Too many Bibles! HELP!

[otter272]

Personally, I would choose either the American Standard Version or the New American Standard Version because they are a word for word translation of the original Greek manuscripts. But if you just want an easy to read, easy to understand translation of the Bible in a good, down to earth language, I would suggesst you try picking up The Message.

 

[Sabra]

DhikrAllah:

ESV means "English Standard Version" - I think. I personally like the "Good News Bible in Today's English Version" (GNB/TEV) and the New Living Translation (NLT), which is a paraphrased translation of the Bible that I believe gets the closest to the intended meaning of the authors than most other translations, are among the best translations out there. Another good translation is Today's New International Version (TNIV) or it's predecessor the New International Version (NIV). All three are, IMHO, very accurate and get as close to the intended meaning as possible.

The KJV is just a translation in olden 1600 day language. IMO, it's too difficult to properly understand, but if you like that kind of style then its good for you. If you like that word for word translation (however in accurate and riddled with flaws it is) in more modern day language, then the New King James Version (NKJV) is a better pick. It is also a little more accurate than its predecessor.

 

[DhikrAllah]

Thank you for your help, everybody! I shall now trawl through every post with recommendations and make a list of those that sound appealing to me. Then I shall check them out. I really appreciate everyone’s help!

 

[revmalone]

I agree with you. KJV's language is beautiful, but really hard to understand. My suggestion is just you get something easier to read, such as "NCV (new century version)" or "the Message", read that, and follow it up in the KJV so it's easier to read and understand. That way, you'll have something you can understand, and the original KJV to refer back to.

Greeting Brothers

I would diagree respectfully though, I started with this Version and everytime I've asked the Holy Spirit to teach me, he makes it so I can understand it, sometime you have to look thing up but it causes you to build a hunger for seeking, and God really has bless me with some of the most life changing things but you must seek God in order to have fellowship in anything, right.

I love the way God has Blessed this Holy Book, there has been Blood spilled because of these word in it. Most of the Time in the Bible when God accepts something there is Blood shed for, and this is the only Bible with a history of that being done for it, right?

The others and to me any way just privite interptations of the interp, KJV was copied but with prayer and fasting by the copiers, they went into sepreate cells with copies and would even pray, wash there hands before ever writing the Name of God. See there are word the apostles wrote that were God breathed, special word that if changed would mean something totally different if written any other way, kind of special universal words, this is why the Bible says there are no privite interpatations of the scriptures.

But there are so many thing the other versions get so off on, the Niv if you will , has had 33,000 word taken out, it gives one of the names of Christ to the Devil and one of the Names of the Devil to Christ, that is blasphemy isn't it.

These other interptations will contridict there self time after time after time. God is all powerful and if he can save our souls he would and could preserve his word , that was truth, we have to have something perfect in order for it to be ordained by God and never in my life has anybody proven the KJV wrong, when they study it by asking the Holy Spirit for him to show them the truth.

Merry Christmas to all of my family in Christ
May God Blees you all
Bro Malone

 

[heron]

Wow, that's a harsh comment on the NIV. Actually, the NIV incorporated archaeological and anthropoligical findings that were unearthed after the KJV was written. We're always learning...that's the beauty of truth.

I used to compare versions a lot as I read, but found I never knew which was closest to the original intent. I have found a lexicon to be invaluable, bringing so much more clarity to my readings.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/

 

[heron]

An example of translation differences:



Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer , son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star , son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!


From the Lexicon:
"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!


"Star" and "Morning" repeated the same word, "llyh"

[font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] Lucifer = "light-bearer" [/font]

1. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] shining one, morning star, Lucifer [/font]
   1. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.) [/font]
2. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon [/font]

"Cut" = "hewn," as in chopping wood.
"weakened" = "to disable, weaken, prostrate"

In the context of this passage, the writer might not be speaking of the Devil at all, but comparing the king of Babylon to Lucifer. People get upset because NIV makes it sound like "son of the morning" could be Jesus.

 

[Illuminatus]

I can't remember if non-Christians are allowed to answer questions here. In any case, if not, I hope the mods will let this one slide a bit: You might want to check out Young's Literal Translation. I find that it's excellent for grasping the meaning and intent of the original passages.

 

[heron]

Good advice, and I think you're safe. Gee, I hope so!

Young's is one of the options at http://www.biblegateway.com/

 

[Merlin]

Hello,

One problem with Bible translations into English is that English is a dynamic, evolving language.

The 'King James' version is very old. It contains words such as thou, wot, and others which are just not used today.
Some words in English have complete opposite meanings from what they did several hundred years ago.

Additionally, modern science has allowed for better understanding of the words and life of people thousands of years ago.

Almost any Bible is good for basic Christianity.
None are adequate for building theology upon.

 

[thepianist]

Hello there. I have grown up in a nominally Christian country (UK) but follow Islam. I grew up studying Christianity (Divinity and then Religious Studies classes — compulsory in my school), sang hymns at school (I went to a Christian grammar school as opposed to a secular one for its superior education), spoke a lot to a friend who took Religious Studies at A–Level, etc. I believe I know a lot about Christianity, theology, and so forth and have (I would submit) worthy contributions in this regard. Thus I regard it unfair I cannot post in numerous interesting sections. I have already drifted off–topic! Forgive me, and allow me to start again…

In this thread someone speaks about versions of the Bible and asks the thread instigator to await a 2006 publication of ’ESV’. I quoteS)He goes on to list them, including translations showing inaccuracies in English. (S)He impressed me in terms of knowledge, and I had a few questions. As I can’t post there I’ll have to ask here:

What does ’ESV’ stand for and when in 2006 will it come out? More importantly, with all these dizzyingly bewildering versions of The Bible everywhere which particular version should I buy (I have plenty bookmarked online, I wish to buy a hard copy for myself)? Linguistically I love the poetry of the KJV, but I have no idea!

HELP!

I - personally - see absolutely no need for any other translations of the Bible. The KJV 1611 was written at the sixth grade level.....WOW....that's a pretty difficult level of education!!! Having so many different bibles does nothing but seem to confuse more people than actually help them. It's truly a sad thing to me.

 

[GK]

I - personally - see absolutely no need for any other translations of the Bible. The KJV 1611 was written at the sixth grade level.....WOW....that's a pretty difficult level of education!!! Having so many different bibles does nothing but seem to confuse more people than actually help them. It's truly a sad thing to me.

And if you have a preference for that translation, please keep reading it! That's what's so wonderful about God's Word. You can read the KJV and I can read the NLT and by the grace of God through the aid of the Holy Spirit you and I are filling ourselves with the very same Word written 1500+ years before the KJV. Because with all those translations out there, there is still only one Bible, and that's a joyous thing.

 

[revmalone]

An example of translation differences:



Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer , son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star , son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!


From the Lexicon:
"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!


"Star" and "Morning" repeated the same word, "llyh"

[font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Lucifer = "light-bearer" [/font]

1. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]shining one, morning star, Lucifer [/font]
   1. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.) [/font]
2. [font=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]'Helel' describing the king of Babylon [/font]

"Cut" = "hewn," as in chopping wood.

"weakened" = "to disable, weaken, prostrate"

In the context of this passage, the writer might not be speaking of the Devil at all, but comparing the king of Babylon to Lucifer. People get upset because NIV makes it sound like "son of the morning" could be Jesus.

You knew which I was saying that's great, now how about showing the other 32,999 words that have been taken out, some of them the ones that say believe on the lord Jesus Christ and be saved , is that ok to take out of the bible also.

And by your words your not sure about what you wrote, "might not". Until you know the all knowing God the one who is perfect don't spread you opions, you better look for a truth that doesn't Change so you and many others on here can get off all the milk.

Merry Christmas
Bro Malone

 

[The Virginian]

Hello there.…

In this thread someone speaks about versions of the Bible... More importantly, with all these dizzyingly bewildering versions of The Bible everywhere which particular version should I buy (I have plenty bookmarked online, I wish to buy a hard copy for myself)? Linguistically I love the poetry of the KJV, but I have no idea!

HELP!

The "Bible" that was used by those who were responsible for the widespread growth of Christianity, was called The Septuigant, which means "The Seventy", as it was translated by 70 Hebrews into Greek. The books contained in the Septuigant are different from the present version used by most of Christendom, for it contains what is called "The Apochrypha"
Many of the versions in circulation today, have their good and bad points. If you're after the most accurate translation overall, you should go with the Revised Standard Version (RSV). If you're interested in the Old Testament, the better translation would be the New American Standard Bible (NASB). If it's the Apochrypha you're looking for, then you probably will have to go with some version of an NRSV translation. I say, "some version", because there are different publishers who include different things along with the text.
Do not use the Good News For Modern Man, Today's English Version, or any of their variants for serious study. Neither would I recommend the KJV, as it does not incoporate some of the latest archeological findings, and the language evolution is a problem.
What do I use? I use a NASB, and a NRSV!

 

[heron]

Bro Malone,

By "might not," I meant that the definition of the Hebrew word used also included the King of Babylon, which the passage starts out speaking of.

My intent was not to put down one version, but to confirm there is a difference between versions. The quote below the comparison comes from a lexicon, with links to the original Hebrew definitions. What makes that milk?

Do you expect that by insulting others, that they will be convinced of your mode of reasoning? I hardly expect that the Lord of the Universe sits quietly in heaven, frustrated that we're using the wrong version. Our task is to continue studying, year after year, decade after decade, continually learning more about His ways.

What have you just gained?

 

[ebia]

I - personally - see absolutely no need for any other translations of the Bible. The KJV 1611 was written at the sixth grade level.....WOW....that's a pretty difficult level of education!!!

Why do people insist on repeating this when it is clearly untrue?

Having so many different bibles does nothing but seem to confuse more people than actually help them. It's truly a sad thing to me.

The only people who seem to be confused about it are the people who try to insist that everyone should use the Authorised Version.

 

[heron]

There's a similar thread going, where someone gave a link to the publisher's comparisons. http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm

Here, Zondervan posts this graph of the translations, showing how translators chose to interpret what they found. Any language will have several meanings and implications for each word.

The Hebrew language lacked vowels, until dots for inflections were added during Roman times. It lacked past and present tense, showing only either completed or uncompleted actions. We take for granted all the little fillers we use like "the." Every alphabet letter was also a number.

It's impossible to know precisely what the writers intended thousands of years ago. We just try to come as close as we can.

http://www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm