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

[PrincetonGuy]

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

The six paragraphs on the meaning of the Hebrew word תַּנִּין (sea-monster) in Claus Westermann’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 make it abundantly clear that the lack of a reliable taxonomy is NOT what made their error possible, but that their error was due to the lack of a reliable Hebrew lexicon. Furthermore, although Westermann makes no mention of it, the anatomy of whales would make it impossible for a whale to swallow a man whole.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

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.

Matt. 18:26 πεσων ουν ο δουλος προσεκυνει αυτω λεγων μακροθυμησον επ εμοι και παντα αποδωσω σοι Westcott and Hort’s Greek text

Matt. 18:26 πεσων ουν ο δουλος προσεκυνει αυτω λεγων μακροθυμησον επ εμοι και παντα αποδωσω σοι Textus Receptus.

Please note that the two texts are identical, and that, therefore, the reading in the NKJV had absolutely nothing to do with Westcott and Hort.

 

[hedrick]

Matt. 18:26 πεσων ουν ο δουλος προσεκυνει αυτω λεγων μακροθυμησον επ εμοι και παντα αποδωσω σοι Westcott and Hort’s Greek text

Matt. 18:26 πεσων ουν ο δουλος προσεκυνει αυτω λεγων μακροθυμησον επ εμοι και παντα αποδωσω σοι Textus Receptus.

Please note that the two texts are identical, and that, therefore, the reading in the NKJV had absolutely nothing to do with Westcott and Hort.

Right. It's different translations of the same word. The term "worship" in King James English wasn't limited to God. It could include honor due to a human king or master. I suspect the NKJV translators thought the KJV translators didn't intend worship in the modern sense, since in the story it's a human master, and so they updated the language so it wouldn't mislead modern readers.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Right. It's different translations of the same word. The term "worship" in King James English wasn't limited to God. It could include honor due to a human king or master. I suspect the NKJV translators thought the KJV translators didn't intend worship in the modern sense, since in the story it's a human master, and so they updated the language so it wouldn't mislead modern readers.

The 1611 edition of the KJV included a note in the margin that reads, “Or, besought him.” This marginal note continued to be printed at least until 1867 in Bibles printed by Oxford University Press. It is absent in the 1917 Scofield Bible printed by Oxford University Press. It is present at least until 1898 in Bibles printed in London by Samuel Bagster and Sons. It is present in Zondervan Bibles, but not in Cambridge or Holman Bibles.

 

[GodLovesCats]

NKJV, because it capitalizes references to The Lord, including The Old Testament.

Does it also have red letters for Jesus quotes?

 

[GodLovesCats]

The six paragraphs on the meaning of the Hebrew word תַּנִּין (sea-monster) in Claus Westermann’s commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 make it abundantly clear that the lack of a reliable taxonomy is NOT what made their error possible, but that their error was due to the lack of a reliable Hebrew lexicon. Furthermore, although Westermann makes no mention of it, the anatomy of whales would make it impossible for a whale to swallow a man whole.

I think the idea that a whale swallowed Jonah came from their sizes: No fish species living today are close to the size of a blue whale. But Jesus said Jonah was in a fish, not a whale. So I am sure any version with the word "whale" is wrong.

There also is this to consider: Was Jonah a small man?

 

[Psalm 27]

Does it also have red letters for Jesus quotes?

No. That's what I need. Thanks

 

[GodLovesCats]

I know we are talking about different versions of English language Bibles, but does anyone read a Hebrew OT and Greek NT?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Different people prefer to use different bible translations as those which they find most appropriate for them. I realise that not everyone is necessarily going to agrue with each other about there own personal likes, dislikes and doctrinal understandings, but please be nice to each other and allow each other to have our differences and respect those differences. I am a someone who uses a number of different bibles, but not always for any reasons, which might be all that obvious. Some of my bibles have cross references, or study aids, which I find helpful. Some are particular translations, which I like and there are other translations which I choose not to have as I even dislike certain translations.

I don't like translations where the translators have added there own doctrinal bias to them. I guess that some might even call me a bit old fashioned in my thinking and theology, but I still have quite a fair number of modern bible translations as well. I like the king james version, but I am not one of those, who is from the king james only persusion. I also like some literal translations, but not all are particularly enjoyable to read. Some of these literal versions may be considered by some as being technically advantageous, but I can find some of these very dry to use for just reading God's word. I need to be inspired by what I read and some translations just don't do that for me. So what are your preferred translations and why?

This does not need to be too theoretical. personal preferences and likes are dislikes are good enough. I hope the everyone will feel free to just be themselves and express their own feelings, if that's what feels right! Thanks.

Like you I have a number of translations. Whenever I am doing a study I tend to use at least one literal translation (nowadays that is usually a direct translation text on internet). A Thompson Chain Reference is a must for anyone studying the Bible and I'd also have a study Bible somewhere with study notes.

For general usage, I am really impressed with the NET - highly readable and with the translation notes on every page to explain the particular choices the translators made and what the alternatives might be. Well worth it in my opinion.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I know we are talking about different versions of English language Bibles, but does anyone read a Hebrew OT and Greek NT?

LXX and 1904 Patriarchal Greek text for me.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I know we are talking about different versions of English language Bibles, but does anyone read a Hebrew OT and Greek NT?

A little bit with the aid of Hebrew /English, or Greek / English lexicons when wanting to study specific details. I know the meanings of a few Hebrew and greek words, but I would struggle to read them in the original languages. So you would not really say that I study Hebrew, or Greek at a proper level.

I have the Hebrew Greek English Interlinear Bible by Jay P Green and The Torah: A mechanical translation. I also have a Hebrew and English Old Testament by The British & Foreign Bible Society. I have a surprising number of different concordances, which are useful to ways that may not seem all that obvious at first.

I obviously have a Strong's concordance, lots of people have that one. I also have the Youngs as well (and that is useful in so far as when you look up a word as translated in the English, any differences on the original language are shown separately according to the separate words. Finally I have the Englishmans Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament and the Englishmans Greek Concordance of the New Testament both by Wigram, (these are helpful in so far as you need to look up the words in the original languages, these are coded so your can look them up using the Strongs reference numbers.

By looking these words up in the original languages, you capture all the instances where a particular word might be translated to a different word in the english. Good hebrew and greek lexicons, also give exra information on how certain words are often used differently in different portions of scripture, which can often give useful insights in to studying particular passages. I also use Figures of Speech used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, which is also very helpful at times. I don't use these all the time, except for when I suspect that there is more to discover and learn from an individual portion of scripture than is clear from just reading it.

I like Bibles with really inspired margin cross references, where one scripture portion sheds light up on another. The references in the Cambrige University Press bibles are quite good, but the references from The Oxford Universiy Press bibles are not so helpful, by comparision. I also find the references in The Companion bible very useful, but these references can in places be a bit hyper dispensational, so a little discernment may be needed if you are not of that persuation. which I am a little careful about. I about not completely against everything which is dispensational, but I'm not automatically for it either.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

A little bit with the aid of Hebrew /English, or Greek / English lexicons when wanting to study specific details. I know the meanings of a few Hebrew and greek words, but I would struggle to read them in the original languages. So you would not really say that I study Hebrew, or Greek at a proper level.

If you want to learn Greek, I recommend Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. His approach is really nice by teaching you starting with the most common words in the NT. Halfway through his workbook, you'll know or at least recognize 50% of the NT.

 

[Trusting in Him]

If you want to learn Greek, I recommend Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. His approach is really nice by teaching you starting with the most common words in the NT. Halfway through his workbook, you'll know or at least recognize 50% of the NT.

Oddly enough I already have Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek workbook. Is this the same book, or just the wookbook which goes with it. I'm not even sure how I came to get this, but I was given some books when a friend in our church died a while ago, so this might have been one those books.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Oddly enough I already have Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek workbook. Is this the same book, or just the wookbook which goes with it. I'm not even sure how I came to get this, but I was given some books when a friend in our church died a while ago, so this might have been one those books.

The paperback workbook is a bunch of exercises to do. The hardbound BBG has all of the information. When I was in seminary, the Greek book (Stephen Paine's Beginning Greek) that we had was pretty confusing as it started right out with declensions. The one thing that I did like about Paine was it started you right out on reading the first six chapters of John. But for learning Greek on your own, Mounce works far better.

 

[Trusting in Him]

The paperback workbook is a bunch of exercises to do. The hardbound BBG has all of the information. When I was in seminary, the Greek book (Stephen Paine's Beginning Greek) that we had was pretty confusing as it started right out with declensions. The one thing that I did like about Paine was it started you right out on reading the first six chapters of John. But for learning Greek on your own, Mounce works far better.

Thanks for that.

 

[GodLovesCats]

For general usage, I am really impressed with the NET - highly readable and with the translation notes on every page to explain the particular choices the translators made and what the alternatives might be. Well worth it in my opinion.

I was turned off by the NET using "creep" instead of "move" in Genesis 1. If reader input is accepted for a future update, I will make sure the publisher knows that word makes me think of Halloween, not animals.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I was turned off by the NET using "creep" instead of "move" in Genesis 1. If reader input is accepted for a future update, I will make sure the publisher knows that word makes me think of Halloween, not animals.

Each to his own. If you look at the notes at least they explain why they chose this option.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I was turned off by the NET using "creep" instead of "move" in Genesis 1. If reader input is accepted for a future update, I will make sure the publisher knows that word makes me think of Halloween, not animals.

I can't find that as a possible word in the Strongs dictionary at the back of the strongs concordance, or in the Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew / English lexicon either. I really don't think that is an appropriate english translation for the context at all.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I can't find that as a possible word in the Strongs dictionary at the back of the strongs concordance, or in the Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew / English lexicon either. I really don't think that is an appropriate english translation for the context at all.

NET is dynamic equivalence. So phrase for phrase rather than word for word. The translation notes that it is trying to convey three classifications of animal. ESV also uses creeping, while CSB uses crawl so all convey the same thing, whereas 'move' doesn't give the same impression.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Each to his own. If you look at the notes at least they explain why they chose this option.

Or in my case her.

I am aware they have those notes, but there is no way the word "creep" means "move along the ground."