Bible scholars/researchers: What is your favorite version of the Bible?

by restrangled 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    What a nice thread for this site.

    Thomas and Steven, et al have made many good recommendations.

    I would add that the best way to determine which hardcopy Bible Translation(s) for your research would be to use online versions to get a "feel".

    While Biblegateway.com has been mentioned already(and I use it almost daily), biblecc.com is another great comparitive site, which allows you to compare numerous translations on a verse by verse basis. On both of these sites, you will find concordances, study guides, cross references, parallel commentaries, etc.

    As far as hard copies go, I will not list all those I own here, as it is a very long list, but I would say that the NIV you purchased is wonderful (with the exception of the notes, as others have mentioned), the New Jerusalem, (ditto), the New Living (a paraphrase, with all the draw backs thereof), and the Douay-Rheims (my personal favorite for the Psalms).

    Enjoy, God Bless!

    BA

  • thomas15
    thomas15

    r.

    Here is a very good website which gives an overview of English Bible translations.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

    The owner of this website (who is a conservative Lutheran BTW) has really done his homework.

    If you go to the home page of this site, there is more information regarding other aspects of the Bible and translations. I highly recommend this web site as a place to begin learning about different versions of the Bible. http://www.bible-researcher.com/

    Narkissos,

    There is really no such thing as a "bias free" translation of the Bible in English. While I also respect your opinions very much, I think your criticism of the NIV and the Scofield is a little harsh. Among fundamentalist in the US, there are many who do not like the NIV and or the Scofield notes. Then there are some who like Scofield, but only the notes from the 1917 (orig. Scofield) edition. Same with the NIV translation. It (the NIV) is what is termed as a mediating translation, which means it tries to strike a balance between literal and dynamic rendering of the English text. To many fundamentalist, the NIV is not conservative enough and uses the N/A 27 (or 26) greek as it's main text which many fundamentalist do not like. Over all, and for the purposes of a person who is looking for a reliable, accurate translation of the English Bible, the NIV is a good place to start. Your average typical fundamentalist in the US would probably not have the Scofield III in the NIV as their main take to church Bible although they may use the orig Scofield in KJV. While I own several Scofields and like them, it is not MY personal main study Bible of choice. I have no major issue with Scofields theology as I generally agree with the Dispensational stance. My personal issue with Scofield is that the there are not enough notes. The MacArther study Bible, which is my personal favorite (in the New American Standard Bible) has many more notes and he, while also being Dispensationalist is more likely to give opposing viewpoints. But remember, a study Bible is not a full blown Bible commentary.

    To further the discussion and again, I'm not trying to hijack this thread or scold you Narkossos, the addition of the Apocrypha at this point will do little to help r. and will only make her quest to understand the essential message of the Bible and make sense of where the WT is in error more difficult. As I mentioned in a previous message above, The New Revised Standard Bible which you like, is a good translation. It is the translation that a Yale or Princeton Divinity School student would use. Nothing wrong with that but if a person who is just looking for a Study Bible to teach themselves The Bible, it will be a problem unless you are what is called here in the US a theological liberal. Reason, the two popular study Bibles (protestant notes, not Roman Catholic) are the Harper Collins (not to be confused with the Harper Study Bible) and the Oxford. The notes in these Bible are liberal to the core, which is fine if you intend to study the Bible as literature and have no intention or expectation of using the Bible to make a positive impact on your spiritual life.

    Another thing, and again, I'm not trying to beat you up Narkissos, in the US, the correct definition of a fundamentalist is a person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith. They (the fundamentals) are: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the triune Godhead, bodily resurrection of and literal return of Jesus and the need to confess sin and place your faith and trust in Jesus as your only acceptable path to eternal life. It (a fundamentalist) is not a person who is trusting in a particular church, particular translation of the Bible, the ability to handle snakes or drink poison, speak in toungues, protest abortion providers, sell religion on the streets, wear special clothes, say special prayers and so on. A fundamentalist as depicted in the US media is not accurate. I consider myself fundamental in that I trust literally the Bible and I'm placing my faith and trust in Jesus for the forgivness of my sins, all by the grace of God, and not by any work that I may accomplish Eph 2:8-9.

    Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, if r. while I think the NIV Scofield III that r. has is fine, the ESV study Bible might be better if she wants only 1 Bible at this time. The ESV (English Standard Version) is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, same as the New Revised Standard Version. So they are both share the same heritage. The ESV study notes are in the main Covenent theology (as opposed to Dispensational) but it gives the CT, Disp., liberal, preterset, pre-mil, post mil, and A-mil prespective. If it has a fault, it is the opposite of the Scofield in that it has too many notes.

    Sorry for rambling soo much. r., if you would like, I'm willing to give you for free a copy of The New Qxford Study Bible in The (i think) Revised Standard Version or a copy of the New Qxford Study Bible in the NRSV. You could then compare the notes with the Scofield and compare the text of the NIV with the NRSV and make up your own mind. Send me a PM if you are interested.

    OK, the above is comprised of mainly my opinions and I respect everyone elses right to their opinions. If I come across as anything other than helpful, please accept my appology.

    By the way, I gave my non-Bible believing younger brother an NIV readers edition as a Christmas present last year. After contemplating which translation and edition to give him, I finally decided to go with a NIV, non-study Bible. I also gave him a Bible Handbook to go along with the Bible.

    Yours truly,

    Tom

  • thomas15
    thomas15

    Sorry, r. I made a mistake in my post above, the NRSV I have that you may have (If you want it) is the Harper Collins Study edition, not the Oxford. I can't remember off the top of my head if the Oxford that I mention is a Revised Standard or a New Revised Standard Version. There are no major differences between the two. You are welcome to have one if you want.

    I hope also that I'm not coming on too strong, which is not my intention. Narkissos, I respect very much as he knows much about the languages of the Bible. He, by his own admission approaches the Bible much different than from myself as he uses the historical & literary critical approach, which I think is commonly called higher criticism. I on the other hand take the historical/gramatical approach. Probably more information than you want to know right now and I appologize if it is. Narkissos, if I'm incorrect, please correct me as I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

    To illustrate the difference between the higher criticism and historical/gramatical approaches, one would say that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on a sandbar, the other would say that Jehovah God actually parted the waters. One approach might say that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, the other might say that they are from many sources and edited at a late date.

    Submitted for discussion and not malice,

    Tom

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Cadellin,

    Thank you for this information. The French 1998 edition is very different from the previous ones, and reflects the evolution of (especially European) mainstream critical scholarship on a number of major issues, such as the formation of the Pentateuch or the Gospels.

    Thomas,

    I understand your perspective and appreciate your kind way of expressing it. I could take issue with some details (for instance, I don't consider literary critical and "spiritual" approaches mutually exclusive, and literary criticism these days is not so much about sandbars -- I mean, it's more about how the story develops than the history of "what really happened" -- if anything -- behind the literary scene). But that would deviate this thread from its purpose, and I doubt any of us would change the other's mind anyway.

  • BabaYaga
    BabaYaga

    I agree with Cabasilas and others who recommended the New Jerusalem Bible.

    It was the one recommended to me by my very dear friend (and Gnostic priest) when I asked this very same question.

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR

    Here is a list of versions that I go to more often than others:

    1. New American Standard Version

    2. English Standard Version

    3. International Standard Version. I have sat under Dr. William Welty (the publisher), as well as Dr. Robert Morey (who translated some of the Psalms).

    4. The Complete Jewish Bible. This is a bible that was included in the PC Study Bible software I have. It reminds me that Christianity is the most successful sect of Judaism.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Also, if you can get a hold of the non-canonical books, that may help in further studies, books like 1Enoch and the Epistle of barnabas give some interestine perspective on stuff, 1Enoch gives a good perspective on Jude in the NT.

  • Chalam
    Chalam

    Hi Tom,

    In my Bible collection is of course several editions of the NWT. Just looking at them gives me a headache. The misery this version causes really leaves me feeling ill.

    Yeah that thing is not worthy to be called a bible. They should rename it the "unholy scriptures" it is so corrupt.

    The Lord gave me a prophetic dream and told me to get rid of the present my JW friend gave me of the NWT study bible. In the dream He said "it is corrupting the bread" which indeed it was Matthew 4:4

    I only had it for cross referencing. Obviously I was doing too much! These day I am careful not to read very much of the WT "teaching" or the NWT.

    Anyhow, glad the Lord found you :) Luke 15

    All the best,

    Stephen

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    NIV is a paraphrase. Careful there.

    I use several and compare. Trash the NWT. I use NAB because of their extensive study notes (the catholics are right on many things) the RSV and the ESV. Also, spend the money on an interlinear (Green's literal translation) but most importantly get an exhaustive concordance with definitions. I use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Vine's Greek and Hebrew dictionary. It is an essential key to understnding the bible but you must have a cross-referencing interlinear, Greek and Hebrew, to use it. Spend the money.

    JD II

  • thomas15
    thomas15

    Narkissos,

    You sir are a gentleman. Thank you.

    Tom

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit