Finding a new bible

[ebia]

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.

Realistically one can't translate word-for-word, nor do I object in principle to dynamic and paraphrase translations. But I do expect the translator to be aiming to capture the meaning of the canonical texts, not something they or I might prefer.

I want to get my head around Paul's theology, not the translator's.

 

[stan1953]

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.”

I see where you are coming from but the addition of the word 'spiritually' in verse 6 is NOT in the Greek manuscript. It is also highly redundant. What else would the Word of God, and Paul be talking about but spiritual maturity?
Additionally the GNT seems to indicate God has only prepared ONE thing for those that love him, whereas the more modern versions indicate there is much more than ONE thing that God has prepared for us that love Him.
I'll stick with my preferences thanks.

 

[Unix]

Well JB is more modern, it has all that God has prepared for those who love him. in v. 9c. I didn't notice that part until now.

I think the 1992 English GNT 5th ed. NT with the word mankind from 1976 GNT 4th ed. NT is fine though. I doubt God has prepared extremely many different things like the more modern versions indicate.

Additionally the GNT seems to indicate God has only prepared ONE thing for those that love him, whereas the more modern versions indicate there is much more than ONE thing that God has prepared for us that love Him.
I'll stick with my preferences thanks.

 

[stan1953]

Well JB is more modern, it has all that God has prepared for those who love him. in v. 9c. I didn't notice that part until now.

I think the 1992 English GNT 5th ed. NT with the word mankind from 1976 GNT 4th ed. NT is fine though. I doubt God has prepared extremely many different things like the more modern versions indicate.

Well of course you always have a right to your opinion, but the preponderance of versions would indicate otherwise and I'm more inclined to believe or accept the vast majority.

 

[Unix]

Look at this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7530665-post56657801/#post56657801
... It explains that LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls have a Messianic prophesy: They pierced my hands and my feet
The UPDV 2.16 ©Greg Abrams, 2012, gives that translation in a footnote:
"... However, LXX, DSS, and other manuscripts may read: 'They pierced my hands and my feet'."

I haven't looked up that verse in any more protestant versions besides the 1984 and 2011 NIV's and TNIV and the NET and CEB and NASU and KVJ1900 and LEB and the ones cited in that post, because I don't have that many Old Testaments (I've never had the REB 39 books of the OT), but the next time I go to Turku/Åbo library in Finland, which will be soon, I'll look it up and reply here, because I'm interested in how the REB puts it

The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has: They have pierced my hands and my feet. The 1965 mass-market paperback Confraternity Version has: they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I'll look it up in CTS New Catholic Bible later today.

The 2011 NIV has they pierce my hands and my feet, but inserts a doubting footnote!
TNIV 1st ed. has: they pierce my hands and my feet. And no footnote. I'll look up it up in the 1978 NIV later today.
The NET has like a lion they pin my hands and feet, which follows the Masoretic Text.
CEB follows the Masoretic Text and is not Mesianic: like a lion—
oh, my poor hands and feet!
1995 NASU has: They pierced my hands and my feet.
KJV1900 has: They pierced my hands and my feet.
Lexham English Bible has: Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet.

So what would you recommend to someone, Unix? Besides the CTS New Catholic Bible that you have already recommended,

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

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

 

[Unix]

It has: they have pierced my hands and my feet, but inserts a doubting footnote!

I'll look up it up in the 1978 NIV later today.

It has: they tear holes in my hands and my feet.

I'll look it up in CTS New Catholic Bible later today.

Also, like I said, the CTS New Catholic Bible is in between Catholic and Protestant, an example of that is 1 Cor 11:29: because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body* is eating and drinking his own condemnation

* Failure to recognise the body of the Lord in the bread and in the community are inextricably linked, cf. 10.17d. 'Body' has both senses

The text DOESN'T support that the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood, so it's Protestant.

From: www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/49018/35366..
... about the 1966 JB:

• "The translation represents a sober, modern and critical study as well as a distinctively Christian position,"
• "JB is acceptable to a vast audience."

Previously edited by Unix; 30th April 2012 at 01:48 PM local time. Reason: from 1978 NIV

 

[Keachian]

Unix, I thought the Catechism was what was most useful for making sure doctrine is understood, speaking of which I should get some Catechisms

 

[Unix]

Sure, but I certainly don't subscribe to all beliefs in it, not even ½.

Unix, I thought the Catechism was what was most useful for making sure doctrine is understood,

The Catholic Catechism is soon available in Logos.com software. It's included in the Catholic Foundations -package, a coupon-code: MARSHALL gives 15% off but it's been 1½ weeks since I used it so I'm not entirely sure is it still valid (and I don't bother to look up that).

speaking of which I should get some Catechisms

I edited my recent post http://www.christianforums.com/t7645280-7/#post60419540 with added information about the JB.

Here's more: From: Xristian.org's A Guide to the Many English Bible Translations
I quote leaving out the incorrect information: "The Jerusalem Bible (JB): A 1966 production of Catholic scholars, the JB was the first Roman Catholic Bible that utilized the Greek and Hebrew texts, rather than the Latin Vulgate (Incorrect, much of the Confraternity Version OT uses the Hebrew, and the 1941 NT gives variants translated from the Gk in footnotes + sometimes follows the Gk in the text). The JB translation, although highly annotated, does not forward unique Catholic doctrine and was received well by churches across the Christian faith. [...]

Disadvantages: The JB is out of print and not easily obtainable today, (incorrect, the Readers Edition is still in print, + the revision CTS New Catholic Bible is in print both as a smaller print and a mid-size print) [...]. In some of the annotations, the translators interact and sympathize with modern textual criticism, which - although not part of the translation itself - results in what could be called a liberal work.

Advantages: This translation is somewhat ecumenical and agreeable by both Protestants and Catholics. Not only is the JB a reliable translation, but it is also of high literary style and value."

 

[childofdust]

I'm a Hebrew nut. I love Hebrew. I study Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is the sphere in which I dwell. So I'll make a few comments based on that sphere...

I don't need an English translation. In fact, I prefer to make my own (I am doing my own translation of the entire Old Testament). I mainly look at other English translations after I have already done my own in order to see what they think the Hebrew says and why they think that.

Although I have not done a great deal of comparative study with other translations of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, so far, what I have found is that the New JPS Tanakh, the Stone Edition Tanach, and Robert Alter's translations are closer to the Hebrew and more accurate in their treatment of the Hebrew than any other.

In the Christian stream of translations (which are pretty nasty across the board when it comes to the Hebrew OT--it's as if the Greek NT was the most important thing for almost all English bibles ever created), something I had never heard of before, Green's Literal Translation, has outshone its peers in about three different comparisons I've undertaken with other major Christian translations. Which is not to say it's a good translation. In fact, after reading a Wiki article on it and learning something about it's author, I felt a bit sick. But if it outshines the others in three places, it might in more.

A translation I'm hoping to spend more time with in the future is ISV.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm a Hebrew nut. I love Hebrew. I study Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is the sphere in which I dwell. So I'll make a few comments based on that sphere...

I don't need an English translation. In fact, I prefer to make my own (I am doing my own translation of the entire Old Testament). I mainly look at other English translations after I have already done my own in order to see what they think the Hebrew says and why they think that.

Although I have not done a great deal of comparative study with other translations of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, so far, what I have found is that the New JPS Tanakh, the Stone Edition Tanach, and Robert Alter's translations are closer to the Hebrew and more accurate in their treatment of the Hebrew than any other.

In the Christian stream of translations (which are pretty nasty across the board when it comes to the Hebrew OT--it's as if the Greek NT was the most important thing for almost all English bibles ever created), something I had never heard of before, Green's Literal Translation, has outshone its peers in about three different comparisons I've undertaken with other major Christian translations. Which is not to say it's a good translation. In fact, after reading a Wiki article on it and learning something about it's author, I felt a bit sick. But if it outshines the others in three places, it might in more.

A translation I'm hoping to spend more time with in the future is ISV.

childofdust have you look at the Mechanical Translation (http://www.mechanical-translation.org/) by Jeff A Benner (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/jeffbenner/)? It only covers a few books but it tries to capture the ancient Hebrew text as it was understood by an ancient Hebrew using consistent "mechanical" translation methods so every use of a word is translated the same way each time. It uses very concrete ideas as the reasoning goes that Hebrew loves the concrete. An example is Gen 1:1 is "In the summit Elohiym fattened the sky and the land". Just wondering your thoughts on a translation like this (assuming you know Hebrew) and if it is responsible to the text or not.

 

[2 know him]

download e-sword for free.

While your at it download the Strong's so you can reference the Hebrew and Greek words and the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts so you can use the Strong's to reference each verse for yourself.

Did you know there are over 500 English translations of the bible and you are getting someones interpretation of the scriptures. While there are many manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, they vary very little one from another: as the scribes only tried to preserve the texts not interprate them.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I agree, the ESV Study Bible is the best study Bible I've seen in decades.

The reason why the ESV is so good is that the RSV is really so good. In fact the RSV is sometimes better than the ESV in its use of a more eclectic text, but the ESV is still in print and the RSV is hard to come by.