Bible Translations

[sgt. pepper]

in your opinion, what is the best bible translation, king james, new american standard, living, others? i want an easy read, but i also want to stay as close as possible to the original transcript. i do not like king james, i read the new american standard now, but want something a little easier to read. i am a slow reader, uneducated kind of guy (i'm just stupid), so the easier the better, but do not want something that adds or subtracts from the original stuff. any suggestion's? thanks

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

/shamelessly hotlinked

[GWB]

in your opinion, what is the best bible translation, king james, new american standard, living, others? i want an easy read, but i also want to stay as close as possible to the original transcript. i do not like king james, i read the new american standard now, but want something a little easier to read. i am a slow reader, uneducated kind of guy (i'm just stupid), so the easier the better, but do not want something that adds or subtracts from the original stuff. any suggestion's? thanks

If you want to stay with something that is accurate and yet is easier to understand than the KJV I would chose the New International Version. If you just want to read for enjoyment I would consider the New Living Translation (NLT) or the New Century Version (NCV). Go to Mardels and look over the different Bibles and see which one works best for you.

[Martin]

to me, the best mix between 'easy to read' and 'good translation' is the new king james. the easiest to read, in my opinion, is the new international version. while most of its translation is good, i find that its word choice is a bit problematic in spots.

if study is your goal, then i'd recommend avoiding any modern speech version that does more paraphrasing of the source material than translating it.

-M

[Luke]

New King James, New American Standard and English Standard are all a good balance of readability and translational accuracy in my opinion.

[sgt. pepper]

thanks guys

[sgt. pepper]

gwb, so the nlt or the ncv does not follow the orginal translation? more like a novel? are those just somebody's version of the Bible?

mmm, can you give me an example of some problematic words you have with the niv? not trying to put you on the spot, just curious.

luke, do you not like the niv that some people has mentioned?

hey smell...i might need to look for that book...thanks

[metro]

how about YouVersion | A Revolutionary Online Bible Reader

[Martin]

mmm, can you give me an example of some problematic words you have with the niv? not trying to put you on the spot, just curious.

no problem. like i say, i like the niv for the most part. however, in a few places, it doesn't follow the wording of the greek text in order to fit a particular belief or to make the wording flow better in modern english.

the example that most quickly comes to mind is romans 7.

the first part of romans 7:18 in new king james states:
for i know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells...

the same verse in the new international version states:
i know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature...

the greek word 'sarx', which literally means 'flesh', is translated as 'sinful nature' in the niv. the translators do this several times in the book of romans... but not consistently. i believe that the substitution of 'flesh' with 'sinful nature' significantly changes the meaning and the implications of the passage.

-M

[sgt. pepper]

the first part of romans 7:18 in new king james states:
for i know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells...

the same verse in the new international version states:
i know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature...

the nasv puts it this way:
for i know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh;...

that is almost the same as the niv, but with differant wording as you say. it must be nice to know greek and all. i like this passage in the nkj. thaks mmm

[edcrunk]

I think the NIV has the most care taken into properly translating from every source we have. they assembled a broad, multi denominational group to do the translating. it's what i trust.

[sgt. pepper]

if study is your goal, then i'd recommend avoiding any modern speech version that does more paraphrasing of the source material than translating it.

i do want to study it, that's why i am asking bc i think the translation is very important and do not want to study someone's elses view of the Bible, but of course want to understand it. so mmm, you think the nkjv and niv are not good for studing? yes edcrunk, denominationa is very important.

thanks for your imput guys. it looks like either the nkjv or the niv is what i need to look at. i will study those version a little deeper.

[edcrunk]

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966. Responsibility for the version was delegated to a self-governing body of fifteen Biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible Translation, and in 1967, the New York Bible Society (now International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of the project.

The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars, and the work was thoroughly reviewed and revised at various stages by three separate committees.The Committee submitted the developing version to stylistic consultants who made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease ofreading by various groups of people. In short, perhaps no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision.

The Committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

In 1973 the New Testament was published. The Committee carefully reviewed suggestions for revisions and adopted a number of them, which they incorporated into the first printing of the entire Bible in 1978. Additional changes were made in 1983.


and here is some info on the nkjv, which i don't particularly like.


Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translatiors applies the most recent research in archaelology, linguistics, and textual studies.

[Martin]

so mmm, you think the nkjv and niv are not good for studying?

you misunderstand... on the contrary, i think those two versions are quite good for study... i just like nkj a bit better. personally, i usually flip back between those two when studying a particular passage.

versions such as the message are just loose paraphrases of what the original texts actually say. for example, here is romans 7:18 from the message:

for if i know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, i obviously need help! i realize that i don't have what it takes. i can will it, but i can't do it.

the text reads nicely, but you lose pretty much everything that the original actually says. that's why i have a problem with such versions.

-M

[Generals64]

Sgt. Pepper:.....I read the NIV for a Study Bible but for one that a guy can understand I have found "The Promise" ahs been extremely helpful. The Promise has a synopsis of the works ever now and then, it gives stories that relate to the scriptures and is easy for us that don't dig so deep that we forget what we are digging for.

[jsibelius]

I like NIV for study and KJV for poetry and memorization. The King James version has some problems with bias. Back when THE King James commissioned the official English bible for use in the Church of England, that same King James also believed in the "divine right of kings." He believed the King was answerable only to God. England had long been operating as a Constitutional Monarchy, and the King was not above the law. There are a few references to various kings in the bible where the king does things that are not flattering to kings, and King James had these sections written into stories more flattering to kings. King David and Bathsheba is one such section. I believe there are similar areas in stories of Solomon as well as other kings (maybe in the story of Daniel as well?).

That's not to say you should never read the King James Version. It was the official English Bible for about 500 years, and if I'm not mistaken, it is still the official Bible of the Church of England. There's something to be said for that. Ever tried to say John 3:16 using the language from any other version? It just doesn't roll off the tongue the same.

But if you're looking for a Bible with simple language, NIV probably isn't it. It's actually a bit more academic (although that's not really saying that much). There have been a lot of Bibles that have come out of the past 30-40 years with the purpose of making it easier to understand what's in the Bible - not dumbing it down, just putting it into everyday language. I think I have read the New American Standard was done with that in mind. NIV was not. You could probably talk to someone at a good religious bookstore to get ideas where to start (that's probably not gonna be Mardel or Barnes & Noble).

FYI - There is a book called The Bible : a history : the making and impact of the Bible by Stephen Miller. I know that's where I got a lot of this information. You don't have to read the whole book, but there is a chapter on different translations of the Bible. You'd probably get a really good idea of which one will work best for you just by reading that one chapter. You should be able to find it by checking with the library. If they don't actually have the book, they should be able to order it for you from another library.

[edcrunk]

there is much to be said for paraphrasing. i do like "the book".

[Toadrax]

You know.. technically, if it wasn't for God.. we wouldn't need translations...

[sgt. pepper]

FYI - There is a book called The Bible : a history : the making and impact of the Bible by Stephen Miller. I know that's where I got a lot of this information. You don't have to read the whole book, but there is a chapter on different translations of the Bible. You'd probably get a really good idea of which one will work best for you just by reading that one chapter. You should be able to find it by checking with the library. If they don't actually have the book, they should be able to order it for you from another library.

thanks jsibelius, i will check into that.

[metro]

You know.. technically, if it wasn't for God.. we wouldn't need translations...

and if it wasn't for free will, we'd be robots

[CuatrodeMayo]

And if it wasn't for air, I'd be dead.

[Prunepicker]

I like the NASB because of it's clarity and it's similarity to the KJV. The Holman Christian Study Bible is very good, too. I didn't like it at first and started questioning it. After translating several passages from the Aland/Nestles Greek text I found it to be very accurate.

The KJV is good but the definitions have changed since that era. Much like Shakespeare and the Constitution. It's a beautiful language but takes work to understand.

[FritterGirl]

Frankly, I'm no expert on biblical matters, but have studied foreign languages a great deal, so am pretty well versed in matters of literary translation.

It seems to me, given your level of curiosity, that you might enjoy picking two versions, the King James and another, more modern version, then use the comparison as part of your study.

Certainly couldn't hurt and you might enjoy comparing the nuances.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

And if it wasn't for air, I'd be dead.

Liar.

We all know that you subsist solely on Red Bull, beef jerky, and the souls of wayward children.

[FritterGirl]

Liar.

We all know that you subsist solely on Red Bull, beef jerky, and the souls of wayward children.

Don't forget the cheetos!