Preferred Bible translation

[JimmyB]

I prefer to use several translations, as each has its merits.  My two favorites are the NRSVue (New Revised Standard Version updated edition)  (side note -- what will they call the next one???) and the NIV (latest edition), but I also read the NLT and the ESV, the former for "narrative" flow and the other for extensive documentation.  I also use the NET Bible (full edition) but the 60,000+ side notes are hard to read using my old eyes.  A New New Testament is also of interest, as it goes beyond the standard canon, using more recent and varied sources.

I began with the King James translation years ago but found it to be hard to clearly understand, since it is written in archaic Englyshe that is unclear.  When I discovered the newly-published NIV, that was it for the KJV!

I also read the 1599 Geneva Bible for the theology (explained in the extensive footnotes) but also find it to be hard to clearly understand, since it is also written in archaic Englyshe that is also unclear.

I find that each translation has its merits but the purpose of the translation must be clearly understood.  I always read the introduction to understand the methodology and purpose of the particular rendition.

[farouk]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I like a couple of versions,

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

Cambridge, Oxford and Collins have done various formats of the King James. (They are under UK copyright.) But in the US you can copy existing editions freely I think, at least, as far as the text is concerned.

[BeyondET]

17 hours ago, farouk said:

Cambridge, Oxford and Collins have done various formats of the King James. (They are under UK copyright.) But in the US you can copy existing editions freely I think, at least, as far as the text is concerned.

Yea it's on free domain or something like on the internet. I like the ones that are not copyrighted. I'm not against translations that want to do it, just a preference.

[LiveWire]

I completely ignore, the Septuagint related Old Testaments, at all costs, due to these Facts.

Is the Septuagint the same as the Tanakh?

The Septuagint does not consist of a single, unified corpus. Rather, it is a collection of ancient translations of the Tanakh, along with other Jewish texts that are now commonly referred to as apocrypha.

What does apocrypha mean?
apocrypha, (from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term's usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded.

What is Esoteric Writings?

a personal interpretation!

+

I follow the Same Instruction, for which Bible, God Commanded Moses, to place into the Ark of the Covenant.   Which was then, Commanded by God, to be placed into the Holy of Hollies, of God's Temple.  I Figure, what God requests, as which Bible He chooses, should be more than good enough for me to do the same.

That is why my Old Testament views come only from the Torah/Tanakh itself.

 

And if we go by the words of Jerome, Ireneaus, Eusibus, Others, this is why I use the 3rd Century Greek New testament, we have in Archive on File.

 

And having access to the internet, really brings this together as a completed Old and New Covenant. 

[farouk]

4 hours ago, LiveWire said:

I completely ignore, the Septuagint related Old Testaments, at all costs, due to these Facts.

Is the Septuagint the same as the Tanakh?

The Septuagint does not consist of a single, unified corpus. Rather, it is a collection of ancient translations of the Tanakh, along with other Jewish texts that are now commonly referred to as apocrypha.

What does apocrypha mean?
apocrypha, (from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term's usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded.

What is Esoteric Writings?

a personal interpretation!

+

I follow the Same Instruction, for which Bible, God Commanded Moses, to place into the Ark of the Covenant.   Which was then, Commanded by God, to be placed into the Holy of Hollies, of God's Temple.  I Figure, what God requests, as which Bible He chooses, should be more than good enough for me to do the same.

That is why my Old Testament views come only from the Torah/Tanakh itself.

 

And if we go by the words of Jerome, Ireneaus, Eusibus, Others, this is why I use the 3rd Century Greek New testament, we have in Archive on File.

 

And having access to the internet, really brings this together as a completed Old and New Covenant. 

Hi @LiveWire It's interesting that in the NT the Lord Jesus Himself quotes from the Septuagint at times.

[LiveWire]

1 hour ago, farouk said:

Hi @LiveWire It's interesting that in the NT the Lord Jesus Himself quotes from the Septuagint at times.

Nowhere in the Bible confirms this.  This is merely an opinion without proof.  But still, the Septuagint, consisted of many Torah/Tanakh Scriptures, it just also contained many Non Biblical Esoteric Writings as well.

 

Could you imagine making a Doctrine, based off Esoteric Writings, thinking it was the Legit Word of God?

Edited June 5, 2023 by LiveWire

[BeyondET]

9 hours ago, LiveWire said:

I completely ignore, the Septuagint related Old Testaments, at all costs, due to these Facts.

Is the Septuagint the same as the Tanakh?

The Septuagint does not consist of a single, unified corpus. Rather, it is a collection of ancient translations of the Tanakh, along with other Jewish texts that are now commonly referred to as apocrypha.

What does apocrypha mean?
apocrypha, (from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term's usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded.

What is Esoteric Writings?

a personal interpretation!

+

I follow the Same Instruction, for which Bible, God Commanded Moses, to place into the Ark of the Covenant.   Which was then, Commanded by God, to be placed into the Holy of Hollies, of God's Temple.  I Figure, what God requests, as which Bible He chooses, should be more than good enough for me to do the same.

That is why my Old Testament views come only from the Torah/Tanakh itself.

 

And if we go by the words of Jerome, Ireneaus, Eusibus, Others, this is why I use the 3rd Century Greek New testament, we have in Archive on File.

 

And having access to the internet, really brings this together as a completed Old and New Covenant. 

Gold jar of manna, a staff and stone tablets was placed in the Ark or were they.

Edited June 5, 2023 by BeyondET

[NConly]

On 6/3/2023 at 2:31 PM, JimmyB said:

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.

Lots of things occurred to me and I decided on the KJV. Sorry you don't like my choice chances are good I might not like your choice.

[JimmyB]

1 hour ago, NConly said:

Lots of things occurred to me and I decided on the KJV. Sorry you don't like my choice chances are good I might not like your choice.

If you have decided that your preferred translation is the KJV, fine, that is your decision.  I prefer both the NRSVue and the NIV, but I also use others.  There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation.  They each have their merits.

My main objection is those who insist that the King James translation is the word of God.  Again, if the KJV is your preference, fine with me.

Finally, what was the main factor (or factors) in your decision?

Edited June 5, 2023 by JimmyB

[farouk]

4 hours ago, NConly said:

Lots of things occurred to me and I decided on the KJV. Sorry you don't like my choice chances are good I might not like your choice.

@NConly I think there are strong reasons for the King James; and if some others don't appreciate them then ppl will likely be talking at cross-purposes to some extent....