OT exegetical versions compared to 1995 Contemporary English Version

[Unix]

The NJB is markedly too Catholic. Let's find some other version to compare to! Thinking - hmm!

Just as I started to doubt 3 days ago whether I'll use the REB that much (a test that showed that I'm non-calvinistic and hence also non-reformed), Logos.com now released it: REB with Apocrypha ... and click at the link in the post by fgh. I was happy allready, but now I'm thrilling! I haven't looked yet at what it costs, but I'll buy it at any price!
Logos is a clever tool: You can set for parts of the Bible at a time, which is Your preferred version. So You can specify that book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter or even verse-by-verse. You can change that at any time. It makes everything really easy - all You have to do is to hover the mouse over a verse-reference in any resource. I've written two reviews of Logos, in: http://www.logos.com/product/10416/original-languages-library ... scroll to the bottom of the page!
EDIT: I looked now at what it costs, and it's a BARGAIN (and cheaper than NEB)! The REB can be found cheap in used hardback from the UK, but it's good to have in a Bible study software.
Other Bible study software's that have REB, are e-Sword and Accordance. True that e-Sword offers a lot of Bible versions, but soon Logos will be the leading software in that category too when the http://www.logos.com/product/16808/english-bible-collection is going to be released.

I feel better about the style of the REB than NJB.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

So what if the NRSV is "too mainstream." You don't like a version based on popularity of use? What?

 

[Unix]

The term has not got to do with if the version is popular. I meant mainstream regarding theology and denominations!

if the NRSV is "too mainstream." You don't like a version based on popularity of use? What?

 

[Unix]

bump!

Back to the T now. Someone wrote 2 good posts about the GNT: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Some questions about Bible translations.
Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Some questions about Bible translations.

So, let's discuss again here! Let's keep this thread alive!

I found some really interesting information now about the 1992 Good News Translation:
"In 1990 a revised edition was published which attempted to use inclusive language and correct passages in which the translation was seen to be problematic or insensitive from either a stylistic or an exegetical point of view. Good for general reading and to supplement more literal translations for Bible study." Source.
(1990 means 1992.)

Follows quotes about what to discuss:

For the exegetical viewpoint and the poetical passages in the OT, I have the 1975 Bible In Order [...]

I still have these questions which no-one has addressed (perhaps because of lacking knowledge and/or not having these English versions)?
QUESTION: which portions of the OT have a lot of newly implemented manuscript evidence? Especially after the evidence implemented in the 1977 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Hebrew text (the text of the 1992 GNT OT Source)? Also LXX please. This would be helpful so that I'll know when to turn to new versions.

QUESTION: how does the 1989 REB compare exegetically with the 1975 Bible In Order (difference I've noticed to the 1966 JB in the text, is only the punctuation, but I suspect perhaps some spelling corrected)?

Question: is more modern linguistics than JB's important in passages printed in verse, my main usage for the JB OT?

I've been thinking really hard what further versions to compare to! I've decided we can compare also to some extent to the 1995 NASU OT (New American Standard Bible Updated Old Testament), and if anyone has the 2012 UPDV 2.16 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, please?! I would like to use NASU but avoid its reformed bias, is there anyone that can help and point out reformed bias in it - it is said to clearly shine through?

Also, if You are interested in commentaries or what the Bible originally was, go and discuss in the threads in my signature! Feel free to post in those threads even though there are no very recent posts at the moment, in them!

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


A clean up has occurred. Please remember to stay on topic. If you want to discuss something other than the OP, start your own thread. Really. It's pretty simple. Yeah, it's takes a little courage to do so. But it's better than hijacking a thread.


MOD HAT OFF

 

[Unix]

More opinions wanted!

More opinions wanted!

I just found this document, that compares some verses in Ro between the 1966 1967 1968 JB, 1994 Goods News Translation UK, 1989 Revised English Version, 1995 Contemporary English Version, 1986 New American Bible and 1989 New Revised Standard Version: http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...yoHYAg&usg=AFQjCNHoGA88Mso6Hd3cdmieqLMLiZ9eZg

 

[Unix]

Let's continue discussing!

Here is a thread about the Good News Translation: Good News Bible translation - Catholic Answers Forums
I noticed less than a week ago that there has come a new edition of the Good News Translation, the 3rd Edition of 2004, (NT sixth Edition, OT third Edition): 1992 GNT-CE 2nd ed. preferably with Anglicized text and 1971 GNB 3rd ed. NT - Logos Bible Software Forums

bump!So, let's discuss again here! Let's keep this thread alive!

I found some really interesting information now about the 1992 Good News Translation:
"In 1990 a revised edition was published which attempted to use inclusive language and correct passages in which the translation was seen to be problematic or insensitive from either a stylistic or an exegetical point of view. Good for general reading and to supplement more literal translations for Bible study." Source.
(1990 means 1992.)

 

[Unix]

Here are 2 recent posts about the JB, the second is a comparison with the NJB:
Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Is the English Standard Version to become official?
Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Is the English Standard Version to become official?

EDIT: More discussion about any of the versions in this thread is welcome!!

EDIT2: Another page about the JB with a few details about Mt, Mk and the OT: The Jerusalem Bible

Previously edited by Unix; 29th November 2012 at 03:55 PM local time.

 

[Unix]

I just got an advertisement a few minutes ago, what do You all think of this book, what does it sound like: Reasons to Believe Collection (8 vols.) - Logos Bible Software

You had to pick Job, didn't you? LOL. It's probably the one book I've spent less time studying than any other. And it's my least favorite.

 

[jobbomb6]

Why can't there just be one HOLY BIBLE and then translate it into all the languages... Like it basically already is, but people decide to make their own alterations to the bible of what they interpret when it could be completely wrong.

 

[Unix]

Well, the latest revision of Acts and the general epistles in the New Testament is called NA28 from 2012, it's now available separately in Logos (was first made available only in some base-packages): Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 28th Edition, with Critical Apparatus - it is morphologically tagged.
Hebrews 9:15-13:25 should be removed, see my argument in: http://www.christianforums.com/t7635962-post60107764/#post60107764
For the rest of the New Testament probably UBSGNT 4th Revised Edition with morphology, from 2006, I have it in Logos, they no longer offer it with morphology: UBS4 with Logos morphology availability? - Logos Bible Software Forums
Mt 11:27 should be removed, see Luz 2001, (original work in German): http://www.christianforums.com/t7635962-post59953637/#post59953637
The best version for a few verses in the Bible, is Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatum versionem. 5th Edition Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, from 2007. To get this in a Bible study software, go to: http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...uyJCycfflXeOmWrXDPmWQ&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.bGE ... and post that You want it, no initial purchase is required. There's sometimes disagreement as to which and how many verses were best preserved in Latin.
For the Old Testament it's more difficult as we don't have such a wealth of manuscripts and Hebrew and Greek differ so much. I don't know if there is any recent Edition in Hebrew that incorporates manuscript finds. Hebrew versions are not issued often, most of the work determining which manuscript to use for which verse, seems to be made by Bible translators. For Greek, there's Göttingen Septuagint (67 vols.) - Logos Bible Software ... and it's necessary for several of the Deuterocanonicals as only fragments of those (for example Sirach) come in Hebrew. It was on a sale for half the price recently when purchased together with a Logos upgrade base-package, and it's been on sale individually in 2006. I'm thinking of getting a printed matter volume on Sirach a while from now when I know better Greek. The NETS is the only English version based on it, see childofdust's post in this thread from June 2012: http://www.christianforums.com/t7653202/#post60820357
In for example Isaiah, rearranging some of the text would be necessary, according to many scholars, see for example: continental isaiah - Logos Bible Software
and Isaiah 40-55 Vol 2: A Critical And Exegetical Commentary (International Critical Commentary): John Goldingay and David Payne: 9780567030726: Amazon.com: Books or perhaps: Amazon.com: Isaiah 40-55 (ICC) Set of Vol 1 & 2: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (International Critical Commentary) (9780567041432): John Goldingay, David Payne: Books ... I'm not buying volume 1 myself, I've just ordered volume 2.

There are a few efforts to translate a similar Bible to several languages, such as the Good News Translation that comes, besides English, in German and Chinese: Today's Chinese Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Jerusalem Bible came out in English, French and Spanish, however there's a lot of confusion as to which Editions are equivalent.
New American Standard Bible has come out in Spanish plus came out in English and Korean in 1977: New American Standard Bible ~ Korean-English: Lockman Foundation: Amazon.com: Books
The NET Bible in English and Chinese: Chinese NET Bible Project / Resource Website | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
There must be more that I'm unaware of, but those are probably among the most famous ones.

Why can't there just be one HOLY BIBLE and then translate it into all the languages... Like it basically already is, but people decide to make their own alterations to the bible of what they interpret when it could be completely wrong.

 

[Unix]

I noticed a tidbit about the Good News Translation: Catholic Answers Forums - View Single Post - Catholic Bible

 

[jobbomb6]

Thanks for giving me a little more clarity.

 

[Unix]

I think I'm starting to use:

• REB for all of the OT except Isaiah, Proverbs, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ezekiel and Daniel;
• NETS for at least Judith, 1-2 Mc, Daniel and for comparison in some other OT books;
• RSV-2CE, Bible In Order (Jerusalem Bible) for chapters 3-66, Continental commentary by Wildberger for chapters 3-39, Hermeneia commentary for 40:1-44:23 and ICC 40-55 volume II for 44:24-55:13 by Goldingay and Payne for Isaiah;
• and Bible In Order (Jerusalem Bible) for Proverbs;

... unless anyone wants to object?:

I like NETS. It is a top-notch, scholarly work by amazing translators.

 

[Unix]

NRSV is too mainline:

So what if the NRSV is "too mainstream."

There's a new post now by a user who knows a thing or two about Bible versions and many other things and contributes a lot, she quotes a book that categorizes English Old Testament versions when it comes to usefulness in exegesis: NABRE bible ~ What do you think? - Logos Bible Software Forums

I use mainly the REB, I have the New Testament as printed matter, and I have it in both of my Bible Study softwares: Logos and Accordance. EDIT: And I have the REB Apocrypha of course!

I don't have the NIV, TNIV and 1970 NAB Old Testaments. I had the 1970 NAB Old Testament for a year but gave it away to a poor person. I have the 2010 NABRE Old Testament only as printed matter.

I use the newest Edition of RSV (from the '70s) regularly, especially for the New Testament and Isaiah, it's the preferred version on my tablets. (So far I've been unable to find it as printed matter. If someone wants to sell me a RSV copyrighted in 1971, I would be glad to buy it! I would also buy a NT-only print!)

This division: Recommendation about English Bible translation - Page 2 - General Accordance Topics
... still holds true. I use the Jerusalem Bible for Ps 4 though (by MJ. Smith's recommendation). EDIT2: And I use NRSV for 1 Sam 10:27.
Another slight modification to the post at AccordanceBible I will use NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) a little more than that, for some of the books listed first for which I don't use the REB and a few other books. NOTE: NET and NETS are not the same version, they have nothing in common and are completely different.

Previously edited by Unix; 24th November 2013 at 10:19 PM local time. Reason: forgot REB Apocrypha