buy about 20 other translations to piece it altogether for you.

My experience - if you need help with the Bible, which in english is the KJV, then ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand. I just read what God says in his Word and He is right every time. He is not the author of confusion.

 

[Aibrean]

well..I'm trying not to give what is Holy to the dogs...so.. if you don't like the KJV or have the Holy Spirit then I'm afraid you'll just have to wade through the NLT and buy about 20 other translations to piece it altogether for you.

My experience - if you need help with the Bible, which in english is the KJV, then ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand. I just read what God says in his Word and He is right every time. He is not the author of confusion.

Goodbook, we've already been over this (http://www.christianforums.com/t7569304/). Unless you are reading the 1611 edition of the KJV you are still not reading the original KJV. There have been changes between 1611 and what is available now. The first English edition of the Bible is not the KJV.

To imply that one doesn't have the Holy Spirit in a Christian-only discussion thread is rather troublesome.

I also would not limit the Holy Spirit's ability to assist with no matter what translation you're reading!

 

[joey_downunder]

if you really mean that you will yield to scripture taken in context...... those two teaching series will give you all of that.

Talks from Charismatic preachers are not substitutes for *bible verses/passages*. There are "anti-tongue speaking for today" teaching series from Non-Charismatic preachers as well. e.g. results for Acts chapter 2:4.

Edit: I originally typed that I would listen to them, but then went to the website and see this:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an absolute necessity for living the abundant life that Jesus provided for all His followers. Before Jesus' disciples received the Holy Spirit, they were weak, fearful men. After the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were powerhouses of God's miraculous power. Jesus Himself told us that we would receive power after the Holy Spirit came upon us (Acts 1:8).
No. He was talking to the apostles before He ascended into Heaven. Acts 1:1-11 He was not talking to Christians in 2012.

That shows the presenter will misuse verses written to the apostles to apply them to us, and has the opinion whoever doesn't experience what they describe didn't mustn't be a true "Holy Spirit-filled" believer.

P.S. I won't post further in this section because like you say it is advice section. *peace sign*