Preferred Bible translation

[farouk]

6 hours ago, NConly said:

I have several all kjv but each is different

@NConly There have been various formats and revisions of the KJV..........

[NConly]

22 minutes ago, farouk said:

@NConly There have been various formats and revisions of the KJV..........

I am speaking of chronological, prophesy, standard

[farouk]

19 minutes ago, NConly said:

I am speaking of chronological, prophesy, standard

@NConly Oh okay.

There are not a few study Bible options out there; one edition - in Spanish, actually - which I bought is a Thompson Chain reference and it has so much useful information in it; it really does.

(In recent years I haven't used it so much because in order to cram into Bible notes so much information, they seem to reduce the print size, and as I get older the eyes struggle a bit more to cope with the small print....)

So there can be down sides as well as positive sides to it.....

[JohnD]

On 5/18/2023 at 12:17 PM, FJK said:

I usually compare multiple translations when meaning of a verse or scripture isn't readily apparent to me in the one I first read it in.

I don't really have a favorite one.

Same here.

I quote the KJV most often because it is the oldest translation and has more access to the original language and strong's numbers in my Bible software (Logos 10).

The objective, given the imperfection of human language / understanding... is to find God's meaning rather that just verbatim quotation.

For example:

Proverbs 26:4–5 (KJV)
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Point being what God means by the text is what sense of what otherwise appears to be a contradiction.

[JohnD]

I have recently added the LEB translation to my Bible library.  The Lexham English Bible is a relatively literal translation which closely follows the original, yet remains readable in contemporary English. Freely available. The LEB is one of the only freely licensed English Bible translations. Download it, read it, and study—all for free. It uses "Yahweh" for the tetragrammaton in the Old Testament.  And it has an interlinear feature.

 

[farouk]

On 5/31/2023 at 10:28 AM, NConly said:

I am speaking of chronological, prophesy, standard

@NConly It can be helpful to compare version with version, when doing a word study. And maybe a lexicon to figure the underlying word(s) also.

[NConly]

8 minutes ago, farouk said:

@NConly It can be helpful to compare version with version, when doing a word study. And maybe a lexicon to figure the underlying word(s) also.

Well the Bible I choose is KJV. I did research and find long list of words left out of newer bibles. I believe one version is enough to get one on the right track.

There is currently a thread that is over 10 pages long about one word and its translation.  Reminds me of Ecc 8:17

[JimmyB]

38 minutes ago, NConly said:

Well the Bible I choose is KJV. I did research and find long list of words left out of newer bibles. I believe one version is enough to get one on the right track.

There is currently a thread that is over 10 pages long about one word and its translation.  Reminds me of Ecc 8:17

Did it not occur to you that the King James translators used sources that added words to the originals?  They used late medieval sources which were copies of copies of copies...  Modern translations are based on much better sources, some of which originated in the early centuries of the Christian era.

The most obvious example of the KJV additions is the "long ending" of Mark, which doesn't appear in the earliest sources.  Here is the NET footnote concerning those verses...

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sy^s sa^ms arm^mss geo^mss Eus Eus^mss Hier^mss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ¹³ 33 M lat sy^c,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

Another example of the added words of the King James translation of Romans 8:1.  It is not as egregious an error as the above, but it still means words were added to the earliest sources.  Here is the NET footnote about that addition: The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D¹ Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א² D² 33^vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

I prefer (by far) the most accurate translations, based on a) the earliest and best sources, b) improved translation methodology (text criticism), and c) written in the clearest English.

[farouk]

3 hours ago, NConly said:

Well the Bible I choose is KJV. I did research and find long list of words left out of newer bibles. I believe one version is enough to get one on the right track.

There is currently a thread that is over 10 pages long about one word and its translation.  Reminds me of Ecc 8:17

@NConly So do I use the KJV for study in English.........

[BeyondET]

I like a couple of versions,

Pure Cambridge Edition KJV, New Heart English Bible, James Murdock peshitta English translation 1800's, Bereans.

Edited June 3, 2023 by BeyondET