Differences in Bible version texts

[GodLovesCats]

A matter of philosophy. I prefer to translate the OT in the context of the original work, and not add a NT perspective to the translation. That's the job of exegesis. That's probably the biggest difference. I also find the way they handle the Gospels irritating. They want to translate words more consistently, so everything starts with "and." That's not English. I find it distracting.

Yes, the "And" is distracting. It is also completely useless at the beginning of a sentence. Someone said it is there because ancient Hebrew did not have commas, but that does not settle "And it was so."

There are many parellels between OT and NT stories (Jonah in the fish, the Passover, etc.) but I don't see a New Testament perspective in Old Testament passages. Will that come with more experience?

 

[Crossings Collinsville]

I prefer the NIV for most of my reading since the translators typically render what they believed was the best idea intended to be expressed in a given text, and they group ideas into paragraphs.

When I'm in the mood for a more literal translation, I turn to the NASB as it typically renders Hebrew/Greek to English in a more literal fashion than the NIV.

I am trained in Hebrew and Greek too, having spent several years studying the languages in school (especially Greek). I've found all modern translations are mostly very good, but all have some strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Andrewn]

I noticed that. It looks like an attempt to help people with not-so-great reading comprehension.

Regarding NLT, I agree with you as far as the NT & Psalms are concerned. But try comparing it say in the book of Ezekiel or Proverbs or Numbers.

I already did that in the Looking For A Church section.

I'll try to find that section.

 

[Andrewn]

You wrote a thoughtful analysis expressing deep knowlege of various translations.

NRSV for formal equivalence, Good News or CEB for dynamic equivalence.

NRSV is certainly a respectable translation and probably all newer translations benefitted from its scholarship. I use it for the NT. It's not available on Bible Hub.

A matter of philosophy. I prefer to translate the OT in the context of the original work, and not add a NT perspective to the translation. That's the job of exegesis.

Because I disagree with this philosophy, I don't like NRSV translation of Psalms & OT.

I want to like CEB (Common English). The general level of the translation is good. I've used it with middle school kids. But when I checked Romans it used a few interesting but unusual translations. Some may even be right, but I'd generally prefer a translation to stick with consensus interpretations.

I like the language of CEB. There are many nice renderings but its theology is too liberal. As far as new thought-for-thought translations go, I've rejected it in favor of NLT & GWT. None of these is suitable for studying the NT.

Despite the fact that it's a fairly free translation, I have yet to find a place where Good News seems wrong. I trust it more than most "literal" translations.

GNT was the original widespread thought-for-thought translation. Newer translations in that category followed in its footsteps, starting with NIV which, IMHO, is a combination of GNT and RSV.

The only formal equivalent translation I have a strong opinion against is NIV. I wouldn't use it for Paul.

I strongly dislike the NIV and would _not_ consider it a formal equivalence.

ESV has the advantage of being based on RSV. (Actually I think I prefer the original, though ESV has more recent textual scholarship.)

I have nothing specifically against ESV. But, when it comes to formal equivalence, I prefer NKJV or modern updates like WEB and MEV, which I read online. I've bought a copy of the Lutheran EHV (NT & Psalms) and like it a lot.

Holman bothers me. It seems to have been done just because the Southern Baptists wanted to own a translation. However I've never heard anything bad about the translation itself.

Their new update, the CSB, makes many corrections suggested by Lutherans and aims at being a combination of NIV and ESV. I like it more than either one.

The New English and the later REB seem to have vanished. It seems like REB's problem was marketing, more than any issue with the translation itself. NEB reminds me of CEB in some ways: it has a number of idiosyncratic renderings which may be right, but aren't consensus.

Those were the days, my friend. I read in both NEB & REB and I own a copy of REB (thought-for-thought). Too British, though.

The Jerusalem Bible and the NAB are also pretty good.

I have the JB and the NAB. I use them mainly for the Apocrypha. The NAB I have contains revised NT which is very similar to NRSV except for inclusive language. It's not the latest edition with revised Psalms. The translation of Psalms in the edition I have is absolutely awful. I read the NJB online only rarely and not enough to form an opinion. It is thought-for-thought.

 

[tdidymas]

It seems every time people debate about which Bible version is the closest to God's Word they concentrate more on learning Hebrew than actually comparing and contrasting modern English versions to each other. How should we decide what the best Bible version in our native form of English is? This is the question Christians with no knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or Jewish heritage need to answer.

To start, I used the Parallel Chapter feature on Bible Hub to compare five Genesis 1 texts: NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, and HCSB. (No choice on that list of versions, unfortunately.) The KJV uses a singluar heaven; the other four pluralize it: heavens. Otherwise, 1:1 is identical. But verse 2 is totally different in some versions. So are some later verses in Chapter 1. See here:

Genesis 1 Parallel Chapters

The problem is I don't have the same favorite version for each verse. But I am just a human, a limited thinker who can never understand God completely. If I can understand His Word better by learning about the differences in modern English translations, I am all in to do it.

In the grand scheme of things, "heaven" vs. "heavens" is a negligible issue. Many people have divided over Bible versions, claiming that one version is the best one or is "the God-inspired one." But such attitudes lead to divisions and denominations which is called "factions" in the Bible, and declared as sin.

I use various versions to get a better understanding of the text. I think that several different translators who have differing backgrounds and opinions can paint a better picture than one single translation. I'm for believing that most translators are actually trying to get at the truth, and don't have a secret agenda to propagate their personal opinion (at least most of the time).

I think we can benefit from all the versions, and that no one of them is "the best." Although, I do have a few bones to pick with some of them.
TD

 

[Andrewn]

I prefer the NIV for most of my reading since the translators typically render what they believed was the best idea intended to be expressed in a given text, and they group ideas into paragraphs. When I'm in the mood for a more literal translation, I turn to the NASB as it typically renders Hebrew/Greek to English in a more literal fashion than the NIV.

This is a very conventional opinion. Have you tried any of the more recent translations?

 

[Andrewn]

I use various versions to get a better understanding of the text. I think that several different translators who have differing backgrounds and opinions can paint a better picture than one single translation.

It's great to be able to read different translations side by side online.

Although, I do have a few bones to pick with some of them.
TD

Examples?

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's great to be able to read different translations side by side online.

It is when you want to compare literal translations with thought for thought versions, but I would want to choose them and Bible Hub seems to not give me that customization option.

Examples?

I know you were not asking me but one of them is some versions call the animal Jonah was in a whale. It could not be both a fish and a mammal.

 

[hedrick]

I know you were not asking me but one of them is some versions call the animal Jonah was in a whale. It could not be both a fish and a mammal.

But that's using modern biological classification. Hebrew words often aren't precisely equivalent to any one English word. I doubt the Hebrew definition of fish excluded whales.

The giant "fish" isn't identified, so I'd simply translate it fish. I can see why people guess whale, but there are a number of large non-mammal fish: List of largest fish - Wikipedia. Perhaps a whale shark?

 

[Andrewn]

I know you were not asking me but one of them is some versions call the animal Jonah was in a whale. It could not be both a fish and a mammal.

Good point. Of the translations I looked at online, only KJV, Jubilee, and WEB have "whale." The rest say "great fish" or something similar.

 

[GodLovesCats]

But that's using modern biological classification. Hebrew words often aren't precisely equivalent to any one English word. I doubt the Hebrew definition of fish excluded whales.

The giant "fish" isn't identified, so I'd simply translate it fish. I can see why people guess whale, but there are a number of large non-mammal fish: List of largest fish - Wikipedia. Perhaps a whale shark?

This is exactly what I am talking about here: avoiding Hebrew altogether by only reading modern English. It was either a fish or a whale, not just an animal that swam in the sea. If the species was not known the Bible should just state "a big ccreature that swims in the sea." Otherwise, siome Bibles have an error.

 

[tdidymas]

It's great to be able to read different translations side by side online.


Examples?

One example is that in the NIV, the term "sinful nature" is used far too loosely. It makes the idea of the sin principle vague and confusing. The original word is "flesh" which brings it to the practicality of the physical nature and makes it much clearer, which is Paul's usage in Rom. 8 and Gal. 5. The term "sinful nature" is one of those theological terms that has to be explained by the actual words of scripture, which makes the NIV more difficult on this issue than even the KJV.

Also, in 2 Pet. 2:18, apparently someone realized this problem and corrected it in later editions, since it now has the phrase "lustful desires of the flesh." Earlier editions of the NIV (which I have and use) render that phrase "sinful human nature." The problem with this phrase is that human nature is not sinful, otherwise Jesus would have been sinful (or Adam before his fall, for that matter). If someone says that it's not saying human nature itself is sinful, but rather that the nature of human sinners is sinful, the phrase is still vague and confusing, since all humans save Christ are sinners.
TD

 

[Radagast]

If the species was not known the Bible should just state "a big ccreature that swims in the sea."

Indeed, "a big creature that swims in the sea" would be the best literal translation, but that's such a long phrase that it makes the story hard to read. That's why almost every translation just has "great fish" or "large fish."

 

[Radagast]

One example is that in the NIV, the term "sinful nature" is used far too loosely. It makes the idea of the sin principle vague and confusing. The original word is "flesh" which brings it to the practicality of the physical nature and makes it much clearer

In English, "flesh" can be misinterpreted. It should not be interpreted in a gnostic way. Certainly "sinful nature" is much easier for a first reader of the Bible to grasp.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Indeed, "a big creature that swims in the sea" would be the best literal translation, but that's such a long phrase that it makes the story hard to read. That's why almost every translation just has "great fish" or "large fish."

However, in the NIV God created animals that swim in the water and move on the ground.

 

[Radagast]

However, in the NIV God created animals that swim in the water and move on the ground.

And the problem with that would be...?

 

[GodLovesCats]

And the problem with that would be...?

No problem, just a comment.

 

[Andrewn]

One example is that in the NIV, the term "sinful nature" is used far too loosely. It makes the idea of the sin principle vague and confusing. The original word is "flesh" which brings it to the practicality of the physical nature and makes it much clearer, which is Paul's usage in Rom. 8 and Gal. 5. The term "sinful nature" is one of those theological terms that has to be explained by the actual words of scripture, which makes the NIV more difficult on this issue than even the KJV. Also, in 2 Pet. 2:18, apparently someone realized this problem and corrected it in later editions, since it now has the phrase "lustful desires of the flesh." Earlier editions of the NIV (which I have and use) render that phrase "sinful human nature." The problem with this phrase is that human nature is not sinful, otherwise Jesus would have been sinful (or Adam before his fall, for that matter).

Perfect, you've explained this very well, and it is a major reason that I strongly dislike NIV.

 

[hedrick]

One example is that in the NIV, the term "sinful nature" is used far too loosely. It makes the idea of the sin principle vague and confusing. The original word is "flesh" which brings it to the practicality of the physical nature and makes it much clearer, which is Paul's usage in Rom. 8 and Gal. 5. The term "sinful nature" is one of those theological terms that has to be explained by the actual words of scripture, which makes the NIV more difficult on this issue than even the KJV.

Also, in 2 Pet. 2:18, apparently someone realized this problem and corrected it in later editions, since it now has the phrase "lustful desires of the flesh." Earlier editions of the NIV (which I have and use) render that phrase "sinful human nature." The problem with this phrase is that human nature is not sinful, otherwise Jesus would have been sinful (or Adam before his fall, for that matter). If someone says that it's not saying human nature itself is sinful, but rather that the nature of human sinners is sinful, the phrase is still vague and confusing, since all humans save Christ are sinners.
TD

Right. The problem they're presumably trying to deal with is that "flesh" isn't sinful. The term is used by some NT authors refer to the corrupt part of our nature. "sinful nature" was probably intended to imply "the sinful part of our nature," but it's got the same problem as "flesh."

I checked this passage in the two free translations I normally use:

Good News: immoral bodily lusts
CEB: sinful cravings

CEB seems pretty good. Good News still gets the body involved. I think "flesh" in this sense likely includes things like pride, which aren't bodily.

In Gal 5:16 CEB uses "sinful desires." Good News "desires of the human nature," which has the same issue as "sinful nature." NIV is now "desires of the flesh," which at least is a literal translation. CEB wins again, assuming a non-literal translation. (NRSV and ESV use flesh also, but given their translation approach that makes sense.)

 

[GodLovesCats]

I would never understand flesh = sin. Jesus is flesh and never sins. It is much better to exclude that word altogether. The CEB is my favorite too because it does not imply simply being human makes us sinners or that human flesh itself is the sin.