Very Quick Bible Question

[Turk]

Hi,

Could anyone reccomend to me the best bible to read and for what reason. I'm looking for the closest version to the original preferably but I'm open to options.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jig]

Your looking for the NASB. (New American Standard Bible)

Very close to 'word for word' and therefore great for study. It is pretty easy to read and flows decent. The verse on my sig is from a NASB.

The NJKV isn't bad either and is also pretty 'word for word'. I just prefer the NASB.

 

[Turk]

Thanks,

What's NJKV? and I'm in England, will that matter with getting hold of the American standard one?

 

[Jig]

NJKV = New King James Version.

If you order online, you will have no problem getting a NASB. It's in no way just for Americans...its a very solid, very 'word for word' modern english translation.

Here is what I own:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080243892X/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-9053914-7906349?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

I really like the Ryrie Study Bible. It's what I call a "fully loaded" Bible. History, commentary, intros...blah blah....very detailed.

The Life Application version is good too.

If you go hardcover you'll save some money, if you dont care for leather.

 

[Dispy]

One of the Bibles I use, and find very helpful is the Hewbrew-Greek KEY WORD Study Bible, KJV."

It has both the Lexical Aids to the Old and New Testments, and the Hebrew/Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament, and the Greek Dictionary for the New Testament (Strongs).

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[justified]

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. 27 (Nestle-Aland)

 

[Turk]

Thanks, I think I'll go with the NKJV for now.

Seems to be the most consistant to come up.

 

[justified]

I always choose my bibles based upon a poll.

 

[5stringJeff]

Turk, you can also check out the English Standard Version (ESV), which came out about 5 years ago. Another good word-for-word translation, and a bit easier to read than the NASB (which is another favorite of mine).

 

[ischus]

My favorite is the NASB Update. It is an updated version of the NASB. It removes the "Thee" and "Thou" stuff, and there are a few other changes in wording here and there.

Also, the Second Edition of the New Living Translation is great. It is maintains the strengths of the original but cuts back on the flowery, weird verses and translates them in a more direct way.

 

[justified]

There's no such thing as a word-for-word bible; I challenge anyone here to explain a couple of Hebrew verses to me word-for-word and get anywhere close to the KJV or NASB. It can't happen because that's not how you do Hebrew-to-English translation.

 

[dcyates]

There's no such thing as a word-for-word bible; I challenge anyone here to explain a couple of Hebrew verses to me word-for-word and get anywhere close to the KJV or NASB. It can't happen because that's not how you do Hebrew-to-English translation.

Very true. For instance, if I were to translate Genesis 8.21 word-for-word into English, the result would be something along the lines of:

"And-he-smelled YHWH aroma-of the-pleasant and-he-said YHWH in heart-of-him not I-will-repeat to-curse again the-ground because-of the-man though inclination-of heart-of the-man evil from-childhood-of-him and-not I-will-repeat again to-destroy every-of living just-as I-did" (MT).

And it should be noted that all the words with dashes in between them indicate that it's a transaltion of a single Hebrew word.

The result may not be all that difficult for the average layman to figure out, but it sure doesn't make for easy reading.

 

[Just Me Garry]

King James Version

 

[Zadok7000]

Hi,

Could anyone reccomend to me the best bible to read and for what reason. I'm looking for the closest version to the original preferably but I'm open to options.

Thanks in advance.

Why bother with any "version" at all? All are prone to man's errors and traditions. Even the translators of the 1611 King James wrote a "letter to the reader" admitting they did their best but there were bound to be errors and to check their work for ourselves.
The ONLY way you can go back to the original languages reliably is with an 'ol KJV and a Strong's Concordance. Any KJV will do, but I prefer the Companion Bible by Bullinger. It is simply a KJV with extra wide margins and over 100 appendicies with a heavy focus on the Massorah and structuring the subject and object of and within each Book.
Remember, JESUS told us that man's traditions make HIS WORD of none effect. Avoid this at all costs.

May FATHER Bless your studies.

 

[Jig]

Why bother with any "version" at all? All are prone to man's errors and traditions. Even the translators of the 1611 King James wrote a "letter to the reader" admitting they did their best but there were bound to be errors and to check their work for ourselves.
The ONLY way you can go back to the original languages reliably is with an 'ol KJV and a Strong's Concordance. Any KJV will do, but I prefer the Companion Bible by Bullinger. It is simply a KJV with extra wide margins and over 100 appendicies with a heavy focus on the Massorah and structuring the subject and object of and within each Book.
Remember, JESUS told us that man's traditions make HIS WORD of none effect. Avoid this at all costs.

May FATHER Bless your studies.

In my opinion, NASB is more powerful than the KJV for study. I dont get why people cling to this version (KJV) as the only true and most accuate english version.

Haven't we found earlier more accuate manuscripts since the KJV was written?

 

[justified]

The ONLY way you can go back to the original languages reliably is with an 'ol KJV and a Strong's Concordance. Any KJV will do, but I prefer the Companion Bible by Bullinger. It is simply a KJV with extra wide margins and over 100 appendicies with a heavy focus on the Massorah and structuring the subject and object of and within each Book.

NO no no! Not only can you use a concordance with other versions than the KJV (the NIV has one out, as do the RSV and NASB), but this is a terrible way to get at the "original" meaning of the passage. If you want to know what the passage says in the original Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, you have to learn those languages. Period. A concordance with an insignificant lexical aid attached as an appendix is a terrible method for reading Hebrew.

 

[johnd]

Hi,

Could anyone reccomend to me the best bible to read and for what reason. I'm looking for the closest version to the original preferably but I'm open to options.

Thanks in advance.

Second the motion for the NASB. It is the closest English translation to a word-for-word read. You could get a good interlinear Bible as well, though you may run into minutia disputes over the revceived text and the alexandrian text. But that wil come later after you have gotten the Word well hidden in your heart.

That's why I say the best English translation is the one you will actually use regularly / faithfully. I have faith enough in the Word of God and the Holy Spirit who authored it and teaches it that the essentials will be learned even if it is a translation from either the textus receptus or the alexandrian.

I listened to NIV on cassette for years and years (4 to sometime 8 hours a day) while working and got the gist of the Bible that way. I also had study Bibles in the NIV and NASB as well that I studied on breaks and at lunch and after work. I now use a KJV primaily because it makes me dig into the text to understand it better as Old English and I are not on such good speaking terms. But I quote the translation that best gets the point across which ever that may be:

example:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. KJV

John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. NIV

The NIV is the clearest here. While:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. NIV

the KJV is the better of the two here.

Just FYI:

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. NASB

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me;40 and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. NASB

The proof of the original meaning and which translation best represents it is in the original languages (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew). And in them you must also have an understanding of history to determine what idioms and manners of speech are used.

For example the "shiboleth" in Judges 12 was a literal word (today it is a word meaning litmous test)

 

[mlqurgw]

I would suggest you get a Bible without any additions in it to start off, such as commentaries and such. I have had the unpleasant experience of having to battle those things taken as the word of God because they were written in the Bible. I would suggest you get at least 2 versions, KJV or NKJV and NASB. They are both translations instead of a paraphrase as the Living Bible and New Living Bible. Commentaries are fine but get them seperate from your Bible. Having 2 versions will allow you to compare and seek the best understanding.

 

[SH89]

You can always read every translation here: www.biblegateway.com.

 

[dcyates]

Why bother with any "version" at all? All are prone to man's errors and traditions. Even the translators of the 1611 King James wrote a "letter to the reader" admitting they did their best but there were bound to be errors and to check their work for ourselves.
The ONLY way you can go back to the original languages reliably is with an 'ol KJV and a Strong's Concordance. Any KJV will do, but I prefer the Companion Bible by Bullinger. It is simply a KJV with extra wide margins and over 100 appendicies with a heavy focus on the Massorah and structuring the subject and object of and within each Book.
Remember, JESUS told us that man's traditions make HIS WORD of none effect. Avoid this at all costs.

May FATHER Bless your studies.

My apologies, Zadok, but this really wouldn't work. First off, the KJV is based on a manuscript tradition that is quite inferior to the ones we have now. Not that this dooms it to irrelevancy. Generally, it is still a very good translation. But currently we do have better ones.

Second, Strong's also isn't as accurate a lexical aid as it could be. Strong based this work on his study of Classical Greek, not the Koine Greek of the NT.

And last, your quotation re: the traditions of men invalidating the word of God (cf. Matt. 15.6). I'm not sure this text really applies here. Just because something might be a tradition, surely you don't think it necessarily invalidates the word of God. The celebration of Christimas is a tradition of man, for nowhere in the Bible does it stipulate that believers should celebrate or in any way especially recognize on an annual basis the birth of Jesus. Yet doing so doesn't invalidate the word of God, does it? As well, shouldn't there be allowances, if not for tradition, than for proper innovation. For instance, it used to be that one man could own another man as a slave--slavery being an institution recognized and even regulated by the strictures of the Bible. By abolishing slavery, have we thereby invalidated the word of God? Finally, if anything, wouldn't maintaining one's adherence to a particular translation of the Bible that is centuries old, when nowhere in the Bible does it prescribe the use of that version, be considered a 'tradition of man'?