Which Bible version?

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby bn2bnude » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:50 pm

balaam wrote:
jochanaan wrote:*There is no issue of copyright. While "fair use" most likely applies when quoting on a forum like this one, I'd rather not take any chances.
KJV is still under perpetual copyright of the British crown. If copyright is a problem, the NET Bible has been published under Creative Commons. Quote as much as you like as long as you don't change the text.

The World English Bible is under a similar license as the NET Bible.
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby c.o. » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:58 am

To the topic question, i have found that any particular English translation, or even paraphrase, will not enlighten the understanding as much as biblical exposition of Scripture will.

It's one thing to read, reread, memorize and meditate on what i've read. It's another thing entirely for skilled biblical historians and linguists to combine knowledge of the original languages, grammatical structures, and what can be known from history and eastern cultures, and bring such light to bear on any phrase, verse, paragraph, passage, chapter, book or division of the Bible.

While such exposition cannot answer all the questions we may have, it enhances our understanding.

God is able to get his points across with Balaam's ass, Jonah's fish taxi, wooden beams, iron spikes and an empty tomb. The microscopic-to-telescopic universe declares His glory. We were all dead in trespasses and sins, requiring the "resurrection" of our souls by the Spirit to even begin to understand godly things. I thank and praise God for ANY means by which He draws His people closer to Truth, no matter what "version."
Life will leave me with what i deserve.
Grace never will.
User avatar
c.o.
Native Resident
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:47 am
Location: suburban Chicago

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby bn2bnude » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:41 am

c.o. wrote:To the topic question, i have found that any particular English translation, or even paraphrase, will not enlighten the understanding as much as biblical exposition of Scripture will.

It's one thing to read, reread, memorize and meditate on what i've read. It's another thing entirely for skilled biblical historians and linguists to combine knowledge of the original languages, grammatical structures, and what can be known from history and eastern cultures, and bring such light to bear on any phrase, verse, paragraph, passage, chapter, book or division of the Bible.

I would agree and disagree...

We do have to dig into scripture. On the other hand, I believe that some of the harder versions to get thru, say, the KJV, make things easier to distort if that is your goal. As a long time computer professional, "GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out" has been a long time watchword. To someone well trained, I suspect that version doesn't matter. Getting well trained, however, is difficult. That is a case of wanting to learn.
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby bn2bnude » Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:12 am

balaam wrote:This is an English language forum, and there are a great number of Bibles around, so which one is best. People who speak more than one language have even more choice.

Although there are definitely opinionated people out there, some who will tell you that the version they prefer is the ONLY one that a Christian should read, it really is a subjective question...

I think I first heard Hank Hannegraff say this but, "The best Bible version is the one you read".

There are so many things that go into a modern Bible translation. The two major considerations are:
1) What manuscripts are used?
2) Is the version Word for word (formal equivalent) or thought for thought (dynamic equivalent)?

This page has a lengthy but interesting guide to translations.

All that said, I would recommend a some books to help on a more "macro" level as you read or study...

1) "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" by Gordon Fee & Douglass Stuart
2) "How to read the Bible Book by Book: A guided tour" by Gordon Fee & Douglass Stuart
3) "How to read the Bible through the Jesus Lense" by Michael Williams
4) "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes" by Richards & O'Brien
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby Ramblinman » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:00 pm

bn2bnude wrote:
balaam wrote:This is an English language forum, and there are a great number of Bibles around, so which one is best. People who speak more than one language have even more choice.

Although there are definitely opinionated people out there, some who will tell you that the version they prefer is the ONLY one that a Christian should read, it really is a subjective question...

I think I first heard Hank Hannegraff say this but, "The best Bible version is the one you read".

May I add to that?
"The best Bible version is the one you read with comprehension"
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby balaam » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:29 pm

Even word for word tanslations have to take in to account idiomatic usage.

If someone in England said to you, "I could murder an Indian," would you
  1. Call the police because of his racist and homicidal inclinations.
  2. Direct him to a South Asian restaurant.
The answer is b, In the idiomatic usage which is understood in the UK, but may not be in other English speaking areas, the phrase 'I could murder an Indian' actually means 'I have a desire for South Asian food.'

That is a problem the translators have, especially as the New Testament was not written in formal Greek, but in Koine Greek, The language of the ordinary poeple. We should expect slang and idiomatic usage because of this. Also Paul in his letters uses irony, Elijah used sarcasm word for word does not translate irony and sarcasm well.

That said my main Bible, the ESV, is about as far up the word for word scale as it is possible to get without the translation being too American for me, nothing against American English, but I was neither brought up on it or taught it in school. But I check out other versions to check for idiomatic or ironic use. For in depth study one translation is not enough.
Fearfully and wonderfully mad
Love the dinner, hate the din.
balaam
Native Resident
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:04 pm
Location: The hub of the Multiverse (West Yorkshire)

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby Ramblinman » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:32 pm

balaam wrote:Even word for word tanslations have to take in to account idiomatic usage.

If someone in England said to you, "I could murder an Indian," would you
  1. Call the police because of his racist and homicidal inclinations.
  2. Direct him to a South Asian restaurant.
The answer is b, In the idiomatic usage which is understood in the UK, but may not be in other English speaking areas, the phrase 'I could murder an Indian' actually means 'I have a desire for South Asian food.'

That is a problem the translators have, especially as the New Testament was not written in formal Greek, but in Koine Greek, The language of the ordinary poeple. We should expect slang and idiomatic usage because of this. Also Paul in his letters uses irony, Elijah used sarcasm word for word does not translate irony and sarcasm well.

That said my main Bible, the ESV, is about as far up the word for word scale as it is possible to get without the translation being too American for me, nothing against American English, but I was neither brought up on it or taught it in school. But I check out other versions to check for idiomatic or ironic use. For in depth study one translation is not enough.

I prefer explanatory footnotes in a somewhat literal translation rather than using anachronistic figures of speech in a looser translation.
The reader should be given the opportunity to learn context and a bit of culture rather than hammering the translation into some crude paraphrase.

As for the United Kingdom, I discovered that many Scots and Welsh and some Cornish take exception to being called "English".
And the same goes for calling people in the Southern United States, "Yanks".

I'll share a rather amusing story from my own visit to the UK.
I made a last-minute phone call to the proprietor of a guest cottage, advising him that I would arrive at the train station wearing "white pants".
He laughed and said, "Then I shall have no difficulty locating you".
When we met in person, he told me that the word pants is commonly used to mean "underpants" in England, but he had enough contact with Americans to expect white trousers rather than underpants.
I laughed with him and said that we often wear white in the hotter months, and indeed the weather was blazing hot back home as summer was already upon us.
I arrived in England to grey skies and a distinct chill in the air; most of the people I saw were wearing rather dark colors, so I thought that my white shirt and pants and brightly colored shoes would give him a hint of how to find me. :biggrin:
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: Which Bible version?

Postby Bare_Truth » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:32 pm

In Response to Maverick's post about the LEB translation, an example (last post of page 1 of this strip) which ought to have resonance with folks here is.


The following example has been discussed here but without the simplicity and ease that the LEB offers.
Exodus 32:25

King James Version (KJV)
25 ¶And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)
Lexham English Bible (LEB)

25
And Moses saw the people, that they were running wild because Aaron had allowed them to run wild, for a laughingstock among ⌞their enemies⌟.

I am seeing where this Lexham English Bible has some serious value as a Bible Study Aid

----------More on the LEB at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexham_English_Bible--------------

Also, the question I posed elsewhere about 1Cor 5:1

In the KJV,In 1Cor 5:1 Paul wrote: 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. ;
Does that mean that Christians cannot even use the words "Homosexuality" or "Zoophilia" etc. or instead does it mean that no Christian should ever give cause to be accused of that.
In the Lexham English Bible the verse reads as:
In theLEB, In 1Cor 5:1 Paul" wrote: 1
It is reported everywhere that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind which does not even exist among the Gentiles,


It clearly means that these sins are not to exist among the saints either, but somehow the idiom "Not be named" was interpreted as the words cannot be said as even in giving instruction to avoid it, and thus the sin of homosexuality and others became sins that could not even be mentioned by Christians...... By the time of the mid 1800's it became as if somehow would make these horrid vices go away, thereby attaching some sort of magic power to naming or not naming the sins as the horrid vices that they are. It was as if the old saw, of "Speak of the devil and he is sure to appear" was an actual truth instead of the superstition that it is. The LEB seems to have shown this idiom for the error it is/induces.

Such an error of not naming sins for what they are is as if the ploy of the devil is taken from George Orwell's concept of "newspeak" taken from the Novel 1984, a new language where the words which address the matters of evil that we need to condemn are eliminated so that no one can even talk about them to know that they exist.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Previous

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron