Finding a new bible

[ebia]

And still not a good choice either . KJV is untouchable !

So you say. But given such a fundamental error in your research...


I don't speak early modern English, so I'll take a good translation in my language. I like the CEB.


If I wanted an early modern English one I'll take Tyndale's over the KJV.

 

[ebia]

they are not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew text as the KJV .
.

That's correct - thanks to more recent scholarship we are able to reconstruct texts closer to the original manuscripts than was possible when the KJV was done. If Tyndale or the KJ team were around now they would be using the best texts UBS could provide.

 

[wayseer]

And as there are still thousands of text still to analysed there may be changed in the future.

 

[stan1953]

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?

IMHO the NIV 2011 is the best English translation. The NASB is close and I have also been using the Holeman Christian Standard Bible.(HCSB)

I'm not sure a study Bible is the best thing to get. They are not very deep or definitive. Biblios.com has quite a few commentaries, and there are many more online. I have all three of these Bibles on my Windows Phone and I'm online all the time for studying. Last commentary I bought, was Wiliiam D. Mounce's on the Pastoral Epistles. It is #46 of the Word Biblical Commentary series. Now that whole series would be a great commentary if you want one on the whole Bible? There are more than 60 volumes in the set.

 

[Unix]

I undetook further comparison, resulting in:

Few versions are good for 1 Cor. The Comprehensive New Testament is worst for it, 2011 NIV, TNIV, CEB, Updated Bible Version 2.16 ©Greg Abrams, 2012, 1941 Confraternity Version, 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, are nearly as bad. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1975 Bible In Order are, although word-for-word, as bad, or worse, as those.
1985 NJB is slightly better.
1971 Good News Bible 3rd ed. and 1992 Good News Translation (5th ed. for the NT) are tremendously better, the drawback being some redundance of words due to much simpler sentence-structure.

It's in the middle of the night right now, so I can't make too much noise here, I have my Bibles here somewhere but can't find them right now, so was unable to check more important Bible versions on 1 Cor.

 

[ebia]

I undetook further comparison, resulting in:

Few versions are good for 1 Cor. The Comprehensive New Testament is worst for it, 2011 NIV, TNIV, CEB, Updated Bible Version 2.16 ©Greg Abrams, 2012, 1941 Confraternity Version, 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, are nearly as bad. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1975 Bible In Order are, although word-for-word, as bad, or worse, as those.
1985 NJB is slightly better.
1971 Good News Bible 3rd ed. and 1992 Good News Translation (5th ed. for the NT) are tremendously better, the drawback being some redundance of words due to much simpler sentence-structure.

It's in the middle of the night right now, so I can't make too much noise here, I have my Bibles here somewhere but can't find them right now, so was unable to check more important Bible versions on 1 Cor.

I don't think any of this is very helpful without making clear what your criteria for a "good" translation, since we don't all share the same presuppositions and priorities.

Personally I can't stand the Good News for anything.

 

[stan1953]

I undetook further comparison, resulting in:

Few versions are good for 1 Cor. The Comprehensive New Testament is worst for it, 2011 NIV, TNIV, CEB, Updated Bible Version 2.16 ©Greg Abrams, 2012, 1941 Confraternity Version, 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, are nearly as bad. The 1966 Jerusalem Bible and the 1975 Bible In Order are, although word-for-word, as bad, or worse, as those.
1985 NJB is slightly better.
1971 Good News Bible 3rd ed. and 1992 Good News Translation (5th ed. for the NT) are tremendously better, the drawback being some redundance of words due to much simpler sentence-structure.

It's in the middle of the night right now, so I can't make too much noise here, I have my Bibles here somewhere but can't find them right now, so was unable to check more important Bible versions on 1 Cor.

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what you find problematic with 1 Cor in the NIV, NASB, HSCB or even the NKJV, compared to the Good News versions.

 

[ebia]

You are just using superlatives, and not giving an argument as to WHY it's good.

Also, if You think the ESV is a clearly protestant Bible, You might be very surprised that it has recently been amended by the Catholic Church in Australia for both use in Mass and in private -

Source?

I've not come across it in Catholic circles at all. It's not approved for the mass. The usual academic bible is the NRSV, which would be the choice for the mass also if the Vatican would approve it.

The ESV very much reflects the viewpoint of conservative evanglicals like JI Packer. There ain't a snowballs chance of it being approved for use in the Mass and it is much further from Catholic thinking than the NRSV for academic study purposes.

 

[Keachian]

Source?

I've not come across it in Catholic circles at all. It's not approved for the mass. The usual academic bible is the NRSV, which would be the choice for the mass also if the Vatican would approve it.

The ESV very much reflects the viewpoint of conservative evanglicals like JI Packer. There ain't a snowballs chance of it being approved for use in the Mass and it is much further from Catholic thinking than the NRSV for academic study purposes.

I found this:
The Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn - News & Events

 

[ebia]

I found this:
The Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn - News & Events

Wierd

 

[Unix]

2 Cor 13:1-8, 10f, is best in 1970 NEB 2nd ed. NT, see passage here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7643147-post60345407/

 

[Unix]

I hesitated to write why, because the bad versions are so bad that they are harmful. GNB is less Gnostic in 1 Cor 2:6-9.

• A Gnostic translation has mature in v. 6. A non-Gnostic translation has: spriritually mature.
• A Gnostic translation has the following in v. 6 (2011 NIV, HCSB): of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing
• A Gnostic translation has mystery in v. 7 (2011 NIV, NKJV, HCSB).
• A Gnostic translation has has been hidden in v. 7 (CEB).
• A Gnostic translation has this age in v.8 (all NIV editions, NKJV, ESV, HCSB).
• A Gnostic translation has (Comprehensive New Testament, NKJV): as it is written,
  "NO EYE HAS SEEN, NOR EAR HAS HEARD,
  NOR THE HEART OF MAN in v. 9 (NASU, ESV have heart of man).

I don't think any of this is very helpful without making clear what your criteria for a "good" translation, since we don't all share the same presuppositions and priorities.

Personally I can't stand the Good News for anything.

I didn't check all verses in NASU:

what you find problematic with 1 Cor in the NIV, NASB, HSCB or even the NKJV

1 Cor 2:6-9 (1994 Good News Translation 5th ed. Anglicized NT with the word mankind in v. 7 from 1976 GNT 4th ed. NT Anglicized, non-Gnostic): Yet I do proclaim a message of wisdom to those who are spiritually mature. But it is not the wisdom that belongs to this world or to the powers that rule this world—powers that are losing their power. The wisdom I proclaim is God's secret wisdom, which is hidden from mankind, but which he had already chosen for our glory even before the world was made. None of the rulers of this world knew this wisdom. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as the scripture says, “What no one ever saw or heard, what no one ever thought could happen, is the very thing God prepared for those who love him.”

Previously edited by Unix; 22nd April 2012 at 1:54 PM local time. Reason: add the passage from GNT

 

[ebia]

I hesitated to write why, because the bad versions are so bad that they are harmful. GNB is less Gnostic in 1 Cor 2:6-9.
[*]A Gnostic translation has mature in v. 6. A non-Gnostic translation has: spriritually mature.
[*]A Gnostic translation has the following in v. 6 (2011 NIV, HCSB): of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing
[*]A Gnostic translation has mystery in v. 7 (2011 NIV, NKJV, HCSB).
[*]A Gnostic translation has has been hidden in v. 7 (CEB).
[*]A Gnostic translation has this age in v.8 (all NIV editions, NKJV, ESV, HCSB).
[*]A Gnostic translation has (Comprehensive New Testament, NKJV): as it is written,
"NO EYE HAS SEEN, NOR EAR HAS HEARD,
NOR THE HEART OF MAN in v. 9 (NASU, ESV have heart of man).I didn't check all verses in NASU.1 Cor 2:6-9 (1992 Good News Translation 5th ed. Anglicized NT with the word mankind in v. 7 from 1976 GNT 4th ed. NT, non-Gnostic): Yet I do proclaim a message of wisdom to those who are spiritually mature. But it is not the wisdom that belongs to this world or to the powers that rule this world—powers that are losing their power. The wisdom I proclaim is God's secret wisdom, which is hidden from mankind, but which he had already chosen for our glory even before the world was made. None of the rulers of this world knew this wisdom. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as the scripture says, “What no one ever saw or heard, what no one ever thought could happen, is the very thing God prepared for those who love him.”

So, starting with the first one, is there "spiritual" in the original Greek?

 

[Unix]

No, and no the GNT is not word-for-word so none of these instances are according to the Gk, I know all too well what the Gk says in this passage, I just think it's advisable to hide the Gnostic content of this passage by Paul like GNT and Swedish 1999 Bibel2000 does.

So, starting with the first one, is there "spiritual" in the original Greek?

 

[ebia]

No, and no the GNT is not word-for-word so none of these instances are according to the Gk, I know all too well what the Gk says in this passage, I just think it's advisable to hide the Gnostic content of this passage by Paul like GNT and Swedish 1999 Bibel2000 does.

So your idea of a good "translation" is to say what you think Paul should have said, not what he did say?

 

[Unix]

Of course, in an extreme passage such as this one.

So your idea of a good "translation" is to say what you think Paul should have said, not what he did say?

Using a word-for-word version for everything in the Bible as Your primary version makes many things much harder than they have to be.

 

[ebia]

Of course, in an extreme passage such as this one.

Then we have a very different idea of the job of a translator.

 

[Unix]

I doubt we differ much on that if You consider that probably we both want the translators to be Christian, don't we?

Then we have a very different idea of the job of a translator.

An example: Even when writing a book in Christian history history, the theology of the author of the books, seems to matter: http://www.christianforums.com/t7650599-post60347055/#post60347055

 

[ebia]

I doubt we differ much on that if You consider that probably we both want the translators to be Christian, don't we?

I want the translator to translate the text so far as possible as it was written, not what he or I might like it to have said.

 

[Unix]

Are You really sure You are not lead astray then?

I haven't read ANY English version that translates 1 Cor 2:8b word-for-word, except Orthodox Jewish Bible and New World Translation.

I want the translator to translate the text so far as possible as it was written, not what he or I might like it to have said.

So your idea of a good "translation" is to say what you think Paul should have said, not what he did say?