bible translations

[crossalchemist]

Dude, bible versions. This became a real issue with one of my past churches. They used some wierd version that translated a verse in Isaiah so that it said it was God's fault man sinned in the first place. There was a battle and they refused to change to a different version because they liked it that it said that. ....

Personally I carry around a NASB pocket bible. I find it helps me a lot in understanding (don't ask me why a literal trans helps me understand better then a nonliteral, I don't understand it either). I also use on occasion the KJV. Sometimes when you are quoting Scripture it just sounds cooler in the Old English.

Funny story about the NIV, back in high school we used to (jokingly) call it the Nearly Inspired Version, because at the time there were tons of articles comming out showing where it mistranslates text and about how it not only translates the bible for you but also interprets (that's how it's an easier read than a literal translation) for you. Personally I didn't care that much until they came out with the TNIV which lead to my personal banning of all books published by Zondervan and the IBS. I won't say more because I don't want this thread to get closed on account of me, but if you want to know more you can PM me. I'm not knocking the NIV either, I have a few different copies of it myself and quote it to help people who have trouble understanding what a specific passage is talking about. (Parallel Bibles are the awesome!)

Also, yes there is a Klingon Translation. Is there really a 1337 version? I must get my hands on one!

[Slater]

oh noes, not this thread again... MEDIC!

BTW, KJV

[Raiden no Kishi]

Here's the breakdown as I understand it.

Paraphrases [the Message etc.] ~ these are the most loosely translated . . . er, translations . . . and they're best for casual reading, as they will likely be the most smoothly written. However, I wouldn't recommend them for serious study, as they are the furthest [generally] from the original translations. I, personally, wouldn't use paraphrases at all because I'm a stickler for my Bible being spot-on accurate in its translation, but I can see a use for them.

Thought-for-thought [NIV etc.] ~ these are closer to the original manuscripts, and are good for getting the general idea of a passage, if not the particularly specific meaning. My pastor uses this one. I'd be more likely to use this than a paraphrase, but overall, I prefer . . .

Word-for-word [NASB, etc.] This is my favorite type of translation ~ as its name suggests, it is translated word-for-word to be closest in meaning to the original manuscripts. IMO, it is the best [particularly with a resource like Strong's that gives you the meaning of the original words] for serious and deep study. They also tend to be a little less smooth to read, but that's no big deal. As a matter of habit, I only read the NASB, whether it's for study or casual reading. I am not, however, so pretentious as to claim it's the only one to use.

EDIT!!!

Original Language: The mother of all Bible versions, the translation that isn't a translation. This, of course, requires you to learn the original language/s yourself. I plan to learn Koinae Greek in college and carry a Koinae Greek New Testament.

The original language is the ideal beacuse no-one can fool you by saying "That's not what it says in the original language." If you KNOW the original language and have the Scripture in question available in the original language, you win at everything.

As always, your mileage may vary.

.rai//

[Ratrace]

I like the NIV and KJV. A lot of verses are put better in the KJV than others, but some use period terms, i.e. Mathew 24:8 and Mark 13:8 in the KJV uses 'sorrows', which was the phrase for birth pains (literal translation) in though days.

[HisaishiFan]

I, too, use many translations. But my favorite is the Contemporary English Version, which is a dynamic translation. It is meant to be easily understood when read aloud. My older kids, who are first and second graders, can read it handily and understand it.

[RedMage]

I just ordered a Battlezone Bible because I need something smaller and sturdier than my "main" Bible (big ol' leather KJV) to carry in my book bag and whatnot, and it's ESV. Not my favorite translation, but quite acceptable and probably more understandable for the average person. (Lately I've sort of been convicted with desire for a witnessing opportunity, and if I need to be able to pull a Bible out and show somebody some things, they should be able to grasp what they mean quickly.)

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Yes, KJV certainly isn't the easiest to explain God's Word with in this day and age.

[oro!]

The reason the KJV was translated in the first place was so that the English speaking world could understand the Word of God in its heart language instead of the religious Latin phrases. Now, if you can understand it, great. However, most people have a hard time doing that; English from 400 years ago is hard to understand. Even from 50 years ago in this rapidly changing language, it was different.

[Nate]

The reason the KJV was translated in the first place was so that the English speaking world could understand the Word of God in its heart language instead of the religious Latin phrases.

Not entirely. There were actually already multiple English translations of the Bible, the most famous of which was Tyndale's translation. However, most English translations of the Bible were considered heretical by the Catholic Church at the time, with one exception, being the Douay-Rheims English translation.

The reasons why the KJV were made were quite obvious; England did not want anything to do with the Catholic Church anymore, so they did not want the Douay-Rheims version, and even Tyndale's version that was not taken from the Latin Vulgate was full of translations the Puritans didn't like. So a meeting was held, and it was decided to make an English translation of the Bible that retranslated the verses the Puritans didn't like, and do away with footnotes that many other versions had (like the Geneva Bible).

Interestingly enough though, the Puritans actually did not like the King James version, and instead continued to use the Geneva Bible (which was the version they brought to America on the Mayflower). One of the reasons for the Puritan rejection of the KJV was that the original 1611 version contained the Deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Church.

Also interesting to note that the KJV in use today is actually the 1769 revision, and not the original 1611 edition.

By the way, I'm not putting down the KJV. I think it's actually a good translation, despite minor nitpickings I have with the translation. It's very poetic and beautiful, and I enjoy it. I just wanted to say that it was in no way the first English Bible. I had to do a report on the KJV for my History of Western Civilization class, so I know a lot more about this than any man should I think. XD

[bigsleepj]

I use both the 1933 and 1983 translations of the Bible. I also want to buy a study bible someday when I get around to it.

I suspected a recently bought Afrikaans translation of the Bible to be faulty when it had a strange non-Canonical book at the end that began with a very strange verse which translates as "A phantom is haunting Europe - the phantom of communism." (Manifesto, Chapter 1, verse 1). Upon reading much of this book my suspicions were confirmed, that indeed it is non-Canonical, and at least does not orgininate from from the times of the New Testament. However, in my research, this version seems to be a heretical variation of the original 19th century German text since it makes several references to John Lennon and also has a whole chapter begging the reader to donate to the South African Communist Party. Boggled by these strange books, I decided to investigate it further.

In my investigation I was unable to discover who was responsible for this odd addition which in itself was faulty. The SACP did not return my calls either, but I doubt they were too blame. For some reason the 2nd chapter ends with a strange list which is also a heretical addition, replacing the original points with tips on creating the best 'fast food joint' (their words). For example:

Free education for all children in public schools.

has been changed to

Free toys for all children with their ComradeMeals.

Quite bizarre. Despite these liberal alterations, it still is appears within this particular Bible to be "The Manifesto of Marx and Engels", despite the fact that it is clearly either a parody or a bizarre alteration of questionable motivations of either's works. Certainly it would please neither Christian nor Communist.

Some people believe, however, that the 'original' Manifesto was not written by Marx and Engels but was possibly produced as satire by the Reverand Doctor Jonathan Swift. His version of the manifesto was produced as a joke, however his version of the disputed points quoted above only proves the possibility that he had lapsed into misanthropy:

No education for children since they wont use their brains as adults anyway.

It is believed that Swift borrowed his ideas of his manifesto from a lost one-man play (called Manifest, possibly a satire too) by William Shakespeare (or Sir Francis Bacon, depending on what you believe). It is believed that Swift got it from a beggar / librarian but that it was lost after his death. He quoted parts of it to a Alexander Pope of his in a letter, one of which seems to be the source for the above quotation.

(as it appears in the letter)
Forsooth, thy needeth no teaching, young Peregrine.
The ripening of body only cause the wilting of the mind.

(Note: Swift may have made many spelling errors or may have been quoting from memory. Also it should be noted that the play is about a teacher lamenting his job of tutoring a spoilt, inept son of a nobleman).

I might have realized my copy was faulty sooner, but my Biblical knowledge leaves much to be desired. Upon going back the store to refund my purchase, I decided to see what other titles Red Christian Bookstores sell at their moderate prices:

* The Communist Oath, by Frank Peretti
* This Present Capitalist Darkness by Frank Peretti
* Three (A biography on Trotsky, Stalin and Lenin) by Ted Dekker
* The Great Economic Divorce by CS Lewis
* The Chronicles of Moscow by CS Lewis (about a mighty lion named Stalin)
* A Proletariate Driven Revolution by Red Rick Warren
* A Case for Communism, by Lee Strobel

The clerk informed me that these books were the true expurgate version of the texts, which struck me as a questionable statement. The twitch is his eye also made me wonder if I should argue the point. I left the Bible there but went home R35 poorer since they unfortunately don't give refunds, which I suppose is a good Marxist virtue. This is the last time I'm buying Bibles in alternate dimensions, which are on the whole cheaper but a tad too, well, alternate. On the whole I prefer Marxism of the Groucho variety.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Good one J! You nearly had me there! (lol)

[bigsleepj]

Good one J! You nearly had me there! (lol)

Nearly? At what stage did you begin to see my article as dubious?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

It's a saying from a soup advert here in Australia.
Heh, heh.
I was dubious from the beginning and then I just thought you had found a very liberal Bible (probably a third of the way through that I caught wind of your schemes for real).
I'm not all that quick on the uptake, but I was willing to give any post a go.

[bigsleepj]

I was dubious from the beginning and then I just thought you had found a very liberal Bible (probably a third of the way through that I caught wind of your schemes for real).

Must have been the Comrade Meals. ]I'm not all that quick on the uptake, but I was willing to give any post a go.[/QUOTE]
I'm not always "quick on the uptake" myself. There are many times people pointed out a parody website that seem so real that I thought it was serious. And website so silly that I thought they were parodies. It's not easy being a websurfer these days.

[mitsuki lover]

ALthough it can argued that what Bigsleepj found was the heretical version translated by the LDSKMS(Latter Day Saints of Karl Marx Society) that was printed
in addition to their Book Of Lennonism.The Book Of Lennonism was written by a
poor comedy writer in the Ukraine in 1885 trying to make it on Seinfeld,but forgetting that:A)tv had not been created yet and B)Seinfeld wasn't yet born.
So he had to found his own heretical cult instead.
(apologies to our LDS friends)

[bigsleepj]

Mitsuki lover proves he's the Editor General of the Uncyclopedia.

[4m3r1c4]

I own various different versions myself and have found the most interesting to be the ESV and best of all the Thompson Chain reference Bible. Considering the NIV is most likely and unarguably the most inconsistent, not consideing the catholic translations, version out there. I say this because of certain reasons made known to me by my father who was a pastor and my grandfather who studied at seminary and was a missionary in mexico al his life. Anyways, i am not saying that noone should ever read these version but in fact I do implore that there are verses missing from most if not all translations but most in these and there have been things added especially in the catholic translations -apocrypha- extra books which just contradict what the rest of the bible says. My dad says the thompson chain reference bible is the best but I say read a lot of different translations and choose the one to follow that has the most divine meaning for your life. not meaning choose the one you like best but rather let the spirit guide you in your reading of the scriptures to find the one most closely matching gods word to you spiritually...yeah learning greek and aramaic and ancient languages would be the best way to understand the bible texts more significantly and on a whole different level but it is a tedious and long road to do so but it does pay off in the end. until then...God Bless

[Nate]

there have been things added especially in the catholic translations -apocrypha- extra books which just contradict what the rest of the bible says.

Statements like these are what made the last thread get locked. We do have Catholic members here, you know.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

There is nothing wrong with the NIV mate.

I've never even heard of the Thompson Chain reference Bible. I don't think it matters what version you have, as long as God speaks through it, you find it easy to read and understand and you can convey your thoughts about it to others easily.