Is it possible to have a rational discussion about Bible versions...

[trophy33]

1) I would first study and then decide for myself:
a) what kind of inspiration (every word, just thoughts, just dogmas...) and preservation I hold
b) LXX vs Masoretic text (Old Testament), scholar/critical text or traditional/church text (New Testament)

2) Second, I would study and then decide for myself if I want:
a) literal translation
b) dynamic equivalent translation

And I would then choose specific translations for personal reading accordingly. I would still from time to time check other versions online (like on biblehub.com).

I would then pursue the ability to read in Greek.

 

[FireDragon76]

My grandmother's old Bible is a Douay-Rheims from about 1911 (there's no publication date in it, but the Imprimatur is from 1911, I think). It's really interesting reading the old footnotes, with their pretty heavy counter-Reformation stance. I had it rebound several years ago, so it's a treasured part of my collection.

Old Bibles can be fun to collect. I have an old German Bible, which I can't read, and I've forgotten where I found it. I also have a Bible in Esperanto, which I can, to some extent.

I actually used to use one of my great grandmother's old large print bibles to chant the Psalms. It was published by one of those slick TV evangelist fundamentalist ministries (my grandmother was in Oklahoma), and it was in multiple volumes.

 

[caspianrex]

That's awesome! What a treasure! So glad you kept it!

Here are a couple pictures from my Grandma's Bible.
If you look closely at the selection from Matthew, you'll see the old Latin term "supersubstantial bread" in the Lord's Prayer. And in the selection from Psalms, you will notice the traditional Catholic numbering of the Psalms. So the one most people know as the 23rd Psalm is the 22nd Psalm in this Bible. And the opening line is "The Lord rules me," instead of the more familiar (to Protestants, at least) "The Lord is my shepherd."

 

[Anto9us]

Psalms are numbered differently in Orthodox Study Bible also -- 2 numbers are given for each Psalm in most places. Also, the ORDER of the prophetical books is different

 

[caspianrex]

I've never used that, even when I attended an Orthodox church, but I think different perspectives can be good to study.

I actually am partial to the Common English Bible for casual reading.

The Revised Standard Version is probably the best for serious study and readability.

The CEB is quite popular in the United Methodist church I serve as Director of Music Ministries. I go back on forth on the CEB myself. Sometimes I really like a particular rendering, and then other things really grate on my ear, especially when read aloud. "The Human One" (instead of "Son of Man") is one of the worst offenders, not for theological reasons, but because it sounds like something from a cheesy 50s sci-fi film. ("Human One, take us to your leader!") And there's a line in the CEBs rendition of Psalm 22 that kills me: "They divvy up my garments among themselves; they cast lots for my clothes." (Ps. 22:18, CEB) Divvy? Not cool, CEB.

 

[Silverback]

...without KJV-Only people trying to hijack the discussion?

As someone who is enthusiastic about many different English Bible versions, I have participated in discussions online about the topic for many years now. It never fails (and this forum is no exception) that eventually a KJVO person comes along, and begins posting about "corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts," and "missing verses."

Just over a decade ago, I created a group on Facebook that discusses Bible versions, and we've had to be quite strict in our policy about KJVO posts. We try to screen applicants to the group, to reject anyone who holds to a KJVO position. But occasionally people get in, and the posts begin: "Is your Bible MISSING VERSES?" That type of thing.

Sometimes I think that online forums are actually a fertile breeding ground for these kinds of conspiracy theories. People will type things on a computer that they would not say in public. Well, most people, maybe...

Anyway, if you have any rational thoughts to share about favorite Bible versions, feel free to comment, or join us at the Facebook group linked above. Peace be with you.

I have read many versions, but, I prefer the ESV.

 

[caspianrex]

Some Bible versions are definitely better than others. I prefer the KJV and the ESV. The NIV I believe is corrupt.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why can't you simply say, "I don't care for the NIV"? Why does the version you don't like always have to be "corrupt"?

 

[FireDragon76]

The CEB is quite popular in the United Methodist church I serve as Director of Music Ministries. I go back on forth on the CEB myself. Sometimes I really like a particular rendering, and then other things really grate on my ear, especially when read aloud. "The Human One" (instead of "Son of Man") is one of the worst offenders, not for theological reasons, but because it sounds like something from a cheesy 50s sci-fi film. ("Human One, take us to your leader!") And there's a line in the CEBs rendition of Psalm 22 that kills me: "They divvy up my garments among themselves; they cast lots for my clothes." (Ps. 22:18, CEB) Divvy? Not cool, CEB.

"Human One" conveys the sentiment of what the semitic expression means. It sounds bizarre but so does calling yourself the Son of Man. It literally means something like "dude", but in the context it refers to the prophecy in Daniel.

Divy is a bit archaic but it's still used in some parts of the US.

 

[trophy33]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why can't you simply say, "I don't care for the NIV"? Why does the version you don't like always have to be "corrupt"?

And now it will begin

They are actually quite insignificant until somebody begins to react to their posts.

Its like with flat earthers and similar.

 

[FireDragon76]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why can't you simply say, "I don't care for the NIV"? Why does the version you don't like always have to be "corrupt"?

Because its super scary religionese.

BTW, as somebody who is familiar with Robert Preus, who was one of the main contributors to the NIV, and who lead an ideological purge at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, I can agree that the NIV is "corrupt", but not for the reasons they'ld probably give. It simply doesn't represent the best scholarship, it represents a theological agenda.

 

[caspianrex]

Because its super scary religionese.

BTW, as somebody who is familiar with Robert Preus, who was one of the main contributors to the NIV, and who lead an ideological purge at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, I can agree that the NIV is "corrupt", but not for the reasons they'ld probably give.

Okay, now I'm intrigued...

First, what was Robert Preus's agenda at Concordia? (I've got Preus's little book about the Theology of the Book of Concord sitting right in front of me at the moment.)
Second, how does that relate to the "corruption" of the NIV?
You've piqued my curiosity...

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay, now I'm intrigued...

First, what was Robert Preus's agenda at Concordia? (I've got Preus's little book about the Theology of the Book of Concord sitting right in front of me at the moment.)
Second, how does that relate to the "corruption" of the NIV?
You've piqued my curiosity...

Preus was a theological and cultural conservative that didn't like the direction that the LCMS was taking towards mainline Protestant engagement, so he started a crusade against professors that taught the historical critical method at Concordia St. Louis. His goal all along was to drag LCMS Lutherans into the culture wars even if it scandalized the Gospel. Preus was not an individual that appreciated the free and open exchange of ideas, which is essential to the project of good scholarship.

My pastor grew up in the LCMS and knows all about that period. He is closest to the Seminary-in-Exile crowd in its approach.

 

[com7fy8]

Even word for word may have bias because there is a choice of English words that could be used and one choice could lean a meaning in a different direction than another choice of word.

I think we can get the right meaning of an individual word, by relating it to the overall meaning of God's word. There is always the love meaning; any part of scripture can be used by God, somehow, to help us find out how to be and love.

No matter how educated you are, in Greek and Hebrew and the translations, our character can effect how we interpret any word or scripture. We need how only God can have us getting things right.

I agree, it's always useful to compare different translations.

Like I say, I think we can learn the overall meaning of God's word, and from this we can correctly understand any translation. Plus >

"you are an epistle of Christ", Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. I see this can mean we ourselves are Canon Scripture, written by the Holy Spirit in us. We need to read one another, and receive the grace which produces God's deeper-than-words meaning of all He says. How we become, how we love is the correct translation

I find that the New King James is close enough to the earlier King James, plus close enough to various more recent Bibles.

 

[caspianrex]

P.S. I always love it when someone says, "Just google it." As if that is the end of the discussion. "Everyone on the internet knows the NIV is corrupt...just google it." And that's when the crazy starts.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, first of all, the NIV and The Message are completely different kinds of translations. The NIV is a dynamic equivalent version, and The Message is a very broad paraphrase. So they don't even share a translation philosophy. I am familiar with many of the accusations against the NIV, most of which are based on conspiracy theories: Alexandrian vs. Byzantine textual traditions, supposed "missing verse" in the NIV, all kinds of stuff that has little or no basis in fact. Finally, "word for word" translation is not possible. If you literally translate original texts word for word, you get an interlinear, which is not the same thing as a translation. All translations involve some adaptation of the original language into a form that is understandable in the target language.

My whole point in the original post was that it seems to be impossible to have a rational discussion of Bible versions, without someone bringing typical KJVO propaganda into the conversation. Which is exactly what has happened. And things had been going so smoothly for a short time...

That's why I like the RSV, it's based on a wide variety of scholarship and doesn't try to paraphrase anything.

Formal equivalence translations are usually problematic because the interpreter can easily slip in their own theological biases. The saving grace of the CEB is that it has a wide variety of denominations represented, but I still wouldn't use it for serious study.

 

[bekkilyn]

The CEB is quite popular in the United Methodist church I serve as Director of Music Ministries. I go back on forth on the CEB myself. Sometimes I really like a particular rendering, and then other things really grate on my ear, especially when read aloud. "The Human One" (instead of "Son of Man") is one of the worst offenders, not for theological reasons, but because it sounds like something from a cheesy 50s sci-fi film. ("Human One, take us to your leader!") And there's a line in the CEBs rendition of Psalm 22 that kills me: "They divvy up my garments among themselves; they cast lots for my clothes." (Ps. 22:18, CEB) Divvy? Not cool, CEB.

I use the CEB sometimes for scripture readings in sermons, but the "Human One" reference bothers the heck out of me since I also start visualizing various "Star Trek" type scenarios. "Son of Man" may not be much better, but at least it seems to balance out "Son of God" in representing Christ as both fully God and fully human. The CEB seems to be a really good translation and can make scripture clearer for people hearing the readings, but I will change to another version if I am using one of those "Human One" verses, or I will just replace it with "Son of Man" on the fly.

A lot of times I'll stick to the NRSV since it has a nostalgic quality to the language that those brought up on KJV seem to like, and yet isn't archaic and is fairly easy to understand.

For children's "sermons", I'll often use the ERV (Easy Reader Version) or the NCV (New Century Version).

During special Advent readings, I'll use the KJV because of the poetic and liturgical feel.

 

[caspianrex]

That's why I like the RSV, it's based on a wide variety of scholarship and doesn't try to paraphrase anything.

I love the RSV. That being said, I have an interesting book from several decades ago, by a Church of Christ preacher, in which he excoriates the RSV as the single worst fraud ever perpetrated on the people of God. I'm not even kidding...

And there's a well-known story of how, when the RSV was first published, the chairman of the translation committee, Luther Weigle, received a box in the mail that contained the ashes of an RSV, that a Southern Baptist preacher had set on fire with a blowtorch. Weigle kept it for years, and gave it to his successor, Bruce Metzger, as a reminder that, whereas people sometimes burn Bibles in the modern day, at one point in history they used to burn people.

 

[FireDragon76]

I love the RSV. That being said, I have an interesting book from several decades ago, by a Church of Christ preacher, in which he excoriates the RSV as the single worst fraud ever perpetrated on the people of God. I'm not even kidding...

Probably because it had scholars of many religions that felt that translating 'almah' as "virgin" wasn't being authentic to the original Hebrew text. Some folks really blow a fuse over that one.

I think that sort of objection is picayune, honestly. I don't reject a translation just because it has a few questionable translation choices. I actually think the NRSV and RSV are dubious on some word choices, but they are still very good translations overall.

 

[trophy33]

Probably because it had scholars of many religions that felt that translating 'almah' as "virgin" wasn't being authentic to the original Hebrew text. Some folks really blow a fuse over that one.

But we do not have the original Hebrew text. There were several textual lines during the time of Jesus, Christians have chosen the one that was Christ-like, Jews have chosen the one that was the most antiChristian.

So, in a Christian Bible, it should really be "virgin", not just "girl". There is no reason to mix traditions, lines and theologies in one translation.

 

[bekkilyn]

I believe the NIV and some other translations such as The Message are corrupt. They are not word for word translations and are inaccurate. When studying God’s word it’s important to get a pure word for word translation. There are many websites that show the problems with the NIV and explain why it is a corrupt version. Just google it.

A big reason why so many people on this forum believe the NIV is corrupt (unless in some cases using the 1984) versions is that they can't stand that it uses more gender neutral language in places where the original languages are gender neutral.

Another reason some don't like the NIV is because of it's Evangelical bias.

Now The Message is actually quite good for what it was meant to be. The Message is NOT a translation, but a paraphrase. Sometimes if you are reflecting on some verses in scripture, it can be good to also take a look at The Message for a fresh perspective. But no, it is not meant to be used as one's primary bible.

I'm personally not that fond of the ESV due to the editor's (Wayne Grudem) political agenda and it's intentional translation bias on some political and social views. Also, the translation team did not include anyone but Evangelical males, which is a huge concern for me.

Still, I have the overall view that the best bible (translation or even paraphrase, regardless of any bias or error) is the one that a person will actually read, since God can still work through it to show the way to salvation and to bring a person closer in relationship to him.