a bible question

[Iron Lion]

I love the KJV, due to its language its forces you to slow down and focus.

My fave bible is the New Jerusalem Bible, its a Catholic one and i just find it my fave to read.

 

[heron]

I love the Jerusalem Bible. Its format in some areas leaves wide margins like poetry would, so the focus is less on the little numbers and more on the passage as a whole.

Something I tried in the last few years--the Bible on tape. It gives me a whole different viewpoint. I tend to focus on a couple verses at a time when I read, but this clips through fast enough that you hear things in context that you never realized were adjacent.

Most libraries have a couple versions.

 

[Radagast]

The NIV is an excellent combination of accurate translation and readability, which is why I use it. The NASB is as good or better.

-- Radagast

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I've been reading the King James version of the bible to back my points up, but I've been told time and time again that I'm referring to the "4th grade version of christianity" or that I'm just wrong...

I realize it has been a while since the original set of exchanges but I couldn't let this go.

To answer the question, obtain the Oxford Study Bible or, preferably, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and either Zondervan's NIV Study Bible or New Geneva Study Bible (which is NewKJV). And read the commentaries.

Edit

I just reread this and realized I left out "why". The Oxford Bibles are liberal in slant, Zondervan's and the NGSB are conservative.​

BlueWolf35948,
The reason your understanding of Christianity was described as being at the 4th grade level has nothing to do with the version of the Bible you used, but rather because your understanding of Christianity sounds as if it comes from somebody who has only been exposed to Christianity through a 4th grade Baptist Sunday School and maybe a few atheist sites thrown in for good measure.

 

[one way]

I mostly read the NIV version, but I've heard that The Message is supposed to be really good as it's modern.

 

[MidnightBlue]

What's the predominant bible read by the christians of this site, so I can be more accurate in the future? (bother that there are more than one versions...sigh...)

Translation is always a tricky business, and translation of the Bible is especially tricky. It's the nature of the thing that each translation is bound to reflect certain scholarly and/or theological prejudices, and no translation is perfect in every regard.

In my opinion, the King James Version is far and away the best English translation, as better reflecting the traditional text that has been known to most Christians over the centuries, and as better avoiding blatant theological bias. For felicity of expression, it's without equal among the English versions. I think the problem with comprehension is partly typographical; if it were printed in paragraphs, with modern punctuation, it would be easier for the modern reader. Some of the simplified translations may be better than nothing for children and people with poor reading skills, but for those who can read the King James, anything else is a poor substitute.

Nevertheless, there's no clear consensus among Christians, or even among the broader groups of Christians, about which version is preferable. If you're going for what's most popular, you'll find that in general, many Evangelicals tend to prefer the New International Version, while mainstream Protestants may tend to prefer the New Revised Standard Version. Many American Catholics prefer the New American Bible, and many Orthodox Christians tend to gravitate toward either the New King James Version or the New Revised Standard Version. On the other hand, you'll find some Protestants who flatly reject any version but the King James.

A knowledge of the King James Version ought to be more than enough to enable a Taoist to discuss the Bible with Christians. If people insist on dismissing what you say because you quote the KJV, my own inclination would be to think that such people are not intellectually or emotionally equipped for much of a dialogue. But if you really think it's worth pursuing, the easiest thing would be to find out what version they prefer, and use that. Unfortunately, there's no way to know ahead of time what that might be.

 

[bellantara]

I use NIV.

 

[Asar'el]

From much study of the matter, I can say, (imho) that the King James bible is the best english translation of the word of God. As to difficulty reading it... english is not my first language, yet I have no trouble with it.

 

[heron]

If you really want to get fussy about it, you can find comparisons and scholarly writings about the difference in versions. This one looks well-organized:

http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

To answer the question, obtain the Oxford Study Bible or, preferably, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and either Zondervan's NIV Study Bible or New Geneva Study Bible (which is NewKJV). And read the commentaries.

I just reread this and realized I left out "why". The Oxford Bibles are liberal in slant, Zondervan's and the NGSB are conservative.

 

[heron]

An excerpt from that site:

Is the translation translated directly from the original languages?

Nearly all English Bible versions today are taken directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which the Bible was originally written, with other languages consulted only when the original text is unclear. Two notable exceptions are the Living Bible (which is a paraphrase of the ASV) and Lamsa's Bible (from the Syriac Peshitta). Also, Catholic Bibles prior to the Jerusalem Bible were translated from the Latin Vulgate, and the JB shows influence from its French counterpart. Translation from languages other than the originals may contain startling variations. For example, the Lamsa version of Matthew 27:46, following the Syriac manuscripts, has Jesus saying not, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?, but My God, My God, for this I was spared.


Does the version derive from previous translations?

Most major translations are revisions of previously existing ones. The largest "family" is known as the Tyndale tradition. Tyndale's work (supplemented by Matthew Coverdale) was finally authorized in 1537 as the Great Bible, which became the Bishop's Bible in 1568 and the King James Version in 1611. The KJV was updated in England as the RV in 1884 and in the US as the ASV in 1901. The RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, Updated NASB, Living Bible, and NLT all derive from the ASV. More recent revisions of the KJV include the King James II, the Modern King James, and the Children's King James–all by Jay P. Green–as well as the New King James and the KJ21. The Geneva Bible–which rivaled the King James and was preferred by many Puritans, separatists, and early Baptists–also shows much influence from Tyndale's work.


http://faith.propadeutic.com/analysis1.html

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

An excerpt from that site:

Is the translation translated directly from the original languages?
Nearly all English Bible versions today are taken directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which the Bible was originally written, with other languages consulted only when the original text is unclear. []
Does the version derive from previous translations?
Most major translations are revisions of previously existing ones.

Just to be clear, the second statement taken by itself is misleading. Most major translations take into account previous translations but they are also going directly to the original languages.

 

[heron]

...sometimes simply to update a "thee" into a "you."

 

[IXOYE<><]

Hey, I know I'm chiming in a bit late here. But, I like several different translations, for different reasons. For study NASB NKJV, for devotion NIV HCSB, and for getting a taste outside my own sphere of christianity the NAB. Just my 2 cents folks!