Bible versions

[ebia]

In 1662 Charles II was on the throne of England and the spoken English of his day would no longer be called Jacobean (James the first having died many years before) but rather Restoration English.

And. The english of the prayerbook isn't the english of 1662. That's the date of the revision, which is liturgical rather than linguistic.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And. The english of the prayerbook isn't the english of 1662. That's the date of the revision, which is liturgical rather than linguistic.

Oh? When was the linguistic work done?

 

[ebia]

Why?

Even a date doesn't tell you the language used, since tweaks are being made to an existing text that borrows heavily from earlier texts and was never intended to be everyday speech of any particular date.

"Jacbean English" is an accepted and widely phrase to roughly describe the overall character of both the KJ and the BCP. It's not an exact linguistic term for any given phrase or passage; the psalms, for instance, are much earlier language.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jacobean English describes the English language spoken during the reign of James I of England.

 

[ebia]

Jacobean English describes the English language spoken during the reign of James I of England.

Correct.

However over-precise you might think the term, however, it's widely used to refer to the language of the KJV (which is not really the language spoken durin the reign of, ...) and the BCP.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm under the impression that prior to the publication of the KJV "English" was not a standardized language; spellings and syntax varied by region and by class. The KJV had a standardizing effect. I know that such was indeed the case in the German Speaking countries with the Luther Bible. To a certain extent, there are still a wide variety of dialects in both the German speaking countries as well as here in Canada with English, not only by province, but also within a short drive from where I am.

Interestingly, the old order Amish and Mennonite still use Luther's Bible as the standard teaching text for German. In Chruch readings are from that Bible, and the hymns also use that particular language; out side of Chruch, they speak a totally different dialect of German, which utilizes different inflections, some different words, and English words for words not found in the Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Correct.

However over-precise you might think the term, however, it's widely used to refer to the language of the KJV (which is not really the language spoken durin the reign of, ...) and the BCP.

The KJV is without doubt written in Jacobean English as the Bishop's bible was in Elizabethan English and the BCP no doubt, being written in 1549 as history indicates (in the reign of Edward VI), was written in Tudor English though this was very similar to Elizabethan English.

 

[ebia]

The KJV is without doubt written in Jacobean English

No, it's not really. It's heavily depended on the older language of the bibles it borrows from, and where it changes that it largely does so into a form of high literature that wasn't anybodies normal spoken language.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The language is called Jacobean English because it was the King's English - he was James I - the KJV is written in Jacobean English and there's no point debating it. The BCP is in Restoration English because it was written in the reign of Charles II. The psalms in the BCP are from Miles Coverdale's bible of 1535 AD thus making them Tudor English (specifically the English of the reigns of Henry VII and VIII and to a degree Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth I though Elizabethan English is usually distinguished from Tudor English). That being said, I like the KJV and it is not obscure. A reputable current English dictionary will contain all of the words found in the KJV and many people who learn English as a second language handle the KJV rather well. The claims that it is too archaic for general use are not well supported by the facts.

 

[ebia]

The language is called Jacobean English because it was the King's English - he was James I - the KJV is written in Jacobean English and there's no point debating it.

It was compiled in his reign, but it doesn't constitute the normal english of that period - it borrows enormously from earlier translations, and turns that into a style of high literature that wasn't ever anybody's normal English.

The BCP is in Restoration English because it was written in the reign of Charles II.

No it wasn't. It was revised into that form during then. The vast majority of wording is older.

The psalms in the BCP are from Miles Coverdale's bible of 1535 AD thus making them Tudor English (specifically the English of the reigns of Henry VII and VIII and to a degree Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth I though Elizabethan English is usually distinguished from Tudor English).[/quote]
Missing the point.
The BCP liturgy and KJV together are commonly referred to as Jacobean English, even though that's not properly true. It's actually impossible to precisely date the language of either because neither book represents the english of a single period.

That being said, I like the KJV

Not really relevant.

and it is not obscure.

You may not find it so (though many who think they understand it well are actually misunderstanding), but many do not. I'm hardly the bottom of the food chain in reading English (engaged in a Masters of Education (TESOL)), and I find the English of the KJV, Shakespeare and the BCP very obscure.

A reputable current English dictionary will contain all of the words found in the KJV

People only look up words when they know they need to. When a word has shifted meaning people have no reason to think they need to look it up. And even if they do, a basic dictionary is not going to draw their attention to archaic meanings. More than 5% of words in a text being unfamiliar significantly inhibits reading of the text. And its not just the vocab thats a problem, the grammar and other factors have changed substantially.

and many people who learn English as a second language handle the KJV rather well.

Having actually worked with that, for reasons I won't bore you with, I'm well aware that this is far from the truth.

If someone wants to use it for their own use, thats fine.

But if you want to use the bible in conversation with an unknown audience (e.g. here in debate forums) then its majorly ill-advised.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Moving on ...

 

[Cappadocious]

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

1. RSV: The commentary isn't bad, the translation is okay, and it has all the traditional books in it.
2. Yes. I use the RSV and Eastern Orthodox Bible for general reading. In addition for study I bring in the NETS and the Patriarchal Text, but I don't do that sort of thing very often.
3. The RSV, the EOB and the Patriarchal Text accommodate my denomination better. The RSV because it contains all the traditional books; the EOB is a great modern translation. Both the RSV and the EOB suffer from stilted, dour writing, but there's not much to be done about that when people want study bibles. Also, the KJV because of its beauty. As for the Patriarchal Text, it is the text used by the Greek Churches and is very beautiful and complete.
4. Same as above.
5. Aside from the obvious outs, the NIV and NSRV are very manipulative translations. The NSRV translation of Psalm 51 is especially horrifying, and the NIV messes around with stuff for the Evangelicals' sakes.
6. The Patriarchal Text is pretty accurate to what I think is true and beautiful, from what little I've seen.

 

[ktírio]

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

1. The NRSV has been good for verse/chapter look up for me for a while, and I own a print copy, but I haven't done any extended reading of the Bible in a long time. I just started a Bible reading plan with Logos a couple of days ago though, and I think I might do a trial run of the NLT for this purpose.

2. Less and less. One bible is sufficient for most purposes, although I would hesitate to use a dynamic equivalence translation (like NLT) for serious study.

3. I'm not really good with the finer details of different bibles, nor do I always know the details of what is believed by different denominations, so I wouldn't in most cases notice something distinctly in favour a particular viewpoint over another. But I do think this does exist within different translations of the Bible.

4. I couldn't possibly answer this. It kind of goes with question 3, but also I just haven't read the Bible in a long time much less different versions, which I use fewer and fewer of as time goes by.

5. Um. No, not really. It depends on what someone is using it for. I think the KJV is a great piece of literature, and a lot of it is just like any other bible, aside from the big elephant in the room, which is its obvious stylistic differences (which I honestly think is the least of its problems). But it also contains errors, and also confusing relics of the past: Isaiah 43:13 reads "Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" The word "let" doesn't mean "allow" but its opposite, "hinder." The word "prevent" in Pslam 59:10 would be more properly rendered "precede" today. Just a couple of minor examples. I don't think the average reader wants to learn all the King James lingo, or at least, they shouldn't need to and they don't need to. They can if they want. I used the KJV for years, and I would to compare it with other bibles. Some of the best quotes come straight from the KJV, and haven't been matched in brilliance.

6. Most accurate? I don't know Greek. I'm in the earliest stages of learning to read New Testament Greek. Ask again later ... much, much later.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

KTirio, The Greek Orthodox seminary used Paine's "Beginning Greek" which used the first few chapters of John as its reference text. However, my own private method of learning Greek was Mounce's Biblical Greek. Vocabulary is developed by teaching you the most common words in the NT first (i.e. kai = "and", which is a good chunk of the NT). So by a third of the way into Mounce, you can recognize about 50% of the NT. You certainly arent going to be making your own translation but you will start to understand that there is a lot that goes into translation.

 

[ktírio]

KTirio, The Greek Orthodox seminary used Paine's "Beginning Greek" which used the first few chapters of John as its reference text. However, my own private method of learning Greek was Mounce's Biblical Greek. Vocabulary is developed by teaching you the most common words in the NT first (i.e. kai = "and", which is a good chunk of the NT). So by a third of the way into Mounce, you can recognize about 50% of the NT. You certainly arent going to be making your own translation but you will start to understand that there is a lot that goes into translation.

I was told to use Dobson's Learn New Testament Greek to start out and get my feet wet, which I am currently using (I'm only on maybe the fifth or sixth lesson, and they are pretty short so far). Because it's an inductive method and not very grammar heavy, I will need something else, but I do think the inductive approach is the reason the person recommended it to start out. The same person did urge me to get Mounce's grammar as well.

Thank you for all the added information you gave, I didn't know where to expect to be at upon completion of Mounce, so that is helpful.

 

[ob77]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.


2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

I use the Companion Bible, which contains the original 1611 King James version. The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance was built from the KJV, so that the reader can convert every single word in English to the Hebrew or Greek. I have found errors and things omitted from later versions and I do not trust them. There seems to have been a move to sanitize the King James, beginning with "revised" editions in the last century to present. Though there are translation errors in the KJV by mistake or purposeful, one can discern the truth by comparing the English with the original language. With other versions, this is not possible, leaving the student at a loss of a more complete understanding. God is not the author of confusion..........but translators and those who revise and sterilize the word, are.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What is your go-to Bible and why?

I went through the alphabet soup of translations for a lot of years there when I was lost in the evangelical wilderness before finally settling on the KJV. The reason is because the KJV had a flow, elegance and beauty to it, memorization was pretty easy and some personal pronouns were intentionally or unintentionally more specific than modern English can manage. I wasn't one of those KJV-only folks; I simply liked that version better.

These days I've been using the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and I really enjoy it. It has a simplicity to it that I enjoy but it doesn't come off as dumbed down.

Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?

The only two I can think to warn people against (besides the cult-oriented translations, of course) is, first, the NASB. Not because there's anything "wrong" with it, you understand, but because the structure of a lot of sentences is just plain bizarre. Clauses are reversed from where English-speakers would naturally want to put them, especially as compared to other English translations. That may be the more accurate sentence structure as compared to the original language... but this isn't the original language, now is it? It's English.

The other one is the New Living Translation. In wanting to create a simple, accessible translation, there are instances where the translation team might've thrown the baby out with the bath water. Some passages sacrificed accuracy for simplicity. It's a tough balancing act, I get that, but in my evangelical days I never recommended that people use the NLT for serious study except if (A) they're new to the faith and just need the easiest possible translation to start their study or (B), and I'm trying to be charitable here, they're just not very smart.

In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I'm not sure how many people, even those on CF, are really qualified to make that judgment. Sometimes you can just smell a rat with a given translation and then you find out that experts have criticized this or that.

But this armchair linguist thing has got to stop because so far it's only resulted in a lot of laypeople embarrassing themselves. The KJV-only folks have a funny habit of criticizing other translations because they didn't use "Lord" or "God" or what have in this passage or that passage as compared to the KJV... only to discover that the "flawed" translation that omits "God" or what have you from that passage is actually the more accurate translation and it's the KJV that's "wrong".

I also use the King James Bible when I look up stuff online

I tend to like the D-R and the KJV bibles better then the newer translations

Haven't studied much from a D-R. My priest heartily recommends it but I haven't gotten around to picking one up yet. I like what I've seen though.

The KJV, RV, and ASV are pretty much all Anglican.
The RSV and NRSV have a definite Anglican heritage but are ecumenical.

I rather like Anglicanism so that only makes them more attractive to me.

Btw, Paladin, my post is long enough already so I didn't want to quote your whole post but it was awesome. Thanks!

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

1. Lately the NASB has been my translation of choice. It seems to be very accurate to me but still simple to understand.
2. Sometimes I jump around between different translations, but that's mainly because I'm used to the older type of English (KJV, NKJV) so I prefer certain verses to be phrased a particular way. Other times I just like to compare how a particular verse is said.
3. I think the NRSV is definitely for more liturgical churches and ESV seems to be popular in megachurches. Otherwise, not really.
4. Not really, no. I don't think I've read enough of most translations to think that yet.
5. The Message. No explanation needed.
6. I personally feel that would be the NASB but it's really just a personal idea.

 

[thecolorsblend]

1. Lately the NASB has been my translation of choice. It seems to be very accurate to me but still simple to understand.

Not bad. My main gripe with the NASB is the awkward sentence structure and, lest I forget, the obsession the translation team had with using appositives.

2. Sometimes I jump around between different translations, but that's mainly because I'm used to the older type of English (KJV, NKJV) so I prefer certain verses to be phrased a particular way. Other times I just like to compare how a particular verse is said.

The NKJV is good but if you want to get nitpicky, it's basically a KJV with more modern pronouns (and other minor nips and tucks). The end result is a dialect of English that technically nobody has ever spoken before and probably nobody will ever speak in the future. There's nothing wrong with it, mind you.

 

[High Fidelity]

Not bad. My main gripe with the NASB is the awkward sentence structure and, lest I forget, the obsession the translation team had with using appositives.

Can't say I've found that problem personally. I always found the NASB to read particularly well. Much like the ESV.