• 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.

Which Bible is the best?

Discussion in 'Exposition & Bible Study' started by FallenDaughter, Apr 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FallenDaughter

    FallenDaughter I live in a fallen world

    60
    +2
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    I have been to several churhes through the years and have been told that x=version of the bible is the most litteral translation of the bible for a, b, abd c reasons. and every church had great reasons, but they all left me wondering which version of the bible was really the best.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. TruthMiner

    TruthMiner Veteran

    +30
    Christian
    ALL of them have deficiencies. There are 3 good things you can do:

    1. Get a copy of several translations: KJV, NASB, NAB, RSV, etc. Compare them when you study the bible.

    2. You can buy New Testaments that have 4 translations side by side.

    3. Buy and Interlinear. You don't need to know Greek to use one and it helps you understand what is what and what the Greek really says. With the 2 options above, you are always guessing or presuming.

    The last is the best option.


    The worst thing you can do is rely on an NIV translation. It is horrible for Bible study. Use it for no more than light reading.
     
  3. icxn

    icxn Bραδύγλωσσος αἰπόλος μαθητεύων κνίζειν συκάμινα

    +824
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    The one you put to practice.
     
  4. Inviolable

    Inviolable Well-Known Member

    +53
    Christian
    I would say the most accurate bible is the New International Version or the NIV.

    The King James Version was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and text that was believed to be the New Testament.

    The Septuagint is the bible the Romens had the Hebrew and Jewish scholars of the time translate from Hebrew and Jewish into Greek for them.

    The Vulgate is translated into Latin from the Septuagint.

    The King James Version is translated form the Vulgate.

    The NIV is translated from all serviving text including the dead sea scrolls and text predating the Septuagint, all the text is taken from Hebrew and Jewish text.
     
  5. TruthMiner

    TruthMiner Veteran

    +30
    Christian
    the NIV is horrible. Example: the Greek word for flesh is sarx. the concept of FLESH is very important to understanding the New Testament. Look how they translate the one word sarx:

    flesh
    body
    sinful nature
    human nature
    world

    That is just one example of many of their extreme biases.

    that is incorrect. It was NOT translated from the Vulgate.
     
  6. tel0004

    tel0004 Lost in Translation

    +81
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    You are going to get 10 different answers on this. Noboby here is that fluent in greek and aramaic and other languages they were written in, so they really cant give a qualified answer. I am KJO, in the sense that the King James verson is the only version for me, but other people differ, and I dont know enough to say otherwise.
     
  7. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ No millstone~no fear Supporter

    +11,085
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I use the Strong`s concordence so I have the King James bible because that is the one the words line up with.
    Then I have a New Revised Standard Version because it`s the least sexist.
    Then I have a paraphrase for easy reading.
     
  8. Melethiel

    Melethiel Miserere mei, Domine Supporter

    +827
    Lutheran
    Married
    ESV :cool:
     
  9. hoser

    hoser Guest

    +0
    The NIV maybe the most popular, but it is certainly NOT the best. There are many websites that you can go to see how the NIV is really a bad version of scripture.

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
    http://members.aol.com/twarren11/niv.html

    Personally, even though it is a Catholic Bible, the RSV-CE second edition is my favorite. Note that the RSV is orignially a protestant Bible, but by permission Catholics were able to improve on its text.
     
  10. kopilo

    kopilo Envisioner

    +101
    Christian
    The one which has been "modernised" the least.
     
  11. revduane

    revduane Well-Known Member

    +126
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    I use several versions as to help others new in Jesus to understand better.

    For personal use, I use the Amplified, and KJV. Rev.
     
  12. oldsage

    oldsage Veteran

    +69
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    I would say use what is comfortable for you. My preferences are as followed:

    Literal : ESV, NASB, NRSV
    Readable: NIV, ESV
    Study: ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV

    Currently my favorite version is the ESV.

    Also, literal isn't always best, because what something literally says doesn't always convey what it means in our language. Such as if I use the phrase "It is raining cats and dogs" if you don't know what a cat or dog is, this makes no sense, or if you never have heard the expression before you think cats and dogs are falling from the sky. For those saying "It is raining very hard" may make better sense of the phrase.

    I say find one you think you enjoy reading and read through that, when you finished, see about getting another version and read that and so on.

    Blessings,
    Chris
     
  13. Inviolable

    Inviolable Well-Known Member

    +53
    Christian
    Hey I have links as well!

    They say what I said about the NIV.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

    http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/15.php

    http://www.ibs.org/aboutibs/index.php

    Its funny how all the Catholics say they dont like it because it wasnt translated correctly and then point out how accurate the Catholic bible is.
    Because no Catholic had a part in the translation of the NIV.
    However.

    Over 20 different denominations took part in the translation.
    All Protestants.
    Over 100 scholars helped in the translation and 6 countries.

    The NIV is the first bible to be translated from sources other then Catholic sinse the 6th century.

    From the Vulgate to the King James version there has only been 3 bibles not translated entirely by Catholics.
    Thats saying quite a bit.

    I'm not saying I have anything against Catholics. I know it entirely seems that way. But I am not pointing out personal beliefes. I am pointing out facts.
     
  14. oldsage

    oldsage Veteran

    +69
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    um, sarx can mean all those things

    Blessings,
    Chris
     
  15. TruthMiner

    TruthMiner Veteran

    +30
    Christian
    Um no.

    It does not mean all those things. Please explain how flesh means "world." And there is no such thing as a "sinful nature" in the Bible. That is a Reformed theological term.

    I don't need any translators to do me a favor and stick their denominational bias into a translation. It is disturbing that men would do such a thing.

    They could have just put in the word "flesh" and there is no reason they couldn't have done that. But no, they wanted to flaunt their creedal beliefs and think they are doing God a favor.
     
  16. Inviolable

    Inviolable Well-Known Member

    +53
    Christian
    Umm, yeah.

    I dont need any Catholics to do me a favor and use the translation the Pope agrees on and then think they are doing God a favor.

    I am sure however that all 20 denominations that translated the NIV were flaunting their ability to translate Hebrew and Jewish text.
    Also the 100 different people decided to get together and hold a flaunt or no flaunt conference.
    The cost of travel was well worth having 100 people flown from the 6 different countries it was translated from to discuss their flauntieness.
     
  17. oldsage

    oldsage Veteran

    +69
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Because langauge has changed so can terms we use in the bible, if the idea of a 'sinful nature' is believed to be taught by the bible and the translators put is in there reflecting what they believe the passage is saying, so be it. Every translation you read is laced with translational bias' There isn't any getting around that.

    For example in Col 2:17 it has this in these translations:
    ESV Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

    NET Colossians 2:17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!

    KJV Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

    and I disagree with each of these translations. My translation would read:
    ME Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of things to come, but let the body of Christ.

    the KJV adds a verb there and others to me distort the meaning of the passage by putting 'reality' or 'substance', instead of 'body'

    This is the only place where the translators stray from how they translated the same phrase in other parts of the bible.

    Now with that said, they are still correct in their translation, it can mean the things they say it does, I just disagree with them because of my theology as opposed to theirs, and this will happen in all translations.

    Now, I would have to see where the NIV translates 'sarx' as world in their text to see why they did it. I didn't see it translated as that in the text when I did a quick scan of it. My guess without reading the text is because it may mean 'people' of the world, not the 'earth'

    Chris
     
  18. TruthMiner

    TruthMiner Veteran

    +30
    Christian
    And they couldn't just translate it as "flesh" why? After all "flesh" is the equivalent English word to the Greek sarx.
     
  19. oldsage

    oldsage Veteran

    +69
    Christian
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    That is the problem, it may be 'equivalent' with many English words.
    'sarx' falls under these Semantic Domains:
    • Body, Body Parts, and Body Products
    • People
    • Kinship Terms
    • Physiological Processes and States
    • Psychological Faculties
    • Nature, Class, Example
    so to say it just means 'flesh' is incorrect.

    Chris
     
  20. TruthMiner

    TruthMiner Veteran

    +30
    Christian
    Only in your theological preconception.

    And that is the problem.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...