Bible versions

[chevyontheriver]

Teslafied,
You seem concerned about individual verses that were in the KJV and Geneva Bible but are censored in modern translations. Yet whole books that were in the original KJV and Geneva Bible have been censored and it looks like you approve. I find that curious.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And as a reminder ....

This thread is in Traditional Theology.

Luther's (and others of the time of the Reformers) are included within this, but SO ARE the original 15 centuries of the witness of the Church that preceded them. The early councils of the Church considered the Septuagint as Scripture. (And this was THE Church before there was a separation into "Roman Catholic" etc.)

IIRC, the OT of the KJV is based on the Masoretic Text, is it not? While it bears much similarity to older texts, there are also significant differences? And it was not codified until quite a few centuries after Christ?

While I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters, and mean no disrespect, the very fact that he wished to removed James, especially, as well as Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation is of great concern to me. He also tried to get Esther placed with the "Apocrypha", I believe? And the KJV was originally put together for the Church of England. I would rather not get into the political and personal reasons the King of England wished to establish his own Church apart from the Catholics, but that would have been the impetus for the KJV, I believe. Again, no disrespect intended for my Anglican brothers and sisters. (None of us share either blame or credit for anything done by Church leaders in past centuries, and I do respect you all very much.)

(And for what it's worth, I have done almost all of my Scripture memorization in King James, and our Church often uses the NKJV - I use various translations for various purposes - I am not an "only"est of any kind.)

By the way, the Orthodox Church does not consider all of Scripture to be on equal footing either. There are several levels of authority and importance. The Gospels are primary of course - when everything is viewed through the lens of the Gospel, through the revelation of Jesus Christ the God-man as revealed to us, everything falls into place. Trying to understand the faith through the lens of the Psalms or some of the history, for example, can have terrible results (depending upon which passage is chosen - making people believe that God is very bloodthirsty and would smash infants on a rock). The epistles hold a very important place as well, and so on, through various levels of understanding. (The Psalms are also important and a number of them are read in Church every time we gather.) Context and knowing the purposes of the Scriptures are very important.

 

[Teslafied]

Teslafied,
You seem concerned about individual verses that were in the KJV and Geneva Bible but are censored in modern translations. Yet whole books that were in the original KJV and Geneva Bible have been censored and it looks like you approve. I find that curious.

Actually I have the apocrypha so no I don't approve of censoring books at all. Now whether I think the apocrypha is divinely inspired or not is another subject all together. Anyway... I don't think any book should be hidden, just like I don't think any verse should be taken out. If the niv translators felt the verses didn't belong well they could have said so in the footnotes instead of completely omitting those verses. If anyone is trying to hide anything it's the writers of the niv and so forth.

 

[prodromos]

Actually I have the apocrypha so no I don't approve of censoring books at all. Now whether I think the apocrypha is divinely inspired or not is another subject all together. Anyway... I don't think any book should be hidden, just like I don't think any verse should be taken out. If the niv translators felt the verses didn't belong well they could have said so in the footnotes instead of completely omitting those verses. If anyone is trying to hide anything it's the writers of the niv and so forth.

I agree that there should have been footnotes stating what other manuscripts have. That would have redeemed a lot of its failings imho.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually I have the apocrypha so no I don't approve of censoring books at all. Now whether I think the apocrypha is divinely inspired or not is another subject all together. Anyway... I don't think any book should be hidden, just like I don't think any verse should be taken out. If the niv translators felt the verses didn't belong well they could have said so in the footnotes instead of completely omitting those verses. If anyone is trying to hide anything it's the writers of the niv and so forth.

I went out and bought a NIV when it first came out and read it through. It was supposed to be such a wonderful evangelical translation. In the end it sits on my shelf rarely used because I end up second guessing it, always wondering what the real words are instead of what the NIV said. And almost no notes, which might have alerted me to some complexities in the text. So I went back to the NAB and now have adopted the RSVCE. In fairness the NIV I had was a 'reader's edition', but I did feel I was quietly being fed opinion as to what I should believe. My objection to the NIV is different than yours, I suspect. Textual analysis is for me a semi-acceptable discipline. Only semi-acceptable. What I wondered about was that the NIV seemed to carry an anti-tradition bias even as they claimed to be unbiased. For example, where 'paradosis' could be translated 'tradition' a favorable view, they used different words. Where 'paradosis' could be translated 'tradition' in a negative view, it was 'tradition' every time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/arbitrary-bias-in-the-niv-against-tradition.html

I've been looking lately at a translation by Ronald Knox. It is highly literate, faithful, intelligible, and actually has the verses you worry about. It was based on the Latin Vulgate, which actually is, in it's critical edition, a very good ancient text, much better than the TR Greek was when Erasmus published it.
http://knoxbible.com/index.html
http://catholicbible.online/knox?bible_part_no=1&book_no=1&chapter_no=1

 

[Korah]

The NIV is a pretty serviceable translation, if as you say, one is evangelical, and the original is better than the newer inclusive-language version. But it's not good for us of Traditional Theology--as you say the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is as good as you can get. The recent Roman Catholic versions are basically reverent, but too defaced with pompous Higher Criticism. True, much of the latter is warranted, but does not belong in Bibles for the ordinary laypersons to read without damage to their faith. The New American Bible is the most threatening in this way, even though its the RC pulpit Bible. I like the New Jerusalem Bible the best for me, but know it's not the best for the ordinary Catholic nor the non-Catholic. The NRSV is ruined by the inclusive language, the NASB and the Holman are too staidly Protestant, which as I said leaves me in agreement with you that the RSVCE is best for everyone (also similarly available as The Common Bible), though Protestants may prefer simply the Second Edition (1971) without the Apocrypha.
"This second edition of the RSV doesn't put the biblical text through a filter to make it acceptable to current tastes and prejudices, and it retains the beauty of the RSV language that has made it such a joy to read and reflect on the Word of God. Now the only Catholic Bible in standard English is even more beautiful in word and design!" (online promo for the Ignatius Bible)
Strange how with so many new translations they're all already outdated (as the RSV was by 1971 with some archaic language) or too "hip" to be serviceable. I can't recommend any other version than the 2nd Edition of the RSV.
And for my purposes as a scholar, I don't know of any that's woodenly "good", with every word in the original language translated with the same English word and in the same word order as the original. Supposedly the Young's Literal and the Concordant do the job, but the latter is not critical enough and the former is based on the Textus Receptus (that underlies the KJV).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And as a reminder ....

This thread is in Traditional Theology.

Luther's (and others of the time of the Reformers) are included within this, but SO ARE the original 15 centuries of the witness of the Church that preceded them. The early councils of the Church considered the Septuagint as Scripture. (And this was THE Church before there was a separation into "Roman Catholic" etc.)

IIRC, the OT of the KJV is based on the Masoretic Text, is it not? While it bears much similarity to older texts, there are also significant differences? And it was not codified until quite a few centuries after Christ?

While I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters, and mean no disrespect, the very fact that he wished to removed James, especially, as well as Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation is of great concern to me. He also tried to get Esther placed with the "Apocrypha", I believe? And the KJV was originally put together for the Church of England. I would rather not get into the political and personal reasons the King of England wished to establish his own Church apart from the Catholics, but that would have been the impetus for the KJV, I believe. Again, no disrespect intended for my Anglican brothers and sisters. (None of us share either blame or credit for anything done by Church leaders in past centuries, and I do respect you all very much.)

(And for what it's worth, I have done almost all of my Scripture memorization in King James, and our Church often uses the NKJV - I use various translations for various purposes - I am not an "only"est of any kind.)

By the way, the Orthodox Church does not consider all of Scripture to be on equal footing either. There are several levels of authority and importance. The Gospels are primary of course - when everything is viewed through the lens of the Gospel, through the revelation of Jesus Christ the God-man as revealed to us, everything falls into place. Trying to understand the faith through the lens of the Psalms or some of the history, for example, can have terrible results (depending upon which passage is chosen - making people believe that God is very bloodthirsty and would smash infants on a rock). The epistles hold a very important place as well, and so on, through various levels of understanding. (The Psalms are also important and a number of them are read in Church every time we gather.) Context and knowing the purposes of the Scriptures are very important.

Martin Luther was indeed human and was therefore not always right. Truth is, that despite his musings that some books might be confusing to the layity, that ultimately, these books remain. Interesting to note that in our (LCMS/LCC) most recent edition of the apocrypha, besides those books which are included in "Catholic" editions, there are some others as well, that historically had been included in various Bibles in use throughout the Church: http://www.cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

​

I agree that there should have been footnotes stating what other manuscripts have. That would have redeemed a lot of its failings imho.

Our Synods have adopted, but do not exclusively use the ESV. Our present ESV "Study Bible" contain extensive notes that highlight the contents of other textural sources; errors, omissions, additions, translations. It was originally to have the Apocrypha included, but with the extensive notes, it is already a really big book; so it was decided to publish it separately. So far, this is as good as it gets for someone who studies scripture in English: http://www.cph.org/p-11334-the-lutheran-study-bible-hardback.aspx

The Lutheran Study Bible features:
• 26,500-plus uniquely Lutheran study notes.
• Over 2,000 application notes and prayers for every part of the Bible.
• 80,000 center column cross-references.
• Over 900 cross-references to 120 full or half-page maps, charts, and diagrams.
• 220-plus articles and introductions to biblical books and topics.
• 31,000 concordance entries.
• Insights from early church, medieval and Reformation era church fathers.
• Uses the English Standard Version translation, one of the most precise English translations available.
• Durable Smyth-sewn binding.
• Words of Christ in red.​

 

[~Anastasia~]

Martin Luther was indeed human and was therefore not always right. Truth is, that despite his musings that some books might be confusing to the layity, that ultimately, these books remain. Interesting to note that in our (LCMS/LCC) most recent edition of the apocrypha, besides those books which are included in "Catholic" editions, there are some others as well, that historically had been included in various Bibles in use throughout the Church: http://www.cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

​

Interesting. I didn't see a list of books included, but thank you for the link. I do hope I didn't offend. Yes, it is true that our Church leaders can be fallible, and I hope I didn't seem disrespectful. Martin Luther was certainly not in an enviable position, IMO, and I know he only wanted to reform the Catholic Church of the day, not break away from it and start a new denomination. I actually respect his courage. It is too bad, IMO, that the entire Church was not corrected and unified at that point in history, but who knows what influences were affecting, and the whole counsel of God?

I hope I wasn't offensive. My objection was not precisely against Martin Luther, but concerned with Scriptural changes wrought at the hand (or behest) of an individual. Not only Martin Luther's ideas, but the King of England. I'm not aware of Calvin or Zwingli producing a text - that would have been of bigger concern, IMO.​

 

[Korah]

I'm not aware of Calvin or Zwingli producing a text - that would have been of bigger concern, IMO.​

Actually, Calvinists notably produced and favored the Geneva Bible in English, but it goes back to the 16th Century so is rarely used now.
A current Calvinist site states its preferences as follows
"1) English Standard Version (ESV) – Highly accurate yet easily readable. Recommended by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, etc.
2) New King James Version (NKJV) – Revision of the King James, yet some language has been eased over to make it more accessible.
3) New American Standard Bible (NASB) – VERY strict translation from the original language to the English language. The problem may occur, however, when some of the meaning may get lost in the translation itself, due to the rigid translation of words."
https://ryanthecalvinist.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/on-bible-translation-preferences/
I remember that the Bible Answer Man liked the NASB, so I bought it some years ago and use it occasionally.
I've never tried the ESV myself, though I have seen it in a church sometime, probably the Reformed Church or Presbyterian Church. Too many choices of the same nature I think, what with the Holman, the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV.

 

[Korah]

Our Synods have adopted, but do not exclusively use the ESV. .

Do you mean synods within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or do you include WELS and ELCA, the other two major "Synods" in the U. S. (Confusing the issue is that Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as well as NALC subdivide themselves into geographical "synods".)

 

[chevyontheriver]

The NIV is a pretty serviceable translation, if as you say, one is evangelical, and the original is better than the newer inclusive-language version. But it's not good for us of Traditional Theology-

That's what I, and many others, have found.

-as you say the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is as good as you can get. The recent Roman Catholic versions are basically reverent, but too defaced with pompous Higher Criticism. True, much of the latter is warranted, but does not belong in Bibles for the ordinary laypersons to read without damage to their faith.

Yes, some of the notes do seem antithetical to the faith. Makes me wonder about the translators.

The New American Bible is the most threatening in this way, even though its the RC pulpit Bible.

I used the NAB for years. It was choppy, with some books being excellent and others merely a low pass as translations. It WAS the pulpit Bible in the original 1970 version. But since Liturgium Authenticam came out in 2001 the NAB doesn't cut it, rightly so I see, and cannot be used liturgically as is. And the rNAB doesn't even come close for liturgical approval. So the approved text of the Bible for Catholic liturgy is not in any actually published Bible. The USCCB holds the copyright on both Bibles and has taken the 1970 NAB out of print leaving the worse, IMHO, rNAB in print.

The funny thing is that the RSVCE was proposed for liturgical use, and the Vatican came up with revisions needed, and that is the second edition of the RSVCE. It can be used in Catholic liturgy exactly as published by Ignatius Press. It has a bit more modernized English where some RSV words had become archaic, AND it passes muster with the Vatican, AND it is a good basic text, not PC inclusive confusion.

I like the New Jerusalem Bible the best for me, but know it's not the best for the ordinary Catholic nor the non-Catholic. The NRSV is ruined by the inclusive language, the NASB and the Holman are too staidly Protestant, which as I said leaves me in agreement with you that the RSVCE is best for everyone (also similarly available as The Common Bible), though Protestants may prefer simply the Second Edition (1971) without the Apocrypha.
"This second edition of the RSV doesn't put the biblical text through a filter to make it acceptable to current tastes and prejudices, and it retains the beauty of the RSV language that has made it such a joy to read and reflect on the Word of God. Now the only Catholic Bible in standard English is even more beautiful in word and design!" (online promo for the Ignatius Bible)
Strange how with so many new translations they're all already outdated (as the RSV was by 1971 with some archaic language) or too "hip" to be serviceable. I can't recommend any other version than the 2nd Edition of the RSV.
And for my purposes as a scholar, I don't know of any that's woodenly "good", with every word in the original language translated with the same English word and in the same word order as the original. Supposedly the Young's Literal and the Concordant do the job, but the latter is not critical enough and the former is based on the Textus Receptus (that underlies the KJV).

Yup. No perfect translation. Not that I would do any better, but substantially worse, pretending to read Greek. So for now I'm sticking with the RSVCE, looking for a complete RSVCE2 in a study Bible format, and enjoying peeking at the Ronald Knox version.

 

[Korah]

Following up on the apparent preference of many conservatives for the new English Standard Version, I have gone to their website, and it presents itself as the perfect version even for scholars:
"Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts."https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/
That's from their more detailed "Philosophy", but their introduction comes off perfectly for "standard" traditionalists and conservatives that the ESV starts from the 1971 2nd Edition of the Revised Standard Version. That's already the best version for RCs, the RSVCE.
I don't see how it can look all that much like the RSVCE if everywhere it standardizes translated words to be consistent (perfect for me), but to remain both readable and comfortable for those of us originally tutored in the King James Version.
Looks like I should buy myself a Lutheran Study Bible ESV! I had until today thought of it as just a copy-cat of similar new Protestant Bibles like the NASB, Holman, NIV, and 2nd Ed. RSV, not to mention the easily confusable names like the very different New English Bible and so many paraphrase versions. If it really has consistent word use I need it instead of my most recent resolution to buy the Ignatius Bible (RSVCE), so similar to the Common Bible that used to be my mainstay until I lost it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Do you mean synods within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod or do you include WELS and ELCA, the other two major "Synods" in the U. S. (Confusing the issue is that Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as well as NALC subdivide themselves into geographical "synods".)

No, and yes. I actually meant Synod as in it's original meaning "walking together". The counsel of Jerusalem was a "synod" as was Nicea and all the others; not just our Lutheran "synods", but all Synods.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting. I didn't see a list of books included, but thank you for the link. I do hope I didn't offend. Yes, it is true that our Church leaders can be fallible, and I hope I didn't seem disrespectful. Martin Luther was certainly not in an enviable position, IMO, and I know he only wanted to reform the Catholic Church of the day, not break away from it and start a new denomination. I actually respect his courage. It is too bad, IMO, that the entire Church was not corrected and unified at that point in history, but who knows what influences were affecting, and the whole counsel of God?

I hope I wasn't offensive. My objection was not precisely against Martin Luther, but concerned with Scriptural changes wrought at the hand (or behest) of an individual. Not only Martin Luther's ideas, but the King of England. I'm not aware of Calvin or Zwingli producing a text - that would have been of bigger concern, IMO.​

No offense taken.

I think if you look through the PDF file link there that you may find a table of contents in there.

Lutherans do not have a list of books for the Bible; we are pragmatic enough to know that there may be some other texts eventually come to light that may be inspired word of God. Scripture itself eludes to other writings that have presently been lost to history.

 

[SkyWriting]

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 Biblehub for all purposes.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Actually, Calvinists notably produced and favored the Geneva Bible in English, but it goes back to the 16th Century so is rarely used now.
A current Calvinist site states its preferences as follows
"1) English Standard Version (ESV) – Highly accurate yet easily readable. Recommended by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, etc.
2) New King James Version (NKJV) – Revision of the King James, yet some language has been eased over to make it more accessible.
3) New American Standard Bible (NASB) – VERY strict translation from the original language to the English language. The problem may occur, however, when some of the meaning may get lost in the translation itself, due to the rigid translation of words."
https://ryanthecalvinist.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/on-bible-translation-preferences/
I remember that the Bible Answer Man liked the NASB, so I bought it some years ago and use it occasionally.
I've never tried the ESV myself, though I have seen it in a church sometime, probably the Reformed Church or Presbyterian Church. Too many choices of the same nature I think, what with the Holman, the NASB, the NIV, and the ESV.

Ah, I wasn't thinking of the Geneva Bible, and never bothered to learn it's history. Thank you.

I have the other versions. The feature I find most useful among them is precisely what you mention about the NASB, I will often check it when I'm trying to pin down an understanding of the word chosen when there seems to be some confusion or bias and I'm comparing a number of versions. I have found that translation overall to be the most rigorous on exact words.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No offense taken.

I think if you look through the PDF file link there that you may find a table of contents in there.

The one place I did not look, and the most obvious, lol. Thank you. I can appreciate what they chose to include and to omit.

Lutherans do not have a list of books for the Bible; we are pragmatic enough to know that there may be some other texts eventually come to light that may be inspired word of God. Scripture itself eludes to other writings that have presently been lost to history.

Now that surprises me somewhat. I don't know as I've heard that position actually articulated by any other group. Interesting ...

I'm actually a little surprised as I have generally seen Lutheran theology to be extremely careful to the point it seems to me that the position would be if a question came up that could involve possible error, the decision would be made to err on the side of caution, if necessary. No criticism intended. I'm just surprised.

 

[Korah]

Yes, for the exactly right word in exactly the right position, the NASB is excellent. But by selecting the right word for the context, it has to sacrifice consistency by NOT employing the same translation for the same source word. That's why I just bought an ESV. I hope it is also consistent between the three Synoptic gospels in displaying the differences in word order as well. I hope consistency does NOT extend to falsely showing equivalent verses as exactly the same when they are not. (For my scholarly purposes, doesn't matter for doctrinal use.)
I'll soon see whether the English Standard Version is the perfect scholarly version, showing the TRUE similarities and differences between the three Synoptics. My favorite New Jerusalem Bible failed me badly on this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, for the exactly right word in exactly the right position, the NASB is excellent. But by selecting the right word for the context, it has to sacrifice consistency by NOT employing the same translation for the same source word. That's why I just bought an ESV. I hope it is also consistent between the three Synoptic gospels in displaying the differences in word order as well. I hope consistency does NOT extend to falsely showing equivalent verses as exactly the same when they are not. (For my scholarly purposes, doesn't matter for doctrinal use.)
I'll soon see whether the English Standard Version is the perfect scholarly version, showing the TRUE similarities and differences between the three Synoptics. My favorite New Jerusalem Bible failed me badly on this.

Interesting thought.

I'm working on the Greek, with something very similar as one of the motivations. But I'm not so sure that I'll ever learn it well enough for that to be something I can do well on my own.

 

[Korah]

The Greek comes a lot easier, believe me,
if you find a version with the same word order in English (or whatever language) and the Greek.
The problem is that the most exact in order, tense etc. will be a literal translation, varying from too-much-of-a-good-thing with a fiercely literal translation like Young's. NASB tends toward literalism. ESV will help you learn Greek words because any particular Greek word is translated with the same English word. The Concordant always so. Interlinear versions can't be beat for your purposes, available inexpensively from Jehovah's Witnesses, but the English meaning is old-fashioned or otherwise distorted.
Most Bible translations are from Protestants, and that bias is always there to some degree. No Catholic Bibles facilitate learning the Greek along with them, so as usual that leaves faithful Catholics going ironically to the 2006 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, the Ignatius Bible. The ESV is a revision of Second Edition, so may be least tinged with Protestantism. From Wikipedia:

• Catholic Edition of the Old Testament incorporating the deuterocanonicals (1966)

• Second Catholic (or Ignatius) Edition (2006) (RSV-2CE)