Bible Translation/Version Suggestions?

Dragonseer

Soul Searcher
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Midwest, USA
I would like to know the following information:

1) Which Bible translation (and specific book title) do you prefer to read for your own personal study/devotion?

2) Do you belong to any particular religion that encourages the use of your preferred Bible translation? (If so, please specify it.)

I know the very title of this thread is likely to open a can of worms; so I hope that everyone who replies does so in a kindly and thoughtful fashion. In other words, please avoid the temptation to respond with: "How on earth could you consider reading that version of the Bible? The X-version is so much better!" You get my drift. ;)

At the end of the day, I'm merely curious to know what people are reading and why. :D

Namaste,

Dragonseer
 
I believe that the Bible should be read strictly in its original Hebrew, Greek and Latin, in the context of a sacred ritual, performed by a priest who has the designated role within a community to do so. Since God exists, He can reach out to people directly Himself, and thus there is no need to persuade people by any use of semantics. Theology is for theologists, not laypeople.
 
I use the King James Version mainly because it was the one I was exposed to as a child. Genesis stories in the KJV were a prime factor in my considering it bollocks. There was nothing funny to me with a cartoon picture of animals being led two by two into a little wooden boat. The implication was further horrified by people (men, women, children, babies) all drowning in rising waters.

I thought, "What a terrible God. No wonder God-Fearing is such a compliment." By the end of grade 2, I had rejected the Christian and Jewish god as being a description of otherwise indescribable evil. God was not nice. He was not even good. He was a description of the Bible writer trying to describe the most horrible, savage, cosmic monster.

Since then I use the Bible mainly to argue against Christian beliefs. I have a right to do that. So I studied the Bible more than any kid in my school. I could quote hundreds of verses (usually the most evil ones.) I have read every letter of the KJV more than three times, and many chapters 20 or more times. The KJV is the most chilling indictment of Christianity.

I don't think using Hebrew or Greek changes the basic black evil of the Bible.

The hero of the Bible, God, kills millions of people and a million million non-human animals.

The villain, Satan, kills nobody. What a flimsy villain!

I realize that it is all fiction, none of it ever happened. It is all made up by ancient war lords to instill fear in a submissive population. I don't see how using Hebrew would in any way clean up the dark evil of the Bible.

I feel sad for the many people harmed by the sick superstition that you cannot simply translate out.

Amergin
 
I'm glad I didn't ask you to translate it for me...
 
I prefer to read a bunch of translations when I want to decipher some passage with lexicons and word-studies.
NASB or KJV works for general usage though.

It wasn't written in English and so there are lots of issues as a result due to that....to be expected though.
 
Eclectic Mystic: I hadn't considered the possibility of an answer such as yours. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion on who should/should not have access to biblical sources. (May I ask what particular religion, if any, you practice? I'm just very curious.)

Amergin: I agree that many biblical stories are not God-inspired. It makes no sense that an all-knowing/ all-loving deity would commit human-like revenge on innocent people. Thus, I see a great deal of human interpretation/intervention in the Bible--especially the OT--and always keep that in mind while reading it.

Shawn: I've been comparing various translations online and, thus far, am impressed by the NASB and the NKJV. (There's just something about the Thee's and Thou's that make the KJV less accessible to me.)

Even though the original books of the Bible were not composed in English, I've read that some translations come fairly close (especially the NASB); and that will have to be good enough, I suppose. :)
 
It is true that the translations come close, but we are not throwing hand-grenades;).
It is very useful, nay, necessary to do thee a thorough word search to get thy feel for the language which has had significant change in the past several thousands of years.:D
Can't hurt and could....correction, will, prove to be illuminating at times.
 
Eclectic Mystic: I hadn't considered the possibility of an answer such as yours. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion on who should/should not have access to biblical sources.

Actually, its not a matter of people having "access," but rather a putting into question why it is necessary, given the access. The implication that "access" has been proactively denied for the sake of denying it is inflammatory (I don't mean on your part.)
 
I have several but mostly use the NASB and HCSB but they are all pretty good even the Message :)
 
I have several but mostly use the NASB and HCSB but they are all pretty good even the Message :)

You're braver than I. ;) I've compared excerpts of various biblical translations and found those that have a "storybook" feel--i.e., a thought-for-thought translation--such as The Message and the NLT, don't feel "right" for me. Knowing that much, though, helps me to narrow things down a bit.

I'm leaning toward the NASB, but the NIV might suit me well, too. (I originally thought the NKJV would be my next move, but I've just ordered the ESV; and my comparison of it to the NKJV shows them to be very similar in style/content.)

BTW, if anyone should want to compare various biblical translations, you can do a Google search on "Online Parallel Bible." (I can't share the link directly; per an automated message, I've not posted enough times yet on this forum to do so. Ah, well. :D)
 
Dragonseer, hello. First of all, why do you want to read the Bible? That affects the advice you need. Its a complex thing to read without any background.

I like the KJV for word studies, because it is mostly word for word translated. That saves a lot of headaches for me when studying context, but the NIV is a very eloquent if slightly dynamic translation. Its easy to read and understand. Both versions Christianize the scriptures to some degree (its annoying) but in today's world you ought to be familiar with the Christian view. If you don't want a lot of trouble and just-want-to-read-it, choose NIV. But I don't recommend just reading the Bible by yourself.

I recommend a course that takes you through the stories along with some history interspersed. It should include some archeological highlights. At the same time don't bother with scholarly arguments about historicity until you are familiar with the Bible stories and characters. You might consider trying the Jewish reading schedule, called Parshas, or some other mass read-along program. These are nice because thousands of people read the same Bible section and then comment on what they read, much like a book club.
 
Dragonseer,

but the NIV is a very eloquent if slightly dynamic translation. Its easy to read and understand.
If you don't want a lot of trouble and just-want-to-read-it, choose NIV.
I personally wouldn't recommend the NIV to anyone.
Might as well read Lord of the Rings if you want a story and you will probably get more out of that option.
My 2c.
 
i really like the NIV although I dont really use it much myself it is nevertheless and excellent translation IMO.
 
Namaste Dragonseer,

Great question.
...I thought, "What a terrible God. No wonder God-Fearing is such a compliment." ...
Since then I use the Bible mainly to argue against Christian beliefs. I have a right to do that....

I don't think using Hebrew or Greek changes the basic black evil of the Bible.
Namaste Amerigen,

I'm saddenned that you take allegory, mythology and stories so litterally. Tis a shame kids are raised that way and turned away from an amazing life of biblical interpretation as it unfolds in their day to day life. In my view G!d didn't hasn't killed anyone. Primitive man needed someone to blame for floods, plagues and pests....seems we are still pretty primitive today does it not?

For me anytime I read of an angry or vengeful G!d I look to the story for a metaphysical interpretation in my life.

I prefer to read a bunch of translations when I want to decipher some passage with lexicons and word-studies.
NASB or KJV works for general usage though.

It wasn't written in English and so there are lots of issues as a result due to that....to be expected though.
While I agree that optimum would be to read the orginal texts in their original language there are two main issues with that. We haven't one original text. All we have is copies with many inconsitencies and differences... Second, the Koine Greek, the Coptic, the Aramaic, the Latin and the Hebrew of yesteryear would take a lifetime of study to even get close to being able to decipher the meaning of the texts we do have. They had idioms much like we do today, and the meanings of their slang and their idioms are lost, so misinterpretations of what was written are rampant.

That being said I agree with Shawn or use a similar tact. I've found two parallel bibles, one with four versions (so each page has two columns, when the book is layed open you see four columns, two on each page and you can look directly from one translation to the next comparing and contrasting all four columns) The other bible has three more versions and a commentary column...and then there is the lexicon. So between the three books I can read what each translator thought best fit their agenda for translation. And then we add the metaphysical bible dictionary....and somewhere in the process with a little contemplation, meditation and circumnambulation I find something in that passage that speaks to me for that moment in time. Look back at the same passage, two months, two years, two decades, or maybe even two days or two hours later...and my recently accumulated experiences and my changed perspective might shed new light on the very same thought.

As I see it our history is written....and it can all be found on the pages of this book. As we either have or will all wrestle with G!d, all will spend our time in the desert and the wilderness, we've both slaughtered Goliath and been slain by David, we've all extermintated the Amalekites, and went back to insure every man woman and child was dead, we all carry our cross to our own crucifiction, and we'll all rise again.
 
...Why do you want to read the Bible? That affects the advice you need. Its a complex thing to read without any background.

I believe that God has inspired/moved mankind to write a variety of holy texts. I have read certain books of the Bible here and there over the years but never attempted to read the whole thing. Now, I'd like to read (and meditate on) it in its entirety.

I currently have an Oxford study Bible (the REB with Apocrypha), which is good for the articles regarding the cultural atmosphere in which each book was composed; so I don't want another study Bible just now. I also have the NAB, which I got when I went through the RCIA process. (I don't follow any particular religion at this time.) But the NAB is a rather dull read; the writing is not very poetic.

At this point, I'm leaning toward the NASB. But I recently ordered the ESV, which should arrive today. I still suspect that it won't very long before I get my hands on a nice copy of the NASB, though.

I have, by the way, compared many Bible translations online. Like you, I find the NIV to be eloquent, but it's a bit more dynamic than I'd like. What's really funny about that statement is that I'm nowhere near what most people would call conservative. But for whatever reason, I like the idea of my Bible's text to be a fairly literal (word-for-word) translation.

Blessings,

DS
 
Multiple translations, with notes. Even the original editors of the KJV strongly encouraged not just using their own version.

That's right, KJV-only contradicts the wishes of the people who compiled the KJV.
 
Multiple translations, with notes. Even the original editors of the KJV strongly encouraged not just using their own version.

That's right, KJV-only contradicts the wishes of the people who compiled the KJV.

I suspect that, with time, I will add various editions to my current few. Yet I suspect that I will prefer the NASV (aka, NASB) and the ESV to most others. (I may even get the NKJV eventually.)

I've not researched the original translators of the KJV, but it was edited by a Catholic priest/scholar, yes? I find it ironic that some Protestants would fall into the KJV-onlyism camp. But that's another issue for another thread.... ;)
 
All of the men who worked on the KJV were members of the Church of England. Another thing to stick to the KJV-only crowd is that the "apocrypha" were not deleted from the KJV until the 1700s.
 
I personally wouldn't recommend the NIV to anyone.
Might as well read Lord of the Rings if you want a story and you will probably get more out of that option.
My 2c.
It seems that way. Prefer to read the NASB.

+.01
 
shawn said:
I personally wouldn't recommend the NIV to anyone.
Might as well read Lord of the Rings if you want a story and you will probably get more out of that option.
My 2c.
You may just as well be reading Lord of the Rings unless you focus on the principles in the commands and laws. The stories are a way to connect with those until such time as a particular principle intersects with your own life. I started with KJV as a child but did not really read it but then read NIV. Years later I started understanding the laws which helped the stories make sense, but the stories were and are helpful with the laws, too. I think if my focus had consistently been to look for guidance towards self improvement and good will, then either KJV or the NIV would have been good enough.
 
Back
Top