Which Translation of Bible to Add?

[Andrewn]

Which translation in Eph 5 do you prefer?
1
23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
2
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
3
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head and Savior of the church, which is His body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
4
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
5
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
6
23 because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
7
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he himself is the Savior. 24 Moreover, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.

 

[hedrick]

To have a helpful preference you need to know what it actually says. The Greek is literally "[and is] himself the savior of the body." Like every other passage, there's been lots of discussion about the meaning, but in context it is probably the body of the Church, not a generic body. Oddly, none of the translations has the obvious "and is himself the savior of its body." The closest is "the body of which he is the Savior," so I'd prefer that. However I'm not a fan of pious capital letters. They're not in the original.

The major difference in 24 is between "subject to' and "submit to." They're similar, but I think the connotations are different. It's a Greek term that can indicate being under someone's orders in a military sense, and hierarchy. The normal translation is "subject to." I think "submit to" pushes submission beyond what the text requires. So I'd prefer 1, 2, and 4, which are essentially the same.

So overall, I think 1 and 2 are most accurate. Not surprising, of course. One is NRSV. I can't identify the other.

 

[BCubed]

Which translation in Eph 5 do you prefer?

Wow...I love this - having to decide without know which translation they are! It's tough!

I know what my heart believes, I know what sounds the best to me, I know what really happens with my wife and I (none of them), I don't really know which one is more accurate based on original meanings, but I'll do my best!

I would say 3 is my favorite, 2 being my second favorite, 5 being my third favorite, and 1 being my next favorite!

Thank you for putting it up this way - really takes any bias I may have towards a particular translation out of the equation.

There should be a website that has a person do this using multiple passages from the Bible and then at the end it would tell them which translation is a best fit for him/her!

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to post this!

BCubed

 

[hedrick]

The disadvantage of "which translation do you prefer" is that it's likely to be the one that agrees with you think the text means. But in practice this means that translation you're used to. But suppose you're wrong? You need to start by looking at a commentary on the Greek, and then try to understand why the translations differ.

 

[Andrewn]

I would say 3 is my favorite with 5 being my second favorite and 1/2 (I think these two are identical) being my third favorite!

#1 is NRSV, #3 is MEV (a modern revision of KJV), #5 is ESV. Sorry, I pasted NRSV twice. Now, I edited the post and pasted NASB under #2.

There should be a website that has a person do this using multiple passages from the Bible and then at the end it would tell them which translation is a best fit for him/her!

That would be nice.

 

[BCubed]

The disadvantage of "which translation do you prefer" is that it's likely to be the one that agrees with you think the text means.

Very true. With having the two translations I'm accustom to (NASB / NKJV), I tried to read those seven passages for ease of reading and clarity. With my next translation purchase I would like to be able to read through passages once or twice and have clarity about what it's saying....when I have to read through passages 5 or 6 times because of the wording in order to understand what the passage is meaning (not what God is meaning by the passage) I tend to get frustrated.

Since this is a very popular passage maybe I was swayed by what I've read/preferred in the past. Wonder what would have happened if it were a passage I wasn't as familiar with.

You made an excellent point!

#1 is NRSV, #3 is MEV (a modern revision of KJV), #5 is ESV. Sorry, I pasted NRSV twice. Now, I edited the post and pasted NASB under #2.
That would be nice.

After you made your changes I took a look at them again and changed my response, not based on knowing what the translations are, but based on reading them again as if I didn't know the translations.

#3 was still my favorite with #2 now 2nd, #5 third, and #1 fourth.

Sounds like a great side project for you...create an app/website that would do just that!

Any chance you can put up a couple more of these from various parts of the Bible?

Again, thank you for putting up that post....it really made me think and analyze each one with a biased towards one or the other!

BCubed

 

[Andrewn]

Here are 2 verses from 1Pe 3:

1

21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the body but the guarantee of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He went to heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

2

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

3

21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

4

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

5

21 Figuratively this is like baptism, which also saves us now. It is not washing off the dirt from the body, but a response to God from a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.

6

21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

7

21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

 

[hedrick]

21. There seem to be two issues here: prefigured, corresponded, etc. The Greek word is antitype. The concept is that the original (saving in the ark) serves as a model or example of baptism. Prefigured would be the clearest term for this. The other wording, involving corresponded, etc, is not as clear. NLT has "And that water is a picture of baptism", which is a pretty free translation, but gives the sense. (I disagree with their handling of the other two issues, though.)

The second issue has ideological implication, because it's the function of baptism. Louw and Nida say the term is generally request or appeal. Hence "but baptism … is a request to God for a good conscience." But they note that it can also be ‘a promise made to God from a good conscience.’ It's not clear what the basis of this is, since they refer to a different word in the explanation. TDNT says it's closer to prayer, "Not the putting away of outward filth, but prayer to God for a good conscience"

Not being a Greek scholar myself, I conclude that most likely "appeal" or "prayer".

6 is the only translation with both of these. Not surprisingly, this is the NRSV.

22. The translations are pretty much the same, except for (1)'s slightly weird "gone to heaven," which isn't the obvious translation of the Greek, and has some theological disadvantages.

 

[BCubed]

Here are 2 verses from 1Pe 3

I didn't expect you to, but I truly appreciate you doing that again - it really makes me think about what is understandable to me!

In this group I'd say #4 is my first choice, #1 is my second choice, and #2 is my third choice.

Again, without knowing the original meaning of the texts I'm going with ease of reading and understanding of what is written.

Thank you again for doing this a second time!!!

BCubed

 

[BCubed]

Quick question, a bit off topic...I watched a video talking about the various translations and it said that the older NASB Bibles (as well as the ESV) have certain verses removed that were in the original text. The person said that the NASB gradually put these verse back in through various updates.

Is this the case?

My New American Standard Bible by Nelson ('The Open Bible Expanded Edition') was made in 1985. So I'm wondering if it's missing some of the scripture that was in the original text.

I also just found a 2004 version of the Life Application Study Bible in the NLT translation that I had forgotten I purchased about 15 years ago. My NKJV is a Nelson Study Bible from 2007.

hedrick (and whoever would like to respond)...would you say the NLT is better than the NIV even though I believe it is closer to a paraphrase?

Thanks again for all the help and guidance!!!

BCubed

 

[hedrick]

Here's a list of verses that were probably not present in the original, but were added later, and are part of the traditional Greek text. Most modern translations don't include them. I wouldn't say they're omitted, but rather that the traditional text adds them. Usually the oldest manuscripts don't have them. List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia. That web page has a chart showing what translations include which passages.

I checked a few (but not anywhere near all) in NASB95 and either they are omitted or are in brackets.

One of the basic characteristics of the NKJV is that it uses the same text as the KJV. Thus it includes all of the added passages.

You'll find lots of threads in CF about these passages. Plenty of people consider the KJ, or at least the Greek text it used, to be the most accurate. Many people consider it inspired.

 

[hedrick]

I've been looking for a good comparative review of the accuracy of ESV and NRSV (the obvious comparison because both are formal equivalent translations based on the RSV). I haven't found anything really good. But I did find the following, which I think illustrates the issue: ESV vs. NRSV: Why the appropriate niche of the NRSV is the secular university

His view seems to be "who cares what the OT meant back in OT times; we want a Bible that says what modern Christians have come to believe. Nobody but secular academics could care about the original meaning."

Incidentally, he gives the example of "temptations" vs "test" in the Lord's prayer, claiming that no one is ever going to change the Lord's prayer. Well, the Pope just did, and our church is going through this discussion now. One of our pastors doesn't like 'lead us not into temptation," since it implies that God tempts people. The original word has a range of meanings, and probably doesn't really mean temptation here. NRSV translates "And do not bring us to the time of trial," which is probably the actual intention. (ESV, of course, gives the traditional interpretation.)

The PCUSA Worshipbook contains both the traditional text and a text prepared by an ecumenical committee on liturgical texts (the English Language Liturgical Consultation). They translate "Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil." That's defensible, and would be preferred by most congregations, but the NRSV is probably the most accurate.

 

[hedrick]

So what does it mean? If 'request to God for a good conscience is right", Hermeneia suggests that if this is the translation, perhaps the meaning is "To understand the phrase as defining baptism made salvific by its relationship to the risen Christ in terms of the baptisand’s prayer to God that he or she may hold fast to a sound consciousness of God and so act appropriately"

TDNT says "In 1 Pt. συνείδησις ἀγαθή again seem to be a formula for the Christian life, 3:16." Hence on the basis of our baptism, and being connected with Christ's resurrection (cf Rom 6), we request God to give us a sound Christian life. The TDNT author suggests comparing with Ps 50:12 (LXX) "Create in me a new heart oh God, and put a new and right spirit within me"

 

[BCubed]

I believe this is the true meaning of Baptism.

What were the translations for #4, #1, and #2 from the scriptures at the top of the page? The one you were gracious enough to add.

Thank you again!

BCubed

 

[Andrewn]

In this group I'd say #4 is my first choice, #1 is my second choice, and #2 is my third choice.

#4 is CSB. #1 is EHV. #2 is ESV.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON​

As per the Christian Advice Statement of Purpose direct your replies to the thread OP who is BCubed. Do not use this forum to debate or discuss with other members in the thread.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[BCubed]

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.

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

I appreciate the link....plan on watching it later today!

Are there any current translations you feel are anywhere close to the accuracy of the KJV, but simpler to read?

I ask because after looking at my copies of the study bibles I currently have: NASB, the NLT, and the NKJV; my old eyes are really having a problem concentrating on the text because of the size of print, even with reading glasses on, so I'm thinking of getting a larger print translation (non study) of the Bible. Whether it's the same translation I currently have or something new, I really need something with larger print.

Thanks for the help!!!

BCubed

 

[Andrewn]

Are there any current translations you feel are anywhere close to the accuracy of the KJV, but simpler to read?

MEV (Modern English Version) Bible Giant-Print, Imitation Leather, Black

 

[hedrick]

updated King James, based on the traditional Greek.

 

[BCubed]

MEV (Modern English Version) Bible Giant-Print, Imitation Leather, Black

Thanks for the recommendation and the link!

I'm not familiar at all with the MEV but I'll definitely look into it further!!!

updated King James, based on the traditional Greek.

Is there a specific date in which the updated KJV occurred or will it say updated in the description?

Thank you!

BCubed