Which translation do you use and why?

[Philip]

By inerrant it is meant that historical events, as an example, actually occurred.

In that case, no, we don't. It is commonly accepted that the Books of the Maccabees are not entirely accurated historically - they are embelished to make certain points. The same is true for Tobit. Many take this to be a 'theological novel'.

I think now I also understand what the Orthodox priest may have said to you. To some people, historical inaccuracies can be stumbling blocks. I can understand an Orthodox priest stating that he would have prefered if this challenge had not been place infront of those people.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For word-level studies, I enjoy using the NASB which is a very literal translation and use the KJV and NRSV for comparison.

For more casual reading of the bible, I use the NIV. I find The Message is also useful for a different perspective that is highly interpretated.

 

[DailyBlessings]

My two home copies are the NIV and the New American Bible. I appreciate both for their clarity, and the Catholic bible for it's excellent footnotes and commentary. Both were given to me as a child/student- I've never selected a Bible of my own. Now that the various Bible translations are available online, I like to compare several versions when contemplating a given verse.

 

[Edial]

In that case, no, we don't. It is commonly accepted that the Books of the Maccabees are not entirely accurated historically - they are embelished to make certain points. The same is true for Tobit. Many take this to be a 'theological novel'.

I think now I also understand what the Orthodox priest may have said to you. To some people, historical inaccuracies can be stumbling blocks. I can understand an Orthodox priest stating that he would have prefered if this challenge had not been place infront of those people.

I understand now more. These do have historical inaccuracies.
This brings up the follow up question.
Do the Orthodox churches that DO accept these books as inspired consider the other books (66 books) as inerrant? (But this is a non-question on my part, since there are no proven historical discrepancies in them. But I will ask anyway because something does not fit in my understanding).

 

[Philip]

I understand now more. These do have historical inaccuracies.

Agreed.

Do the Orthodox churches that DO accept these books as inspired consider the other books (66 books) as inerrant? (But this is a non-question on my part, since there are no proven historical discrepancies in them. But I will ask anyway because something does not fit in my understanding).

There is no official position. Many Orthodox do take them to be completely correct historically. Others don't. In general, most don't care. If there were some proven historic error, it would not affect our understanding of the Scriptures.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I use the NIV, NASB, and KJV mostly. I refer to other translations when I study as well. I don't think any one is much better than the other (but there are advantages and disadvantages to each), but use them all because I cannot read the Bible in the original languages yet. So the more translations I read, I feel I can get a better idea of what the original text says.

 

[Edial]

Agreed.

OK. These books do have historical inaccuracies.

There is no official position. Many Orthodox do take them to be completely correct historically.

So, if they DO take them to be inerrant and understand that the other books are errant then they should not say that both sets of books are identical as far as the divine inspiration is concerned.
I do understand that they say it. However, this is an incorrect statement, since they themselves present the distinction between the books.
The Armenian priest I spoke agreed with it, although I did not know all this concerning their views on whether errors were or were not there.

Others don't. .

But they cannot prove that the 66 books of the Scriptures have historical errors. In 3000 years many great minds tried proving that, but could not.
So their view is not supported by facts.
I

n general, most don't care. If there were some proven historic error, it would not affect our understanding of the Scriptures.

This is a good statement.
However, this still does not change the fact that the 66 books are inerrant yet the others do have errors in them.
This is very interesting.
It appears to me that the 2nd and a 3rd types presume that the divine inspiration can include errors.
Do you believe this is the case becasue they see some errors in the traditional Christianity yet consider it to be divine and inspired by God?
(I am not trying to "start a fight" here. I am trying to understand).
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I use the NIV, NASB, and KJV mostly. I refer to other translations when I study as well. I don't think any one is much better than the other (but there are advantages and disadvantages to each), but use them all because I cannot read the Bible in the original languages yet. So the more translations I read, I feel I can get a better idea of what the original text says.

This is an excellent post that covers all the aspects.
Thanks,
Ed

 

[AVBunyan]

I use the AV1611 for I believe it to be the pure and infallible word of God. Plus this book has been responsible for the most revivals and missioanry work ever - why change or seek to update what has been working so well?

God bless

 

[Edial]

My two home copies are the NIV and the New American Bible. I appreciate both for their clarity, and the Catholic bible for it's excellent footnotes and commentary. Both were given to me as a child/student- I've never selected a Bible of my own. Now that the various Bible translations are available online, I like to compare several versions when contemplating a given verse.

Thia is an excellent start, great method and a good thinking approach.
If you like computers there are wonderful software packages that will do what you do AND also compare it to the original laguages (Greek and Hebrew).
But your appraoach is very good.
There is one thing concerning the commentaries. Believe it or not, but many commentaries are not really objective. Each denomination and group are kind of "pulling for their side" - Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, King James Only, Calvinists (New Jeneva Bible), Charismatics, on and on.
You can either do word studies or at least compare commentaries.
You can find many on-line commentaries. If there is a significant difference (and you'll find these more often than you wish) - time for a research and questions.
Thanks,
Ed
Thanks,
Ed

 

[DrBubbaLove]

NAB for easier reading and study in language I understand and the commentaries. It is a Catholic version, but the commentaries in this particular NAB are the same no matter what version you buy and was done by committee that contained both Catholics and non-Catholics. So the views represented are not always Catholic, but I like the fact that it presents alternative views. In fact they often say things like, "in the opinion of" or "many theologians" or "most" or "some theologians". So I find this commentary some what less biased toward any particular faith. However, that is both good and bad, depending on how well one is grounded in your own faith.
I like KJV for memory and some public reading/singing due to it being a much more poetic rendering of many verses.

 

[Edial]

I use the AV1611 for I believe it to be the pure and infallible word of God. Plus this book has been responsible for the most revivals and missioanry work ever - why change or seek to update what has been working so well?

God bless

KJV is an excellent translation.
I personally cannot read it due to the older English. But many grew up on it and "turned out" to be decent Christians.

Some also accept it to be pure, infallible and inerrant.

But the purity factor cannot apply, since the Scriptures are inspired in the original authographs (original languages).
(Anyone that speaks more than one language knows that it is impossible to translate many words with a complete meaning).

However, the text is true. There are also some known textual problems (especially in the Revelation), but as a whole it is very good.
Besides, as long as we know about the problems - no problem.
KJV is true and inerrant (like in lacking historical errors).
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Knowledge3]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.) Is one more accurate (or better) than another? I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

I stick with the Original Concordia NIV and read the NKJV. Whether Bibles are more accurate than the other is translated by each individual in terms of Spirit.

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it? Do you think it is it inspired by God?

The Scripture that comes to mind is Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied about these men..So I think Jude is a definite supplement of divine inspiration.

 

[SPALATIN]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.) Is one more accurate (or better) than another? I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it? Do you think it is it inspired by God?

I actually prefer the ESV (English Standard Version) It is better than most of the ones you have listed but is comparable to both the NIV and NASB. I deplore the KJV as a translation because it has many weaknesses in it's direct translation from the most original manuscripts available in that day. Especially in the Old Testament.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Thia is an excellent start, great method and a good thinking approach.
If you like computers there are wonderful software packages that will do what you do AND also compare it to the original laguages (Greek and Hebrew).
But your appraoach is very good.
There is one thing concerning the commentaries. Believe it or not, but many commentaries are not really objective. Each denomination and group are kind of "pulling for their side" - Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, King James Only, Calvinists (New Jeneva Bible), Charismatics, on and on.
You can either do word studies or at least compare commentaries.
You can find many on-line commentaries. If there is a significant difference (and you'll find these more often than you wish) - time for a research and questions.
Thanks,
Ed
Thanks,
Ed

Thank you for the advice- I'd been thinking of getting software to compare verses to the original language, but I figure if I really wanted to understand the implications and nuances of the original text, I'd simply have to learn the Greek and Hebrew and so forth. Both are on my "languages to learn" list, but not terribly near the top.

I'm well aware of the nature of commentaries! It's part of the reason I like those in the NAB, they tend to be less agenda-pushing and unexpectedly honest about some things (such as debates over authorship and date).

 

[Edial]

NAB for easier reading and study in language I understand and the commentaries. It is a Catholic version, but the commentaries in this particular NAB are the same no matter what version you buy and was done by committee that contained both Catholics and non-Catholics. So the views represented are not always Catholic, but I like the fact that it presents alternative views. In fact they often say things like, "in the opinion of" or "many theologians" or "most" or "some theologians". So I find this commentary some what less biased toward any particular faith. However, that is both good and bad, depending on how well one is grounded in your own faith.
I like KJV for memory and some public reading/singing due to it being a much more poetic rendering of many verses.

Hello there.
If Christians would try to be objective concerning the Bible and put the denominations 2nd - the world will spin with less bumps.
Agree with you,
Ed

 

[Philip]

So, if they DO take them to be inerrant and understand that the other books are errant then they should not say that both sets of books are identical as far as the divine inspiration is concerned.

We are not concerned with the historical errors in the Deuterocanon because we do not believe they are intended to be historically accurate.

This is a good statement.
However, this still does not change the fact that the 66 books are inerrant yet the others do have errors in them.

They do not contain doctrinal errors. I am not sure that historical inaccuracies are properly called errors since the books were never intended to be historical documents.

Do you believe this is the case becasue they see some errors in the traditional Christianity yet consider it to be divine and inspired by God?

Could you restate this? I not quite sure what you mean.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. KJV is an excellent translation.

2. But the purity factor cannot apply, since the Scriptures are inspired in the original authographs (original languages).

Hi Ed - thanks for your response.

1. Thanks - and Amen

2. Question - where does it say that only the originals are inspired? According to II Tim. 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration. In vs. 15 we see Timothy had some scriptures and according to vs. 16 - they are inspired.
Question - did Timothy have the originals?

God bless

 

[Edial]

Thank you for the advice- I'd been thinking of getting software to compare verses to the original language, but I figure if I really wanted to understand the implications and nuances of the original text, I'd simply have to learn the Greek and Hebrew and so forth. Both are on my "languages to learn" list, but not terribly near the top.

I'm well aware of the nature of commentaries! It's part of the reason I like those in the NAB, they tend to be less agenda-pushing and unexpectedly honest about some things (such as debates over authorship and date).

When I teach I use Greek and Hebrew, yet I do not speak the languages.
I thought of learning these, but the tools of today are so great and efficient that a simple navigation will reveal a much more linguistic data that one would get by spending years in language studies.
I found this approach much more efficient and much less prone to errors.
I speak 3 other languages and I know the futility of learning something new in order to apply it to a highly complex book regardless of the fact that the Koine Greek is easy.
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

We are not concerned with the historical errors in the Deuterocanon because we do not believe they are intended to be historically accurate.

...

They do not contain doctrinal errors. I am not sure that historical inaccuracies are properly called errors since the books were never intended to be historical documents.

The inspiration of God includes a complete inerrancy in all aspects. The 66 books are inerrant in all aspects.
One of the tests of inspiration is inerrancy.
Although the Bible is not intended to be a historical book it contains historical data.
In the Book of the Mormons there are plenty of historical errors - so it fails the inspiration factor.
Whatever God reveals must contain no error.
I understand now.
Thanks.

Could you restate this? I not quite sure what you mean.

What I mean is this.
I know many Orthodox, myself included (an ex-Orthodox), that somehow believed that the traditions that we use outside of the Bible are inspired by God , yet are fallible.
Therefore I was somehow accepting that God reveals in a fallable way.

Therefore, one can figure - if God's traditions can contain errors so can the Bible.

So, if one is closer to a tradition than he will somehow accept the fallability of God's revelation, which includes inerrancy, since he believes that the traditions contain errors, yet are inspired by God.
Therefore, the Bible (whuch is inspired by God) also must contain errors. Futhermore, since the additional books do contain errors (proven errors) it does not disqualify them from a divine inspiration, since if the traditions are inspired (despite of errors) then all that is inspired CAN contain error.
And it does not really matter whether the 66 books contain errors, because they can.
And the fact that it was not proven to be so does not matter.

But if this is the case, then our original argument needs to be re-addressed, since if the divine inspiration includes inerrancy then indeed the 66 books ARE different from the additional books.

Thanks,
Ed