What translation, or versions of the bible do you like to use and why?

[jamiec]

Sorry I mistyped the title and the system won't let me edit it. I did not mean to type translation twice. One of them was ment to say versions.

I use:

the 1963 NASB
the 1970 NEB
the Latin Vulgate - mostly the New Testament
the 1972 edition of Luther’s Bible
the 1985 Jewish Publication Society TaNaKh
the ESV
the NIV NT
the 1954 BFBS Greek New Testament
the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament
the 1881-85-95 Revised Version, which is the older UK “cousin” of the 1901 American Standard Version.

The one I like most is the 1970s New English Bible listed above.

 

[jamiec]

One of the challenges for Eastern Orthodox is finding Bibles that includes our additional books which are slightly more extensive than Catholic Scriptures. RSV with the Deuterocanonicals is one of the few that has 3rd and 4th Maccabees as well as a few other odds and ends for Orthodox.

Have you seen this ? It includes 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and (I think) all the other books in the Orthodox canon.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Your KJV says in Jonah that the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1:17 (KJV)


A whale is not a fish, so your KJV New Testament says the Old Testament book of Jonah was incorrect. Thankfully, the Greek word in Matthew 12:40 isn't a whale.


κη̂τος ους n: any large sea monster - big fish, huge fish. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἠ̂ν Ἰωνα̂ς ἐν τῃ̂ κοιλίᾳ του̂ κήτους for as Jonah was in the belly of the big fish MAT.12:40. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Louw & Nida))

The third edition (2000) of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature gives on page 544 the meaning of the word κῆτος, “sea-monster,” and cites some interesting ancient literature in which the word is used. The translation in the KJV of the Greek κῆτος is incorrect.

 

[Psalm 27]

NKJV, because it capitalises references to The Lord, including The Old Testament

 

[Andrewn]

I prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1995 Edition. It's the most accurate word for word English Bible translation available and my go to Bible 90% of the time.

The chart is message #8 is useful but there is no such a thing as a word-for-word translation. A true word-for-word translation would not be readable in English. Eugene Nida's classification of formal equivalence vs dynamic equivalence translation is useful. But translations fall on a spectrum as the chart shows. I also agree with the chart that dynamic equivalence translations should be distinguished from paraphrases, which are not translations but rather readings into the text.

Both the Good news and the message are paraphase versions and as such are not actual direct translations from the orignal languages using directly equivalent words. They only give you access to the word chosen by whoever wrote the paraphrase.

GNT is a dynamic translation while TM is a paraphrase, very different. They're not in the same category. Among dynamic translations, I personally like GNT more than NLT, CEB, and NIV.

I prefer the New Revised Standard Version for my personal reading, and the NIV2011 when I am teaching.

I've experimented with the CSB© 2017 and find it to be quite appealing. It is classified as being more literal than HCSB, NRSV, and NIV and less literal than NASB, NKJV, and ESV. I think CSB is ideally positioned among formal equivalence translations and is quite readable.

When I find out which Bible version is the best at doing this without losing accuracy I will read it every time because there is no reason the most important book ever written should confuse all the Christians without college degrees in the subject.

I've found that Christians without college degrees lean toward dynamic translations (thought-for-thought).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Have you seen this ? It includes 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and (I think) all the other books in the Orthodox canon.

Morning and Happy New Year! I have the "New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Expanded Edition" (what a mouthful) which does have everything for the EO. I also have a Lutheran NIV (I was raised LCMS, became Orthodox 20 years ago come April 2022), JB (seminary), EO KJV NT (when I became Orthodox), and since I have a BS in Chem Engineering and a BA in Religion, I have a collection of eh, 3 translations of the Koran, a Jewish Tanakh, the JW NWT, Book of Mormon, Buddhist texts of assorted stripes (mainly Japanese Buddhism), Book of the Tao, and a few other odds and ends. If I look hard enough I'm sure I've gotten hold of the Necromonicon at some point

RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Expanded Edition, hardcover

 

[Gregorikos]

I've found that Christians without college degrees lean toward dynamic translations (thought-for-thought).

Like NT Wright? It's funny that you say that, given the chart you posted shows the NRSV to be in the dynamic translation category, yet that is the version most often used by academics.

I've found the most uneducated and ill informed gravitate to more literal translations, especially when they only speak one language.

 

[Andrewn]

Like NT Wright?

What do you think of NY Wright's translation (NTE)? It is certainly dynamic .

It's funny that you say that, given the chart you posted shows the NRSV to be in the dynamic translation category, yet that is the version most often used by academics.

It's really a spectrum. Looking at the chart, I consider the Catholic NAB and everything to its left to be formal (this includes NRSV). NIV and everything to its right, dynamic. I wouldn't include NRSV and the International Children's Bible in the same category as the chart implies.

I've found the most uneducated and ill informed gravitate to more literal translations, especially when they only speak one language.

This is true for KJVO advocates. For decades I used to say that NIV was inadequate. Now, I find that a lot of people like the NLT and even TM and TPT, which is really disappointing. Compared to these the NIV is wonderful .

I don't mean to put dynamic translations down. In fact, this morning I was comparing some of them in Proverbs.

 

[jamiec]

The third edition (2000) of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature gives on page 544 the meaning of the word κῆτος, “sea-monster,” and cites some interesting ancient literature in which the word is used. The translation in the KJV of the Greek κῆτος is incorrect.

It seems unlikely that the King’s Men translated Greek κητος in Jonah, rather than Hebrew *dag*. Especially as they come up with “fish”, which is how *dag* is glossed.

The AV translation of κητος in Matthew 12.40 is “whale”.

In Gen 1.21, Job 7.12, & Ezek 32.2, the three places in the OT where the AV uses the translation “whale(s)”, the Hebrew text gives the noun *tannin*, which amounts to something like “sea-monster”. So in those three places the AV translation is in substance correct.

It appears that, in the AV, the word “whale” may have been used in a broader sense than it is today. This was a good while before properly scientific animal taxonomy was established.

 

[bèlla]

I care less about translations now. Age is my preference. Early editions with precepts.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox include all four. Everyone has the same NT canon, but the OT ranges from the 39 book Protestant canon to the 54 book Ethiopian canon.

I think there is also an Ethiopian long canon of 96 Books total.

 

[Gregorikos]

It seems unlikely that the King’s Men translated Greek κητος in Jonah, rather than Hebrew *dag*. Especially as they come up with “fish”, which is how *dag* is glossed.

The AV translation of κητος in Matthew 12.40 is “whale”.

In Gen 1.21, Job 7.12, & Ezek 32.2, the three places in the OT where the AV uses the translation “whale(s)”, the Hebrew text gives the noun *tannin*, which amounts to something like “sea-monster”. So in those three places the AV translation is in substance correct.

It appears that, in the AV, the word “whale” may have been used in a broader sense than it is today. This was a good while before properly scientific animal taxonomy was established.

The Septuagint version of Jonah does use κητος, which is probably how it ended up in the New Testament.

Of course, the Hebrew doesn't just say it's a fish, but a GREAT fish, which κητος agrees with.

 

[Gregorikos]

What do you think of NY Wright's translation (NTE)? It is certainly dynamic .

No clue. I've never seen it.

It's really a spectrum. Looking at the chart, I consider the Catholic NAB and everything to its left to be formal (this includes NRSV). NIV and everything to its right, dynamic. I wouldn't include NRSV and the International Children's Bible in the same category as the chart implies.

OK. The chart itself doesnt mark the point where dynamic begins, so I assumed you were going with everything to the right of the ESV.

This is true for KJVO advocates. For decades I used to say that NIV was inadequate. Now, I find that a lot of people like the NLT and even TM and TPT, which is really disappointing. Compared to these the NIV is wonderful .

Agreed. TPT and TM are terrible. I have no use for them

I don't mean to put dynamic translations down. In fact, this morning I was comparing some of them in Proverbs.

They can be good. Peace.

 

[Torah Keeper]

The Septuagint version of Jonah does use κητος, which is probably how it ended up in the New Testament.

Of course, the Hebrew doesn't just say it's a fish, but a GREAT fish, which κητος agrees with.

Tannin is more likely dragon, dinosaur, or giant reptile(both water and land kinds).

Dag is commonly translated "fish" but can be a variety of water creatures, including whales.

The great fish that swallowed Jonah could have been a whale, or some other creature which is either extinct, or was miraculously created by God just to swallow Jonah.

It is the message that is important. I don't get hung up on fine details. Bats are listed along with other birds. Not from mistake, but because they have wings and can fly. Flying creatures are birds in Hebrew. This included feathered birds, bats, and probably some extinct kinds of creatures unfamiliar to us, like pterosaurs. Hence the massive disharmony among translations of Leviticus 11.

Animals were classified by kinds in the Bible. Animals were reclassified in modern times in Latin, and now another reclassification is underway using DNA.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I refuse to trust any... modern Bible version that used Wescott and Hort's personal Greek New Testament translation from corrupt Greek texts. Even the NKJV uses their corrupt New Testament translation.

For a more in-depth reason, see the documentary Bridge To Babylon.

I watched Bridge to Babylon yesterday. Really awesome. Thank you for the recommendation.

 

[Gregorikos]

The great fish that swallowed Jonah could have been a whale, or some other creature which is either extinct, or was miraculously created by God just to swallow Jonah.

It is the message that is important. I don't get hung up on fine details.

Talk to Davy. He's the one that made a big deal out of it because some versions were different (rightly so) than the KJV. (See post #30 for all of Davy's issues)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It seems unlikely that the King’s Men translated Greek κητος in Jonah, rather than Hebrew *dag*. Especially as they come up with “fish”, which is how *dag* is glossed.

Yes, of course. The Old Testament in the KJV was translated from the Masoretic Text [with very few exceptions] rather than from the Septuagint.

The AV translation of κητος in Matthew 12.40 is “whale”.

Yes, this is one of the many translation errors in the KJV.

In Gen 1.21, Job 7.12, & Ezek 32.2, the three places in the OT where the AV uses the translation “whale(s)”, the Hebrew text gives the noun *tannin*, which amounts to something like “sea-monster”. So in those three places the AV translation is in substance correct.

No, it is incorrect. Therefore, in the RV of 1884, we read at Gen 1.21 “sea-monsters,” at Job 7.12 “sea-monster,” and at Ezek 32.2 “dragon.”

It appears that, in the AV, the word “whale” may have been used in a broader sense than it is today. This was a good while before properly scientific animal taxonomy was established.

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with “properly scientific animal taxonomy!” It has only to do with insufficient knowledge on the part of the translators of the KJV.

Claus Westermann, in his 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11, devotes six paragraphs (pp. 137-138) to a discussion on the meaning of the Hebrew word תַּנִּין (sea-monster).

 

[jamiec]

Yes, of course. The Old Testament in the KJV was translated from the Masoretic Text [with very few exceptions] rather than from the Septuagint.



Yes, this is one of the many translation errors in the KJV.



No, it is incorrect. Therefore, in the RV of 1884, we read at Gen 1.21 “sea-monsters,” at Job 7.12 “sea-monster,” and at Ezek 32.2 “dragon.”



The issue has absolutely nothing to do with “properly scientific animal taxonomy!” It has only to do with insufficient knowledge on the part of the translators of the KJV.

The lack of a reliable taxonomy is what made their error possible.

Claus Westermann, in his 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11, devotes six paragraphs (pp. 137-138) to a discussion on the meaning of the Hebrew word תַּנִּין (sea-monster).

 

[GodLovesCats]

From my travels in Europe, almost nobody can say more than simple words and phrases in English.

IME, Hungarians are the worst. They know dinners, but not supper. They know bag, but not sack. They do not know "tion" at the end of a noun sounds like "shun" or "chun" and say "-te-on" instead. I also heard a tour guide say "Az-e-uh" instead of "Azh-yuh." Another did not know the word "muscular" and said a man statue's upper body is "full of muscles." Budapest definitely does not have good English teachers.

In the Czech Republic, one tour guide always said "catedral." An Austrian tour guide used a short A when she said "pastry" because of how German speakers are taught English. But only Hungarians struggle with actually knowing very common English words.

 

[Davy]

Further proofs against... the false claim that the NKJV stays faithfully to the Textus Receptus like the original 1611 KJV...

Another King James Bible Believer

An example:

"Matt 18:26 (KJV) The servant therefore fell down, AND WORSHIPPED HIM, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

Matt 18:26 (NKJV) "The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' (NASV, NIV, NRSV) The word “worshipped him” is in all Greek texts the Geneva Bible and even in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version. The NKJV just chose to omit it as did the RSV, NASB, and NIV."
________________________________________

Just the claim that the NKJV follows the same Greek text of the old KJV is not proof against its manipulation by textual critics.

The proof is how the NKJV often FOLLOWS the same wording as the later modern New Testaments that DO... use Wescott and Hort's new Greek translations from different Greek manuscripts (like the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus, which the original KJV did not use). And simply by that, it means the modern NKJV scholars did refer to Greek texts OTHER THAN the original Textus Receptus. Wonder which ones, hmm...? Since many of its modified readings like the example above, it's clear they aligned their translation with the text of Wescott and Hort.