• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Recommend Bible Version

Discussion in 'Anabaptists' started by ratchet30, Dec 5, 2011.

  1. strelok0017

    strelok0017 _______

    +208
    Baptist
    Private
    Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) is teaching some wrong things. I still stand with ESV and KJV of course. KJV is faithful to the heart and ESV mostly also but fits my taste more. Thou shalt have at least one ESV Bible! And all the people said: "Amen!" :muahah:
     
  2. mrjerseys

    mrjerseys Newbie

    13
    +1
    Salvation Army
    I would beware of the newest version called the Common English Bible.
     
  3. LRXLES002

    LRXLES002 Newbie

    41
    +3
    Christian
    Single
    ,
     
  4. bach90

    bach90 Evangelical Catholic

    446
    +17
    Lutheran
    Private
    US-Republican
    I always end up back at the KJV. Easy to read (short sentences, monosyllabic words...once you get past the thees and thous which aren't that tough and a few vocab words). The prose in Luke is unmatched in the KJV.

    Charlton Heston on the KJV King James Bible - YouTube
     
  5. I used the KJV almost all of my life, or at least far as I can remember. Until recently I am starting to read the NKJV. I use the KJV in Church, but I use the NKJV when I am witnessing or even memorizing scripture. I found it easier to memorize scripture from the NKJV than the KJV, but maybe that is for me personally.
     
  6. ZaidaBoBaida

    ZaidaBoBaida When do I stop being a Newbie?

    +616
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Exactly what do you think that NLT and NIV got wrong? I'm not saying they didn't get anything wrong (especially NLT), but I'm just wondering. Or do you just object to who some of the translators are?

    I used NASB from when I was in college until just a couple of years ago. Then, I learned about the deliberate mistranslation of the person mentioned in Romans 16:7. NASB and ESV both mistranslate to make the person of Junia appear to be male - even masculinizing her name into Junias a form of the name that did not exist at the time of Paul. You won't often hear me say anything nice about King James, but at least they translated her name correctly. Anyway, when I learned about the mistranslation I started wondering what else did they mistranslate to try and make scripture fit their doctrinal stances instead of fitting their doctrine to what scripture actually said?

    Then, I read an article where NT Wright said there was actually a big dust-up during the translation of the 2011 edition of the NIV over whether or not to correctly translate Romans 16:7 (the 1984 edition mistranslates it) , and that they finally did the right thing. So, I briefly switched to NLT while I waited for the 2011 NIV to become widely available. So far, I'm pretty happy with it.
     
  7. ratchet30

    ratchet30 Wanderer In A Strange Land

    254
    +8
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Zaida: Is there anything else you see mistranslated other than Junia that is significant? Also, what do you see wrong with the KJV?
     
  8. bach90

    bach90 Evangelical Catholic

    446
    +17
    Lutheran
    Private
    US-Republican
    I will occasionally consult the ESV. I think it's accurate, but very flat and stilted. There's also a tendency to focus on obedience and there's some inclusive language (which is not always bad...it's just that the ESV tries to make the claim that they avoided inclusive language). When I don't use the KJV, I'll have the NKJV or NRSV. Even though the NRSV has inclusive language, the footnotes will at least tell you the original Greek translation and the language of the NRSV is pretty nice. Also like the KJV, there isn't one overarching theological bias, the ESV has a definite reformed slant with all the obedience language and the NASB has a different dispensational slant. (The KJV has a tendency to insist on an Episcopal polity which I don't see as a major issue).

    To me the ESV seems more like a touch up job of the RSV rather than a new translation.
     
  9. ZaidaBoBaida

    ZaidaBoBaida When do I stop being a Newbie?

    +616
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The first time I saw ESV I actually wondered if it was NASB re-released with a new name.

    As for any other glaring mistakes, I've got some little nitpicky ones. But, the Junia thing was big enough to make me wonder what else they'd mistranslated that I just don't know about it.

    My issue with King James is more that the biggest most obnoxious, take scriptures out of context, hateful, bibilically ignorant loudmouths all seem to use King James. The folks at Westboro Baptist Church use King James as an example. I have a co-worker who thinks there's a gospel of Paul - she uses King James. I know someone else who honestly thought that King James was the original language scripture was in.

    Re: Inclusive Language - I don't have a problem with it because language changes. As long as they're not doing silly things like changing it to "Our parent...." instead of "Our father..." Besides, always using the masculine form is a real stumbling block to some women coming to faith, and the scripture says not to stumble other people in their faith.
     
  10. L0NEW0LF

    L0NEW0LF Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

    298
    +8
    Lutheran
    Married
    The only English Bible translation that I can and will recommend for primary use is the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Version.

    The following 12 point test and correct spellings will tell whether or not you have a PCE KJV:

    1. "or Sheba" NOT "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2
    2. "sin" NOT "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19
    3. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Job 33:4
    4. "whom ye" NOT "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16
    5. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24
    6. "flieth" NOT "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16
    7. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Matthew 4:1
    8. "further" NOT "farther" in Matthew 26:39
    9. "bewrayeth" NOT "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73
    10. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Mark 1:12
    11. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in Acts 11:28
    12. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8

    Correct spellings such as "inquire" and not "enquire," "rasor" and not "razor," "expences" and not "expenses," "counseller" and not "counsellor," and "ancle" and not "ankle" should be present. Also, "Geba" and not "Gaba" in Ezra 2:26 and "spirit" and not "Spirit" in Acts 11:12.

    The Pure Cambridge Edition is widely considered the final and true edition of the King James Version. For more information on the PCE KJV, you can visit a website called bibleprotector.

    Now, as my signature states, not to be confused as a King James Version "Onlyist," I'm a King James Version "Mainlyist." I use, recommend, and trust the PCE KJV above all others, but I do think it is a good idea to use other translations, such as the 1995 NASB, 2011 ESV, 1989 NRSV, and 1966 JB. All of these translations are good to consult with. I would completely and utterly avoid translations such as the NIV, CEB, and The Message.
     
  11. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    If you're a protestant then the Revised Standard version or the New King James Version will suit you as far as precision is concerned. For ease of reading the Good News Translation or the New Living Translation will probably do. Use both.

    If you are Orthodox then try the Orthodox Study Bible.

    If you are Catholic and in the USA use the New American Bible.

    If you are Catholic and live in Canada use the New Revised Standard Version.

    If you are Catholic and English, South African, Australian, New Zealander, etc then use the CTS New Catholic Bible or the Jerusalem Bible.
     
  12. WayneinMaine

    WayneinMaine Regular Member

    351
    +37
    Anabaptist
    Married
    The most conservative Anabaptists use the Luther Bible of 1522/1534 based on Erasmus' original majority text rather than the corrupted Stephanus "received text" (received from whom?!?!).

    As far as the Authorized KJV, what true Anabpatist would accept a translation in English "authorized" by an English king, translated by the Anglican church - a church that was hostile to and willing to martyr the Anabaptist?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  13. L0NEW0LF

    L0NEW0LF Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

    298
    +8
    Lutheran
    Married
    I'f you're Protestant the KJV, NASB, and ESV are all far superior. The RSV? Really?
     
  14. Unix

    Unix Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar Supporter

    +69
    Anglican
    Single
    "far" is a grotesque overstatement, and of the ones mentioned the past 4 days the Good News Translation is superior in many ways.
     
  15. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    The ESV is just the RSV doctored to suit Evangelical tastes.
     
  16. bach90

    bach90 Evangelical Catholic

    446
    +17
    Lutheran
    Private
    US-Republican
    And the RSV that Roman Catholics use is just doctored to suit RC taste :D.


    Listen, the KJV is a great version. I like it for my devotional life and for memorization. If I'm doing serious Bible study I use the NRSV. It tends to not interpret too much. The gender inclusive stuff I think is overplayed. It's been done in every version (Matt 5:9 KJV). Also English does have a bias in that sense. In German for example you can use die Menschen to mean all mankind without any overtone of it referring only to men. 1 Tim 2:5 is often used to say the NRSV doesn't call Jesus a man. It just uses humankind and "himself human" to keep the typology that Paul was making...he was pretty big on typology. The NRSV is written pretty well too, it uses a nice style of language unlike the RSV/ESV which was a bit choppy. The NIV is readable, but it's at a middle school level. I like how the NRSV tries to emulate the original language too. The OT is written in a much higher style than the NT (for the most part) and the translation reflects this. The NRSV has the advantage of being used by many churches too. I've even seen it in a couple of LCMS churches.
     
  17. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    But I recommended the Protestant RSV for Protestants :p And it is the Protestant RSV that J I Packer and others doctored to suite evangelical tastes by removing antiquated English from those sections in the RSV that used the language of prayer and using propitiation (because evangelicals love propitiation and more or less detest expiation) and changing Isaiah chapter seven to say virgin where young woman was used in the RSV and so forth.

    of course, those saintly Catholics who produced the RSV-CE and its successor the RSV-CE 2nd Ed only made changes that were holy and just and good :D
     
  18. JTornado1

    JTornado1 Newbie

    337
    +9
    Lutheran
    Private
    I recommend the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version. It's easy to read and accurate. It's my favorite translation. I also like the NASB, NIV 1984, the ASV of 1901, and the Ronald Knox Version. :preach::amen:

    I have a copy of the CEB, and I don't care much for it. It's too informal and I don't like some of the renderings. I definitely wouldn't use it for public reading.
     
  19. bach90

    bach90 Evangelical Catholic

    446
    +17
    Lutheran
    Private
    US-Republican
    Propitiation is used because that's the Greek term used (with the exception of 1 John 2:2). I believe Roman Catholic scholars worked on the RSV committee, although I think Presbyterians made up the majority of translators (Dr. Metzger, the committee head, was a Presbyterian). The ESV in a different vein is largely the result of conservative Bible scholars from a wide range of denominations. The were no Roman Catholics on the ESV committee to my knowledge, it was largely Protestant. There was one translator from CUA on the ESV committee, a few conservative Lutherans, and a hanful of Presbyterians...but it's largely non-denominational. This is in contrast to the NRSV which is overwhelmingly liberal, even with non-Christians (a Jew) on the OT committee. One just needs to be aware of the faults behind a translation, the NRSV is a good translation but it has a liberal bias. The ESV is a good translation, but it has a reformed bias. The RSV is in between the two, closer to the ESV though for sure. The RSV was before Metzger lost his marbles and went completely liberal.

    Well, obviously... :scratch: ;)
     
  20. MoreCoffee

    MoreCoffee Repentance works.

    +2,425
    Catholic
    Private
    The Greek word is in fact ἱλαστήριον which, as one can see by translitering it as hilasterion, does not spell 'propitiation'. If one checks up its definition in any of the free online dictionaries for Koine Greek the defitions will be something along these lines:
    So, it seems that the word means expiation and that one can use propitiation if one wants to but there is nothing superior about propitiation from a linguistic point of view. The reason for choosing propitiation in the ESV is theological more than linguistic.
     
Loading...