Finding a new bible

[Michaelrh1325]

So what would you recommend to someone, Unix? Besides the CTS New Catholic Bible that you have already recommended, and the KJV (and other Bibles that use that kind of language) because, frankly, I'm not reading that; I take nothing away from it other than confusion. The Jerusalem? The NAB? Not everyone is Catholic. I assume the CTS NCB uses the Catholic OT canon? If not, correct me and I apologize. Not all of us believe in that. For those of use that are not Catholic, do no want a Catholic Bible, or a Catholic canon, or the KJV or other hard to read Bibles, what is there? NIV, NLT, ESV, RSV, NRSV, CEB, NASB, HCSB. You basically seem to have an issue with everything that isn't, one way or the other, associated with Catholics.

I'm really exploring the Episcopal Church at the moment. I believe that the Apocrypha is at least somewhat useful and historical, and should be read, even included in the Bible, just not WITH the OT Canon; in its separate section. The NRSV with Apocrypha seems to be the most widely used, and I like that. I just can't get behind Catholic canons, though. But you act as if the NRSV is this terrible bible that should be avoided... and then point to Catholic-esque bibles... and I think to myself, I wonder why...

 

[Unix]

None of those.

So what would you recommend to someone, Unix? Besides the CTS New Catholic Bible [...] NIV, NLT, ESV, RSV, NRSV, CEB, NASB, HCSB.

No, I don't have. The 1989 Revised English Bible is good for the Pauline Epistles. I use Protestant versions also.

OK in the rest of this post I'll exclude versions that have the Catholic canon OT.

I don't have so many options to suggest. If You want to know which ones I use then here follows:
If You really desire a formal equivalent Bible, then: http://www.christianforums.com/t7641923/ whole Bible
... or for the NT: 2009 Comprehensive New Testament
For a dynamic equivalent NT, perhaps the 1971 Good News Bible 3rd edition. (For example the Blue Denim Bible -edition.) Watch out with some translation biases in it though!

For a dynamic equivalent OT I have no suggestion.

Note that You demanded me to give options. Not all of these options may be what You desire, or that I really recommend, perhaps none, although I DO recommend the REB for the Pauline Epistles.

You basically seem to have an issue with everything that isn't, one way or the other, associated with Catholics.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

So basically, if it's not Catholic, you can't recommend much of anything.

I dislike the NIV. The NLT I think is really only good for people like my wife; She isn't much of a reader and it's super easy to understand. The NASB and HCSB are too Protestant, but they are good for them. Really good. I like the ESV, and though YOU think it's hard to read, doesn't mean we all do. I find it easy to read, and whether or not you believe it, I can understand it. The RSV and NRSV, from what I've gathered, are classic, beloved Bibles, widely used, especially by the Church I'm exploring. There's nothing wrong with them; not every version is perfect. The CEB is basically, again from what I've gathered, an Anglican NLT in the sense that it's easy to read and may be perfect for some people.

You have a biased view here. You definitely know more than I do, no question, and I respect that. But you're sooo biased towards Catholic or Catholic-esque Bibles.

 

[Unix]

But get it: that's not WHY I recommend the CTS New Catholic Bible + REB for the Pauline epistles. Like hedrick explained, there's not that much difference anymore between the Catholic and the Protestant versions, and the CTS New Catholic Bible is only Catholic-esque, in between Catholic and Protestant, like I said earlier on.

I solely recommend them based on exegesis, textual basis, and that there's no big errors in them.

(The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was the very FIRST Bible that used the Dead Sea Scrolls (for Isaiah). The CTS New Catholic Bible is a revision of it.)

You have a biased view here. You definitely know more than I do, no question, and I respect that. But you're sooo biased towards Catholic or Catholic-esque Bibles.

 

[ebia]

The CEB is basically, again from what I've gathered, an Anglican NLT in the sense that it's easy to read and may be perfect for some people.

Um, no. The NLT is almost a paraphrase. The CEB tries to be as precise as the NRSV but without the excessively academic-exhalted language that owes more to the KJV than the original languages which are pretty earthy.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

I said in the sense of readability

 

[ebia]

I said in the sense of readability

Well, not really. The NLT achieved readability by paraphrasing. Not that I mind the NLT.

The CEB by matching ordinary contempory useage (vocabulary, contractions, and so forth). And so it's arguable that it's closer to the biblical texts (that are mostly in very earthy common language) than the NRSV and the rest of the KJV descended versions.

The NLT is a compromise; the CEB is the best of both, IMO.


The "reading age" is compatible as a raw number, but that's about it.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

Literally all I meant is, "both are easy to read." Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[DamianWarS]

How about the Jewish Study Bible? It is only the OT but it brings a totally new perspective to the scriptures - one with which Jesus would have been familiar.

It's wonderful to read the scriptures translated by the people group it was actually written for and written by

 

[WayonDown]

You don't have to not buy a Catholic Bible simply because it's "Catholic" - most Bible translations these days are done with a collaboration of a large amount of Christian exegetes as well as scholars of all kinds of faiths and denominations. I think it's a great ecumenical undertaking.

The same goes for the Bibles thought of as mainly Protestant. Just read a few at a shop and read some less biased reviews perhaps on Amazon, or look up samples online and see what you like best. I personally can't read long commentaries along with the Bible, I prefer annotations or relevant notes on something that may not be clear, but I don't want someone holding my hand the entire way through. Other people prefer commentaries and may read several to get a better idea along with with different versions of the Bibles, it's all up to how you feel you should go about it.

However as one poster here said, there are some Bibles now that have very little differences amongst Catholic and Protestant Bibles because of the great efforts that haven gone to simplify and narrow it down to something both sides can agree upon.

 

[Unix]

One of the differences between a "Catholic" Bible version and a protestant one, is the use of the term just instead of righteous, and that is the only difference You notice frequently.

Well, there is a "Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the doctrine of justification" See: Theology and Doctrine Collection (16 vols.) - Logos Bible Software and scroll down to Eberhard Jüngel.

I would also like opinions on whether I should buy that package? Please post Your opinion in: http://www.christianforums.com/t7644634/
.. or vote in: http://www.christianforums.com/t7647231/

Your icon says you're Lutheran.

 

[hedrick]

One of the differences between a "Catholic" Bible version and a protestant one, is the use of the term just instead of righteous, and that is the only difference You notice frequently.

Well, there is a "Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the doctrine of justification" See: Theology and Doctrine Collection (16 vols.) - Logos Bible Software and scroll down to Eberhard Jüngel.

I would also like opinions on whether I should buy that package? Please post Your opinion in: http://www.christianforums.com/t7644634/
.. or vote in: http://www.christianforums.com/t7647231/

There is in fact such a document. However the document was not entirely accepted by the Catholic Church. They accepted most of the theology but rejected the statement that there is now close enough agreement to reject condemnations based on those differences. Conservative Lutherans also do not accept it.

 

[Unix]

I can recommend the Story (TNIV) for the Epistle of Jude. See: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643147-post60231246/#post60231246

So basically, if it's not Catholic, you can't recommend much of anything.

You're wrongly informed: because formal equivalent versions are not precise. Therefore the CEB isn't/hasn't tried to be precise if they're comparing to the NRSV.

The CEB tries to be as precise as the NRSV

 

[hedrick]

'Used by' is an exaggeration. In fact authors prefer their own translation.So, You are admitting that the ESV rejects current exegetical scholarship but You say it's probably the best choice for someone who wants to do detailed exegesis? I don't get! Therefore I recommend the CTS New Catholic Bible, it doesn't reject current textual scholarship nor current exegetical scholarship.

I wouldn't say there's a difference in formal equivalency between those two, unless You refer to the gender-neutralness of the NRSV which does take away from it's formal equivalency.

I think the ESV is hard to read.

I think in the context my comment was clear: I recommend the ESV for conservatives, because they also reject current exegetical scholarship. I wish it weren't the case. But i try to make good-faith recommendations, and for someone who is conservative that includes recommending translations that use a methodology they would find acceptable.

The ESV is probably somewhat harder to read than the RSV or NRSV. If you read the statements of the ESV team, they think it is important for people to be able to see in English as much as possible of the original sentence structure. Thus they have done things like restore all the "and"s used as connectives, reflecting a Greek practice that is not normally used in English. Decisions like that, taken together, do make it somewhat less readable than the NRSV. They both try to be formal equivalent, but the ESV team takes formal equivalency a bit further than the NRSV team. It's possible that the original RSV is about the same as the ESV in this respect (though I haven't compared carefully), but the NRSV and I believe even the 2nd edition of the RSV NT place a somewhat higher priority on readability than the ESV does.

 

[unfinishedclay]

I've been thinking about getting a new bible, but I'm not sure which is a good choice. I know I dont want the Scofield verson and I do like commentaries so that would be a plus. anyone have any suggestions?

I would suggest KJV over every version. And if you were to get any other version, I would suggest keeping a parallel of that version alongside KJV either in the same Bible or just side by side. So many Bibles versions are inconsistent with the other. KJV usually serves as a central reference for me when reading the others. My favorite version other than KJV is God's Word Translation.

Do you ever refer to the available versions on biblegateway.com? And Holybible.com offers commentary by Matthew Henry, I think.

(I haven't read this entire thread. So, if I'm creating any redundancy, so sorry.)

 

[hedrick]

To Unix:

I agree that JB and REB are both good translations if you want something more dynamic equivalence than NRSV. My only caution is that JB tended to be somewhat idiosyncratic in the OT. So did NEB, but REB backed away from that. In addition to rearranging order, the JB also tended to use the LXX over the Masoretic or to use conjectural translations a bit more often than would be the consensus. I haven't looked at the NJB as carefully, but the translation you are recommending seems to be based on the original JB. I can see why a committee would turn "Yahweh" back into "the Lord" for public reading. But for private reading I rather like the JB's attempt to reproduce the different names used for God accurately. It was a distinctive feature of that translation that I hate to see lost.

I used the REB fairly often until recently. I've just switched to the CEB, which I believe is at least as readable but slightly more accurate. (By accurate I don't mean that the REB made mistakes. This a term the CEB translators are using to describe their interesting combination of formal equivalence and readability.) Unfortunately the REB seems to have been orphaned. Most editions are no longer in print. Logos doesn't even have an electronic version.

 

[Unix]

There's more comparison of Bibles such as NRSV and the NJB in:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7636124-post60229084/
... if that helps any in comparing.
... for more lists which Bibles are mainstream (I avoid those), see the end of this post.

None of those are deficits. Mainstream Bibles, don't do much of that because they are not translating in a brave way, and those I avoid.

To Unix:

I agree that JB and REB are both good translations if you want something more dynamic equivalence than NRSV. My only caution is that JB tended to be somewhat idiosyncratic in the OT.
the JB also tended to use the LXX over the Masoretic or to use conjectural translations a bit more often than would be the consensus.

True that REB is a remarkable improvement over it's predecessor NEB.

So did NEB, but REB backed away from that. In addition to rearranging order,

That's definately so.

I haven't looked at the NJB as carefully, but the translation you are recommending seems to be based on the original JB.

Well then You have the Updated Bible Version 2.16, ©Greg Abrams 2012. It's an update of the American Standard Version. It's very accurate when it comes to the names of God.

I can see why a committee would turn "Yahweh" back into "the Lord" for public reading. But for private reading I rather like the JB's attempt to reproduce the different names used for God accurately. It was a distinctive feature of that translation that I hate to see lost.

It's easily attainable. You just have to put the search right in for example Amazon, there will come up a lot of other versions in the search results.

Unfortunately the REB seems to have been orphaned. Most editions are no longer in print. Logos doesn't even have an electronic version.

Must Only Read One Bible Blog
... quote: "I'M ALSO TALKING BOUT "MAINSTREAM" bibles. niv nasb nrsv cev living. grab one of these and check isa 14:12"

Debate: Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise | Debate.org
... quote: "and if it pleases my opponent, we may use the same version of a "mainstream" Bible - I would suggest the New American Bible, for it is the one I shall present my opening arguments from."

Bible Endorsement etc - Bible Discussion Forum
... quote: "The NASB is an update of the American Standard Version which has a stellar reputation. ... It's definitely the most literal modern mainstream Bible out there."

Yahoo! Groups
... quote: "There are many mainstream Bible translations out there that are good
to use. I would suggest one that is considered reliable and yet easy
to understand like the New International Version or the New King James
Version."
... I don't agree that they would be good to use, they are among the worst.

"... the Bible hasn't changed. Unfortunately, people's interpretation thereof has changed, quite a bit. :-( ..." Where are all these corrupted versions of the bible that s only valid if interpreted correctly? Can you cite one verse that i
... quote: "much like there's an NIV, NCV, etc. for the mainstream Bible"

The Sola Panel | Complementarianism and egalitarianism (part 7): The future of egalitarianism (ii)
... quote: "Some egals, that found the NRSV too liberal, like the ESV, because they don’t read the gender verses often enough to realize the difference. It actually takes a bit of study to put together what the ESV has done, and most people don’t see it right away." and "In my view, complementarians stand for complemenarian Bibles. Anyone who has been reading the discussion on Biblegateway would probably see it that way. The NIV was considered a complementarian Bible and the NIV 2011 is not considered a complementarian Bible. This leaves complementarians without a Bible in the NIV tradition which will continue to be published. However, I strongly feel that the NIV 2011 is a mainstream Bible with much complementarian input, and is the Bible which most closely resembles the KJV and Luther’s Bible in its interpretation tradition."

 

[Christian12]

I would never part with the KJV , I had before many other versions and I compared them with each other and found that the meanings where not the same from one bible to the next . That is not the way Gods word is , Gods word never changes , so what is important is to find the most accurate version to Gods word , after much study prayer and research
I came to the conclusion that KJV is best , not perfect but best , most other versions are translated from the Latin vulgate , that is the catholic version , and not the textus receptus that the KJV is primarly translated from . Gods word does not change .

I would suggest a a dictionary such as Vines expository dictionary for the New testament , it gets into the greek and clarifies very well .

Maybe a concordance such as Strongs Exhaustive concordence of the bible , very good on the whole bible .

 

[ebia]

I would never part with the KJV , I had before many other versions and I compared them with each other and found that the meanings where not the same from one bible to the next . That is not the way Gods word is , Gods word never changes , so what is important is to find the most accurate version to Gods word , after much study prayer and research
I came to the conclusion that KJV is best , not perfect but best , most other versions are translated from the Latin vulgate , .

Um, no. All the reputable modern translations - including the Catholic ones - are done direct from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

 

[Christian12]

Um, no. All the reputable modern translations - including the Catholic ones - are done direct from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

And still not a good choice either , they are not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew text as the KJV .

KJV is BEST .