Biblical Versions

[tekwerx]

I know, its an odd place to put my qustion, but I think this is the best place, and in a moment you'll see why.


Im in a quandry. I was reading through Malachi today, and came across chapter 16, verse 12. "...a ring for your nose..." Surely I must have a bad version of my Bible, right? (I was reading NLT btw). I go grab my NIV. Same thing. Nose ring. Right there. Hm. I go grab my KJV. NOT there. Im puzzled. This is pretty big, as its God talking directly to Malachi about His church, and God is condoning a nose ring? I know there are several other differences between the versions, but I hadn't really thought much about them, and this is the first one Ive really ever noticed myself first hand.

Ok, so whats up? The reason Im posting this here is because this is pretty big. Ive been taught my entire Christian life that piercings, tattoos, etc are bad for your body. Well, this flies in the face of that. If anyone has any insight into this, it would be extremely appreciated to explain please.

Now, for the big part, and as to why this post is in here: The differences between the translations. How do I know which version is the most accurate? I dont want to be reading a version only to find Im screwed because Ive been reading a bad version and something has been removed and/or added thats not supposed to be. Whats the most accurate translation from the old Greek/Hebrew/etc texts that there is? I want something that will give me a word for word translation from the ancient texts that I know is the original authentic God-inspired Word.

Help me out here. Im praying for wisdom in a big way.

Thanks in advance, God be with you all in these end times.

 

[justified]

Um, Malachi only has four chapters or maybe five. But certainly not 16. However, Ezekiel 16:12 reads "I put a ring in your nose..."

So I'll presume that's what you're talking about. sheesh.

The context is God's relationship with Israel. See verse 8:

"‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

The idea is God's relationship with Israel as a marriage in which he chose her.

Verses 9-13 discuss the luxury she (Israel) receives as the wife of Yahweh. And indeed, the style does include piercings, bracelets, etc.

It's not about a church, as you say. But it does reveal to us the styles of the day. I don't know anywhere in scripture where we can interpret a passage as saying that piercings are purely wrong at all times.

 

[tekwerx]

Apologies, I meant Ezekiel...I was tired at 1 am, lol.

Thank you for the clarification on that, but what about the second question I had? Anyone?

 

[justified]

Now, for the big part, and as to why this post is in here: The differences between the translations. How do I know which version is the most accurate? I dont want to be reading a version only to find Im screwed because Ive been reading a bad version and something has been removed and/or added thats not supposed to be. Whats the most accurate translation from the old Greek/Hebrew/etc texts that there is? I want something that will give me a word for word translation from the ancient texts that I know is the original authentic God-inspired Word.

There's several things to say on this part.

First of all, in essence, you can't know which translation is "best." You do not know the languages, so whatever happens you will be listening to what those of us who know them tell you.

Even we, though, don't know the languages as well as the people who translated them.

Further, translations are strong on different things. Translation "theory" is a big part of it. Quite another issue is whether or not you can have a "translation" at all. But that's a very theoretical thing involving lots of obscure, annoying frenchmen from early last century.

The issue with the particular verse you cited is that the KJV in very old, and we have discovered a lot of other texts since then which ahve taught us more about what various words mean.

That is in itself one recommendation: a translation from the last fifty years, ie, after Akkadian, Ugaritic, and a host of other languages have been understood.

Your other suggestion is to read multiple versions, and read their footnotes. The footnotes of an honest bible will give you all the information you require in terms of where they're not sure about something.

And trust me, you don't want a word-for-word translation. You don't know Hebrew and Greek, and so an interlinear is of no use to you. However, there are literal translations like the New American Standard, which might be of use.

The two best bibles on the market, in my opinion is the NIV (not the tNIV) and the English Standard Version.

 

[CovenantRay]

Regarding English translations, there are 2 types:

Word for Word translations and Contextual translations.

It is my understanding from several years ago, looking into this question, that the New American Standard Bible, NASB, is thought to be the most accurate translation (word for word).

It is quite possible that this would not be the "best" bible translation for an individual person, as the historical, cultural, and religious practices of the day would have to be known to place the words in the proper context. The reading level is also higher than, for example, NIV (a contextual translation).

By the way, there is a prohibition from tattoos and from ritualistic scarring in the bible:

Lev 19:28

"'You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. I am the LORD.

My interpretation of this verse is to differentiate the Children of Israel from the surrounding tribes.

Good luck with your search, and I hope this helps a little bit.

Shalom,

CovenantRay

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Ive been taught my entire Christian life that piercings, tattoos, etc are bad for your body. Well, this flies in the face of that. If anyone has any insight into this, it would be extremely appreciated to explain please.

Well, we have to distinguish the cultural differences between our world today and the ancient world. I would think all nose rings today are the kind which pierce the nose. But that wasn't the case in the Ancient Near East.

In the Ancient Near East, nose rings didn't pierce the nose, they were worn on the outside of it. If you remember the story of Abraham's servant who was sent to find Isaac a wife, and he came across Rebekah. The servant offered her a nose ring in Genesis 24:22. Then Gen 24:47 said the servant put the ring on her nose as a sign of betrothal. He didn't pierce her nose, the Hebrew word was put/place/set rather than pierce. As a contrast Exodus 21:6 has a different word - there the ear is pierced - and that Hebrew word is different from the ones used in Gen 24:47 and Ezekiel 16:12.

Ezekiel 16:12 is in a lengthy allegorical passage where God describes Jerusalem as a woman. The mention of the jewelry - especially the crown - speaks strongly of a betrothal process between God and the woman Jerusalem. In Hebrew the nose ring is simply given to the woman, and nothing is mentioned of piercing.

Now, for the big part, and as to why this post is in here: The differences between the translations. How do I know which version is the most accurate? I dont want to be reading a version only to find Im screwed because Ive been reading a bad version and something has been removed and/or added thats not supposed to be. Whats the most accurate translation from the old Greek/Hebrew/etc texts that there is? I want something that will give me a word for word translation from the ancient texts that I know is the original authentic God-inspired Word.

Perhaps you might trust someone who has gone the "scholarly route," has read through most of the modern translations and has formally studied the original languages? IMO:

1. Because of the complexity involved in translation issues, no one particular Bible translation is more "pure" than another. Asking for The most accurate Bible is as ambiguous as asking for the greatest sports team of all time. Both need further clarification. If we are talking about sports, then its like are we talking football, basketball, or baseball? Then what era, the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s?

In a similar sense there is much more involved in determining accuracy in translations than simply a word-for-word translation. A translator must guard against a wooden "word-for-word" translation which might sacrifice readability, or worse, actually obscure the original sense of a passage. I've found the NIV - supposedly a "thought-for-thought" translation - to be more accurate than the NASB in certain passages. Then again, I think the NASB translation was better in other passages. So which is better? I'd say they have their own strengths and weaknesses, and I like to use both.

2. Overall, English translations do a great job of communicating God's Word. I am absolutely comfortable recommending almost all the modern Bible translations (NLT, NIV, NASB, NET, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, etc) for study and reading. They are all good, and I've read all the way through most of them. Reading Scripture is like driving a car. You don't need to know how the inside of a car operates in order to drive it. You don't need to know all of the translation options in order to read Scripture.

3. If you do want to know "what's under the hood" of a translation, then the best and hardest option is to formally learn the original languages. It does open up tools and insight not otherwise available. It also takes a considerable amount of time, energy and resources. Even then, most of us who do study never reach the level of proficiency and expertise that many translators already have. However there is an easier option without study of the languages:

Choose a "main" English study Bible which you are most comfortable, read it, then from time to time compare passages with 3+ other modern English versions in your study. By comparing them, you will discover the different options and choices made by the translators, especially in the problem passages. Essentially what you are looking at in the comparison are the conclusions of experts. I'd also recommend using the NET Bible as a comparison translation, because the NET notes provide excellent insight into specific reasons for a particular translation.

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[denverB183]

I personally read the KJV, I like it, and it has the fewest number of translations since the original version. I am trying to learn Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew, but I think that is a task of years, so in the meantime, I must suffice with my version. However I also like to read a version that I have through a program called e-sword which is absolutely wonderful and free. It offers all the different versions of the bible that you could think of as well as commentaries, maps etc. But it also has a version that contains a linked dictionary for each word, as well as the original language, the word itself and the other uses for the word. So that way I can at least try and check how accurate the translation makes sense.

There is one other question that no one has asked yet. You have asked about the accuracy of the translations, but no one has brought up what is being translated, for example the Catholic bible contains additional book doesn't it? 1 & 2 Macabees, Bel, Daniel 13 & 14 things like that? (If it's not the Catholic bible then oops, but I think it is) So who decided what books should be included. I read the KJV which contains 66 books translated in 1611. They all seem to fit together with good harmony, but I also enjoy reading the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel (He kills a dragon). So I don't know, thoughts anyone?

 

[justified]

There is one other question that no one has asked yet. You have asked about the accuracy of the translations, but no one has brought up what is being translated, for example the Catholic bible contains additional book doesn't it? 1 & 2 Macabees, Bel, Daniel 13 & 14 things like that? (If it's not the Catholic bible then oops, but I think it is) So who decided what books should be included. I read the KJV which contains 66 books translated in 1611. They all seem to fit together with good harmony, but I also enjoy reading the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel (He kills a dragon). So I don't know, thoughts anyone?

A few corrections:

You, and 99% of those who profess to read the 1611 KJV, actually read an Oxford revision of that bible, edited in 1769.

The original 1611 edition included those extra books you referred to, called the "apocryphal and deutero-canonical" books.

The content of the bible is determined by various Christian groups. If you were to read the coptic bible, you would find it contains yet more books -- canon that is still open, in fact -- while other groups have differing numbers as well.

 

[mark53]

There is one other question that no one has asked yet. You have asked about the accuracy of the translations, but no one has brought up what is being translated, for example the Catholic bible contains additional book doesn't it? 1 & 2 Macabees, Bel, Daniel 13 & 14 things like that? (If it's not the Catholic bible then oops, but I think it is) So who decided what books should be included. I read the KJV which contains 66 books translated in 1611. They all seem to fit together with good harmony, but I also enjoy reading the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel (He kills a dragon). So I don't know, thoughts anyone?

The original KJV had the apochraphal books in it.
The Bible old and new testaments were divided up into section and translated by a committee of about 6-8 people, including the Apochrapha.

 

[searchingforGodlyanswers]

A few corrections:

You, and 99% of those who profess to read the 1611 KJV, actually read an Oxford revision of that bible, edited in 1769.

The original 1611 edition included those extra books you referred to, called the "apocryphal and deutero-canonical" books.

The content of the bible is determined by various Christian groups. If you were to read the coptic bible, you would find it contains yet more books -- canon that is still open, in fact -- while other groups have differing numbers as well.

So where and how do we get these readings?
Why was this taken out of the original 1611 Bible? Did this really happen too? Was it part of the original scrolls, etc., or was it something extraneous and erroneous?
What is the difference between the coptic Bible and the Catholic Bible or is that the same exact thing? And what are these other groups that were referred to?
Should we get a Bible that includes all these extras or pieces that were taken out to actually have and read the whole Bible in its entirity?
Is there anything else we should know about this?

 

[GQ Chris]

I really like the authorized KJV version... why? because in passages like in Philippians when Paul talks about losing everything for Christ, and counting them as "Dung" for what he found in Christ. Other translations just don't have this "oomph".. however I do also own and like the NIV version, and now that I have been reading a bit more about the NASB, I think I will pick up a copy of that as well.

 

[ThaYoun1]

whats the big difference between the versions? translation?

 

[GQ Chris]

what are the pros/cons of the NASB version? I have heard that the NASB is a great literal, word for word translation.