• 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.

Featured Which Translation of Bible to Add?

Discussion in 'Christian Advice' started by BCubed, Sep 2, 2019.

  1. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,137
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God, but I like using the New Living Translation (NLT) when reading the Old Testament. It speaks plainly in many cases (even though there are problems in it like all Modern Translations have). The New Testament is pretty understandable in the KJV for the most part. Sometimes in Acts it is a little confusing, so then I switch to either the NLT or the AMP (Amplified Bible).

    As for reading: If you don't want to lug a heavy book around and yet you want that paper look when you read it, I would highly recommend checking out the Kindle Oasis. It looks like a regular piece of paper but it is on a small little pad that is lightweight and waterproof. I can read my Bible while I am relaxing in the bathtub. I also have taken it to church. It's great.

    https://www.amazon.com/All-new-Kindle-Oasis-now-with-adjustable-warm-light/dp/B07GRSK3HC/

    The 8gb is out of stock, but the 32 gb is in stock.
    It's a little pricey for an ebook reader, but in my opinion it is worth it if you are invested in reading as a lifetime commitment.
     
  2. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,137
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    My favorite Modern Translations are the NLT and the AMP.
    You can check them out at Biblegateway to get a feel for them.
    You can compare whole chapters of multiple translations at Biblegateway to get a flavor of what you feel is good. I just like these two particular translations (even though I know they are not always perfect). The language just speaks fluidly for me (without it completely massacring the KJV beyond recognition at every point).
     
  3. BCubed

    BCubed New Member

    28
    +3
    Baptist
    Married
    I appreciate the advice on where to check out several translations and comparing them side by side! I've spent way too long, driving myself crazy, over on biblestudytools comparing various translations side by side. Since I can't read the entire Bible in each translation side by side, I think I'm to the point I'd rather take advice from those who have spent a large amount of time in the different translations.

    Again, thank you for the advice and the links.

    BCubed
     
  4. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,137
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You are most welcome. When it comes to accuracy or truly knowing what the text says, I would still always go back and check a Modern Translation with the trusty ole KJV. It is rock solid. 47 men worked on the KJV (in 6 panels whereby they double checked or reviewed each others work). It stands as morally pure by way of comparison to other translations. But, the catch is that it is sometimes difficult to read because it is written in 1600's English. So the Modern Translations are helpful in updating in what it says.

    I would recommend checking out a Lamp in the Dark Documentary on Amazon Video.

    Amazon.com: Watch A Lamp in the Dark: Untold History of the Bible - (2009) | Prime Video
     
  5. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Keep in mind Bible Gateway advertises expanded features - and unlike CF, they do so prominently, where you can't miss it. For that reason alone I don't use BG. Bible Hub is totally free. I have an account on BST because they offer a variety of reading plans, but the popups every time I open it can't be blocked. So for me I am most comfortable using BH. But if you don't care about being told to upgrade for some money, it is perfectly fine to use BG.
     
  6. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats God Seeker

    +907
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Highlighter, that post can be repeated in separate Christian Scriptures threads. I had started one recently called "The number 7" and was surprised it got so little interest. The KJVO support debate is a hot topic in that section tooand I find it interesting you prefer 1900 Bibles instead of the original 1611 Authorized KJV so it is worth adding your opinions to those threads.

    Unfortunately, no matter how good the KJV is, it cannot be accepted as perfect for all Bible readers.
     
  7. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,137
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  8. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,137
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Here is an animated gif image that makes several points:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I note that one version you're considering is NIV. Please no.

    There are differences between "liberal" and "conservative" translations, but they are minor. NIV goes further than other conservative translation. For a list of problems, see Poor and Misleading Translation in the New International Version (NIV)

    In general terms, conservative translations see the OT as a Christian book, and where there are questions, tend to make passages easier to refer to Christ. Liberal translations try to translate books as they would have been understood by the author and in his context. The best-known example is Is 7:14. Matthew used it to describe the virgin birth. But if you use "virgin" in the OT, you end up with two virgin births, the first in Isaiah's time. Isaiah surely didn't intend that meaning.

    Note Jews tended to see OT events as patterns for current events. Thus John the Baptist was sometimes called Elijah. That doesn't mean that he was literally the same person, of course. For that reason, seeing the birth described in Is 7:14 as referring to Jesus' birth was perfectly legitimate. But if you want to know what the OT mean in its original context, the young woman that Isaiah pointed to surely didn't bear a child while still a virgin. There are other passages in the OT with similar differences.

    In the NT, there are minor differences due to theology. They're very rare, but one example is Rom 3:25. I'll talk about that in detail, but there are a few other examples (many others in NIV, of course, but I'm not considering it). This verse contains a term that refers to Jesus' sacrifice. The original is quite general in referring to sacrifice. NRSV and NIV translate "atonement," which is a term that refers generally to Christ's sacrifice, but without expressing a specific concept for how it worked. ESV and HCSB translates "propitiation," which typically refers to a human attempt to appease or conciliate a god. This is consistent with a concept of the atonement called "penal substitution." That's not the only idea of how the atonement worked, and isn't the most common one in the early church.

    The lexicon I used (Theological Dictionary of the NT) comments "It is hard to say with any clarity whether Paul in R. 3:25 is thinking of the ἱλαστήριον in particular or a means of expiation in general. Paul does not elaborate his meaning but is content with this summary statement. ... The ἱλάσκομαι contained in ἱλαστήριον naturally does not mean “to propitiate,” as though God were an object. This is excluded by the fact that it is God who has made the ἱλαστήριον what it is. In this whole context God is subject, not object. This is in keeping with Paul’s doctrine of reconciliation (→ I, 255). Only men, or the sins of men, can be object of ἱλάσκομαι (→ 314 ff.)."
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. Quasiblogo

    Quasiblogo Regular Member Supporter

    610
    +730
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Besides the KJV and NKJV, I use a Complete Jewish Bible for a fresh slant on the OT, and for an equal effect with the NT, I enjoy the JB Phillips.
     
  11. LightLoveHope

    LightLoveHope Jesus leads us to life

    979
    +205
    United Kingdom
    Baptist
    Married
    With the internet we can get almost any translation we like.
    I use the NIV, with the Net bible and ESV.
    With Bible Hub you can go to the greek or hebrew for a clearer focus.

    For instance Jesus asks Peter, do you love me? What I was unaware of Jesus asked Agape twice and then filio. This is interesting missed in the translation, Jesus is asking do you love me with the love I have for you. Peter responds all three times with filio, brotherly love. There is a profound difference here between the questions, probably missed when spoken, but not now.

    When Christ speaks to our hearts, when we are purified and made whole, we see the words differently. I would have not been able to say this in the past, but now so much more wisdom flows from the words when I did not see the emotional emphasis differences. Until our hearts become alive in Him, truly open and sensitive so much is missed. God bless you
     
  12. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 Is a little right of Atilla the Hun Supporter

    812
    +909
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I think the nkjv and the NASB are fine translations. Honestly, I think as far as translations go that’s really all you need. The difference between the NASB and the ESV is very small. And the nkjv contains some of the longer textual variants than the NASB as well as really good footnotes. Both have really good footnotes. I’m my opinion if you want to go deeper I would start looking for a good commentary on each book. Between the two translations and their respective footnotes You already have enough in the way of translation. If you wanted to add another look at Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint the Greek translation in English of the OT.
     
  13. BCubed

    BCubed New Member

    28
    +3
    Baptist
    Married
    I took the advice of many of you who told me to compare several translations side by side. I decided to compare the English Standard Version to the Christian Standard Bible to the New Revised Standard Version to the New international Version.

    I printed out 4 chapters in order to compare the 4 translations side by side: Genesis 1, Psalms 23, John 3, Ephesians 5. As I went through each of these chapters I was going to pick my favorite translation in each but it was a bit too difficult. There were parts I liked in each of the four chapters from each translation. So I then started looking at which two translations I liked best from each of the four chapters.

    Here are the results (my favorite two translations from each reading):
    Genesis 1: ESV and CSB
    Psalms 23: ESV and NRSV
    John 3: CSB and NRSV
    Ephesians 5: ESV and NIV

    Not sure what all that means but it seems like the ESV shows up the most. That may be because it's what I should be looking to get as my third different translation for study, or it may be because it's most like what I'm accustomed to...the NASB and the NKJV

    As always, I appreciate your help!

    BCubed
     
  14. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Some comments on NRSV vs ESV

    Gen 1: ESV is a traditional translation. NRSV differs in 3 places
    * In the beginning when God created vs “In the beginning God created.” The commentator I consulted thinks NRSV is more likely syntactically, and also in terms of meaning. The traditional translation says that God creates chaos and void. That seems kind of unlikely. I believe the intended meaning was that God brought the universe out of void. (This are interesting parallels with some scientific ideas about origins.)

    * The Spirit of God hovering. This is a wonderful image, but not likely to be what the author intended. The word means primarily wind. It also comes to be used as Spirit. But the concept of the spirit as an separate entity is kind of anachronistic. It would be likely in the NT, but not so much here.

    * The “expanse.” This English word doesn’t really make sense here, but tends to hide the fact that the original envisioned the heaves as a dome. The Hebrew implies beaten. e.g. metal.

    * In 1:26 God creates man. 27 makes it clear that it’s actually man and woman, but it would be clearer to use a neutral term. NRSV has “humankind.”

    This is pretty typical of the differences. ESV sticks with traditional translations. NRSV sometimes has what the translators consider a better alternative.

    John 3

    ESV and NRSV are nearly identical. Not a surprise, since both are revisions of the RSV.

    In John, one major theme is that people misunderstand Jesus. Jesus probably meant “born from above,” and “born again” was Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Jesus’ answer in 3:5 and following justify “from above,” in that it talks about where the new birth comes from. Of course it is a rebirth in either case.
     
  15. danbuter

    danbuter Member Supporter

    208
    +199
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I recommend either the CSB or the NLT. Both are good translations.
     
  16. Andrewn

    Andrewn Active Member

    441
    +150
    Canada
    Anglican
    Married
    It's the second reason for sure.

    I don't read NASB so I don't know how close it is to ESV. What I know for sure is that NKJV and ESV are very close. So close, indeed, that I stopped reading ESV. I don't dislike ESV but I prefer NKJV. And you already have NKJV.

    You probably need to compare more sections from OT.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  17. BCubed

    BCubed New Member

    28
    +3
    Baptist
    Married
    In Genesis one you're exactly correct...the phrase that really threw me off with the NRSV was, " while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." I guess growing up reading other translations I always pictured the Spirit of God hovering over the water and then when I read "a wind from God", that just really caught me by surprise.

    Thank you for the feedback!

    BCubed
     
  18. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    On the ESV: Read one of the Gospels.

    When the ESV first came out I got a copy of the Reformation Bible, which is a study edition with very nice Reformed-oriented comments, although written from a perspective that's *much* more conservative than mine.

    One thing that struck me about the Gospels was that when reading like a whole chapter I quickly became irritated by all the sentences starting "and." This is a literal translation of the Greek connective. But it's normal in Greek, and isn't normal in English. If you believe in getting the equivalent effect, but not the same words, you omit the "and." However if you read the ESV's basic principles, the translators believe that not just the meaning is inspired but the specifics about how it is expressed. So they try to reproduce sentence structure where they can without making the English unusable.

    It's actually fairly readable, surprisingly so given that principle, but at times you see it.
     
  19. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,699
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Your example of Eph 5 actually shows an ideological difference. NRSV and ESV are very similar. But notice that "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." is treated as the introduction to the section on husbands and wives in the NRSV, but is tacked onto the end of the previous sentence in the ESV. The different is subtle, but surely represents differences in views on women.

    The commentary I checked says that it's a transition between the two sections. But if you're going to break the text into sections, you have to put it in one or the other. Putting it as the start of the section on husbands and wives makes it more likely that you'll see "wives submit" as a special case of each submitting to the other.

    If it's actually a transition, there's a reasonable chance that the author would have seen mutual submission as the general principle. The Logos commentary (part of series that claims to be evangelical, but does use critical scholarship) says "As has already been pointed out, this verse is transitional, completing the series of participles which are dependent on the verb πληροῦσθε, “be filled,” from v 18, while itself providing the verbal form on which the first injunction in the following household code is dependent. This enables it to be the appropriate link between the writer’s appeal to the whole community and his advice to specific groups within it." He believes it is a general introduction to the more specific treatment of roles of different people, but that it shouldn't be so emphasized as to remove the specific relationships described for those roles.

    Interpreters go both ways. Some emphasize it so much as to basically overrule any sense of asymmetry between husband and wife. Others interpret it in the other direction. To quote the same commentary "cf. Clark, Man and Woman, 74–76, who holds that there is, therefore, no appeal for mutual subordination and that what is meant is “let each of you subordinate himself or herself to the one he or she should be subordinate to”".

    In any case it does seem that it functions as a kind of introduction to the whole topic, so it's reasonable for NRSV to place it as the first sentence of that section, even though grammatically it could well be stuck on the end of the previous sentence.

    These kinds of subtle issues are all over the place in translating. Particularly in Paul's more theological writing. If you want some real fun, compare Romans in ESV, NRSV, and CEB. ESV is going to give you a traditional Protestant understanding, and some people see a bias in the Reformed direction (based partly on the translators). NRSV will give you a view that's not so tied to Protestant tradition, but also tried to avoid any unusual approaches. CEB will give you some interesting recent ideas.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  20. CharismaticLady

    CharismaticLady Well-Known Member Supporter

    +275
    United States
    Charismatic
    Celibate
    I have the New King James Open Bible and love the Biblical Cyclopedic Index too. As translations, you have the two best versions in my opinion. My personal favorite third Bible would be the the Living Bible. It is great for reading through the Bible. It actually opened my eyes to truths I never saw before that unlocked other scriptures.

    The one NOT to even touch is the NIV. The author of the Living Bible in 10 times more knowledgable than all the authors of the NIV put together!
     
Loading...