Bible versions

[Foreshadow]

So I own two bibles at home. One is a family King James bible(my mom's family was Christian but she is not)and the other is a Study bible that has the King James Version, Newe International, Amplified, and New American standard versions. I noticed that there is a slight differences in word placement but dont notice any other differences. What is the major differences between these four versions?

 

[Radagast]

So I own two bibles at home. One is a family King James bible(my mom's family was Christian but she is not)and the other is a Study bible that has the King James Version, Newe International, Amplified, and New American standard versions. I noticed that there is a slight differences in word placement but dont notice any other differences. What is the major differences between these four versions?

Well, there aren't many.

The King James Version (KJV) uses a slightly different Greek text (the Textus Receptus) while the New International Version (NIV) takes into account ancient Greek manuscripts from Egypt that were discovered after the KJV was produced. However, differences between those manuscripts are fairly small.

Mostly the difference between versions lies in translation style. It in inevitable that, in going from Greek to English (or Hebrew to English for the Old Testament), translators have to make choices about the best English equivalent:

KJV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

NASB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

The Amplified Bible is a "paraphrase" that inserts synonyms into the translation: In the beginning {before all time} was the Word {Christ}, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God.

 

[Foreshadow]

If there isnt much difference then what is the point of having all these different versions off the same thing?

 

[Radagast]

If there isnt much difference then what is the point of having all these different versions off the same thing?

Well, as Christians we take the Bible very seriously, and every so often someone decides to do a better translation job, in order to make some of the important passages just that little bit clearer. Also, language changes, so that good translations of the past lose popularity.

And look at Dante's Divine Comedy, for example -- there must be about 20 English translations of that.

 

[Foreshadow]

But isnt the bible just an bible no matter what brand?

 

[Radagast]

But isnt the bible just an bible no matter what brand?

Well, it is -- there is just one Bible -- but translating things into English can sometimes be tricky. To take John 1:3-5, for example (which speaks about the rational/creative part of God that took human form as Jesus):

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The Greek word translated "understood" (katelaben) might also mean "catch" or "overcome". Different versions translate that one word slightly differently. I would probably use an English word like "grasp", which has a similar combination of meanings in English.

But I could easily imagine a conversation lasting a day about how to best translate just that one word into English. We Christians have had a lot of those conversations, and the different Bible translations reflect different groups of people resolving the issues in different ways.

Earlier in the same chapter, John uses the term "Logos" for the rational/creative part of God. That was a technical philosophical term of the time. Should we translate that (most versions have "Word" with a capital letter), or leave it as "Logos" (which is the word that English-speaking philosophers would use)? Again, different translators handle it differently.

 

[ebia]

Ideally one would be able to comfortably read the bible in the ancient languages from the original manuscripts - but most of us are not in a position to come close to that.

Translation is, by necessity, an imprecise art, and a balance of compromises, so it's worth having several translations when doing close study to make sure you are getting the right idea.

Of the ones you mention, the King James attempts to be quite a literal translation and is in archaic language so it is hard to read. Also the understanding of best manuscripts and how the ancient languages work has moved on since it was done.

The NASB is reasonably literal but more readable.

The NIV is more readable and less literally precise.

The Amplified has additions to help explain the text.

Read whichever suits best - or find another if that suits better. Personally I like the New Jerusalem Bible (for readability and quality of prose) and the English Standard Version (for accuracy and consitency of translation).

 

[AV1611VET]

So I own two bibles at home. One is a family King James bible(my mom's family was Christian but she is not)and the other is a Study bible that has the King James Version, Newe International, Amplified, and New American standard versions. I noticed that there is a slight differences in word placement but dont notice any other differences. What is the major differences between these four versions?

The major difference is this:

The King James Version is from the Koine Greek, whereas all other versions come from Classical Greek.

Koine Greek is the Greek of the commom people - (Koine means "common") -

And the common people heard him gladly.

We believe God, Himself superintended the creation of the King James Version, whereas all other versions were superintended* by the love of money.

* The exception to this would be the line of Authorized Versions that led up to the King James Version:

• AD96 Koine Greek Version
• AV330 Gothic Version
• AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
• AV1389 Wycliffe Version
• AV1525 Tyndale Version
• AV1568 Bishop's Bible
• AV1587 Geneva Bible --- (God's choice for the Pilgrims)
• AV1611 King James Version

 

[arunma]

But isnt the bible just an bible no matter what brand?

Sure, the Bible is just the Bible. The problem is that the Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew. Theoretically you could go learn these two languages (and Aramaic if you want to read the chapters of Daniel that are written in this language), and then read the single Greek and Hebrew Bible that scholars have redacted from the thousands of Bible manuscripts archeologists have recovered. It's not even that hard. Greek and Hebrew are very well-known language, and there are literally thousands of people who are experts in them. In fact, in a few years you could even take a couple of college courses and have most of the tools you need.

Don't have enough time to learn ancient languages? Then you can read a translation. But language evolves over time, which is why we need new translations every so often. This is one reason that there are so many Bible translations. The King James was translated in 1611. Today we don't speak the same kind of English they did, and a lot of the language used here won't make much sense to you. So you have a variety of translations. I encourage you to find one that you can understand and read it.

 

[Radagast]

But language evolves over time, which is why we need new translations every so often. This is one reason that there are so many Bible translations.

Very well put.

There are also other reasons. The Good News Bible and Contemporary English Version were created to be readable by children and adults with limited reading skills. That guided some of the compromises they made during translation.

There are also matters of taste. If a passage in the original is poetic, for example, should it be translated as English poetry? Or not? Opinions differ. It may not be the most important thing, but approaches like that also lead to different translations.