Favorite Bible Version

i tend to quote the kjv, but only out of convenience. it's just easier to lookup something at blueletterbible.org and copy/paste it. and its default is the kjv.however, when i really want to render the verse correctly, with proper meaning, spacing, line breaks, and grammar, i painstakingly copy the section from my jps edition.i find the niv too... interpretive. not that the jps isn't, but i tend to think the hebrew people know what the hebrew is saying better than the non-hebrew people. my only beef with the jps is that it fails to translate ben'elohym literally, instead opting for "-divine beings-" because various religious reasons. but i know what it says, so that's ok. it's similar to rendering "yahweh" as "lord" for religious reasons.(skepticsannotatedbible is also handy, even as a believer....)

each has it's ups and downs. some are more accurate than others. (not qualifying that as a good or bad thing)in some cases, for instance, bibles will translate something very literally where others will render the intent of the verse, and others translate into modern english euphemism instead of ancient hebrew ones.

well, accurate is kind of a matter of opinion, really. is word-for-word literal more accurate than an idiomatic translation?for instance:

quote:

---

KJV (literal)

​

1Sa 24:3 And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where [was] a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.

---

quote:

---

NLT, etc

​

1Sa 24:3 At the place where the road passes some sheepfolds, Saul went into a cave to relieve himself. But as it happened, David and his men were hiding in that very cave!

---

most bibles choose between one of those two euphemisms. one is hebrew, the other modern english. we get the meaning better with the second. but which is more important, rendering the words exactly, or communicating the ideas? it's subjective, really.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-13-2005 11:45 PM

well, no. you can still hold the original text as inerrant. it's a really convient belief, actually, because we don't HAVE the original texts. also, the more you study the more you find exactly how much has been done to the "originals." for instance, genesis is comprised of at least 3 "originals." so is the first genesis inerrant, or the texts it's comprised of? the mroe you look, the less validity you find, imho.but no, subjectivity has nothing to do with inerrancy -- the errors do. ever seen "stigmata?" i'm convinced that if a jesus-gospel turned up, and was REAL, it would ultimately shatter everything we think we know about christianity. from the hints of his philosophy in the gospels, he doesn't seem like he'd support the modern incarnation of the church at all.christianity is the worship of this vague religious deity called christ, and not the philosophy taught by a real person called yehoshua ben yosef of nazareth. i'm convinced more and more that the two things have very little to do with one another.

well, i think clarity and effectively communicating is important too.so often on this board i just debate what the text actually says. for instance, the world portrayed in the book of genesis is completely unlike what we now know it to be: like an inside-out snow dome. flat earth, domed heavens, surrounded by water above and below. thats what the text says, but do you get the idea from reading genesis 1?not in most translations, no. a good translation has to bridge the gap between the modern and the ancient, and put us in that context so we understand it in their terms. here's an example

quote:

---

kjv

​

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

i've read the verse a thousand times. "calling on the name of the lord" is used so often in christian churches, it no longer has any meaning. so what's the point of the verse. people are praying or something right?

quote:

---

jps

​

It was then that men began to invoke the LORD by name.

---

wow, same words. much clearer idea. they're actually using his name, whereas before they did not. this verse is about the usage of hashem. the verse is rendered in much clearer modern grammar. i would say it's better.but i suppose that's subjective too.

i don't really either.:x

uh, i'm gonna take a crack at some of this, but not all. because i'm really tired tonight. (expect typos) this is a very important point about the accuracy of translation. let's look at the kjv translation:

quote:

---

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

---

the kjv is a literal, nearly word-for-word translation. i say nearly, because they've added some stuff. for instance, hebrew tends not to us passive verbs, like "is" and "was." to my knowledge, there's not a direct equivalent, although the word for "exists" (part of god's name) does, well, exist. it's just a pain to take two syllables to add it to everything, i think. certain other words aren't usually present, either. articles like "a" and "an" tend to be implied. if you're talking about a specific one, you use ha- "the." but no a.good copies of the kjv note where they've added something with brackets. notice which phrase is in brackets in this verse?anyways, here's the appropiate phrase from the masoretic text, the source for the kjv:

quote:

---

וַיַּךְ אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן-יַעְרֵי אֹרְגִים בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, אֵת גָּלְיָת הַגִּתִּי

---

that says: vayak elchanan ben-ya'ary oregym beyt ha-lachemi, et galyat ha-gety or literally in english killed Elhanan the Son of Jaare-Oregim a House of Lehemite {direct object} Goliat the Gittite. since you probably like that arranged grammatically for english,Elhanan Benjaaroregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.i want you to note that the hebrew word for "brother," אח is not present. now let's look at the same phrase in chronicles:

quote:

---

וַיַּךְ אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן-יעור {יָעִיר}, אֶת-לַחְמִי אֲחִי גָּלְיָת הַגִּתִּי

---

or vayak elchanan ben-yaor {yayr}, et-lachemy achi galyat ha-gety or: Elhanan Benjair killed Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.i've bolded the phrase in the hebrew that's been added. it replaced the description of where elhanan was from with a correction to who got killed. samuel says he killed goliath -- the direct object signifier is there to prove it. chronicles says he killed lachmi, goliath's brother. chronicles and samuel also disagree on the spelling of elhanan's father's name (chronicles provides two spellings) but that's ok. hebrew's pretty felxible, apparently.the fact that chronicles changes the wording and subject of samuel is not suprising. they disagree a few times. this one's a famous one:

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

​

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

so the question is: what makes an accurate translation? one that is accurate to the sources independently? or one that modifies bits to iron out the kinks? personally, i think a translation should be as accurate as possible to what is actually written ---- in this case, the niv would be MORE accurate than the kjv. as i've just point out, samuel and chronicles disagree. so i think it's a little disengenuous to say "all these copies of the kjv are the same" when the original sources don't line up themselves. these are probably translation issues, not accuracy issues. i'm not familiar with the specifics, but i'll single one out because i happen to know what it's about: the "name" JEHOVAH appears in the text of the kjv all of 3 times, if memory serves. this is strictly a translation issue: the name of god in the bible, everywhere it's used, is יהוה -- yahweh. whenever you see the word LORD in all caps, that's the hebrew that's used. the reason "lord" was chosen is because jews replaced the name of god with a title, אדני -- adonay, when reading the bible aloud. adonay means "lord."since this practice was common, many early masoretic texts added the vowel points of adonay to YHVH to remind the reader to say "adonay" instead of "yahweh." but if the new jewish person tried to read this, unaware of the custom, they'd get "YaHoVaH." sound familiar? y = j in a lot of translations.so for many years, english speaking people thought god's name was "jehovah." it's not, it's yahweh.now, god is generally referred to two ways in the bible: yahweh elohym (lord god) and just elohym (god). but strangely enough, adonay creeps in once or twice combined with god's name. writing out "LORD lord" is a little weird, so the kjv went with "lord Jehovah." in another instance, it's a nickname for god (yah) combined with his name. it's only in these double-renderings that the kjv actually uses the "name" of jehovah.but in reality, they're no different than any other time the bible uses the word LORD in all caps.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-12-2005 01:57 AM

---

אָרַח

alright, in the hopes that this was not a drive-by, i'll address some other points, as i'm reading through your seriously ludicrous links. [quotes are from the links]

quote:

---

How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!

​

Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?

---

first of all, sheol (שאול) is the hebrew word that is translated as "hell" in the kjv. check your concordance if you don't believe me. it literally means "grave." they're simplying using the hebrew name instead of the anglicized one. why is that wrong? if we're gonna complain abotu accuracy, isn't it MORE accurate to use the word that's actually in the source text?

quote:

---

Matthew 16:18

​

KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

​

Luke 16:23

​

KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

---

this is the exact same case. it's not using a word from greek mythology, it's using a word from GREEK. the new testament was written in greek -- the word used here is adhz -- hades.

quote:

---

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

---

because the word in hebrew can mean either. and traditionally, semitic people would wear nose-rings getting married. it's not a ridiculous idea, it's still in practice.

quote:

---

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

---

שטן -- satan means "accuser" or "adversary." i bet the nkjv uses one of these words. when the bible is refering to a SPECIFIC adversary "Satan" with an uppercase S, it uses השטן -- ha-satan. THE adversary. you'll note that it doesn't remove it from job 1:6, where it has the ha- in front of it.

quote:

---

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

---

that's a good point, i agree. but that's the same issue as adding the word "brother" to sameul (see above post). you see, jonah, whom this verse is about, spent 3 nights in the belly of a FISH. oh, and that bit about the symbol was truly ludicrous. did you notice that one of the symbols they were taking offense to was a celtic CROSS? also, p.o.d. stands for "payable on death." they're a christian band.

quote:

---

But Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

---

similar to:

quote:

---

Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

---

that's fine. no symbols. no crosses, no fish. no "passion of the christ." you do realize that the symbol they don't like is three jesus-fish, right?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-13-2005 07:22 PM

---

אָרַח

hi dave.any attemps to answer my first post? i looked over the pages you linked to, and frankly, your source is a little out there. it takes offense at words and phrases added from other sources in newer texts, but claims that the same kind of additions in the kjv are "inspired by god."i'd like a consistent answer on this, even if it's only an opinion. which do you think is better, smoothing out inconsistencies between texts (using nt quotes to fill in words from the ot, for instance), or that the texts remain true to their individual sources? my opinion on the matter is that the texts should remain true to their individual sources. if samuel leaves out "the brother of" then the translation should too. however, as compromise, i think the translator should emend or footnote the differences -- refer to chronicles, which says something different.there's also another big question. literal, or idiomatic? most of the translations your page takes offense at are idiomatic. the debate is a legitimate one (even if that page is a tad extreme). in english, we have certain concepts associated with words and phrases that aren't always shared in hebrew or greek. should a translation try to be word-for-word, or correctly translate the ideas? i like the second option, personally, because i'm more interested in cultural context and meaning. but it's perfectly acceptable to prefer literal translations. as far as literal english translations go, the kjv is probably the best by a good margin.for instance, it contains the archaic "thou/you" divide. in hebrew, i could say:

• אתה (atah, s/m) - thou
• את (at, s/f) - thou
• אתם (atem, p/m) - you
• אתן (aten, p/f) - you

however, it's not perfect, as you can see. gender is not represented in english, and subjective/objective is not present in hebrew (there's a separate word, et, that's conjugated on to signify a direct object). now, it's a little confusing if you're not used to early modern (shakespearean) english, but if you've read and understood "romeo and juliet" it's not really all that complicated. some meaning is lost a little here and there, but that's all literal translations i think.anyways, there's one other point i want to bring up: this page talks about the italicized "added" words in the kjv, and how they correspond to nt quotes, so they must be "inspired." first off, that's kind of silly -- clearly they got them out of the nt. and of course, they picked a REALLY stupid example:

quote:

---

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psa. 82:6)

​

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)

---

why is this just dumb? the words are italicized (or bracketted) because they're not in the hebrew. i mean, at all. they're not in hebrew at all. hebrew simply doesn't use words like "is" or "are." it's all implied. it's not wrong to put them there, but it's not inspired either. english needs those words, hebrew doesn't. (as a sidenote, it should be "Law" with an uppercase L. and no it's not, it's in ha-ketuvim, not ha-torah. but whatever. quotes would also be nice.) well, the creation bit is another debate. but let me show you an error in the kjv.

quote:

---

Exd 15:4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea

---

the whole moses-crossing-the-red-sea thing is frankly wrong. the word in the hebrew is בים-סוף, b-yam-suf. suf is the word for "reed" or "weed" or even "papyrus." what it's literally sayind is "in the reed sea."it's sort of an assumption that this is the Red Sea, but if you look at a map, moses crossing the red sea is a tad unlikely. i'm not knocking god's ability to perform miracles, i'm just saying that it's in entirely the wrong direction. the red sea is south of sinai and israel, and moses would have to lead the israelites away from the promised land to get there from the north of egypt, where city of raamses was. now, maybe he crossed the gulf of suez (or aqaba if you like crackpot theories) but the passage was probably made in the marshlands in the north of egypt. -- but not the red sea.this is one of my personal accuracy checks. it's a huge tradition that moses crossed the red sea, so it's good to see if a bible is reliant on the text, or on tradition. that said, no text is perfect. my current favourite translation of the old testament is the recent JPS, but even it has problems too. for instance, it doesn't like translating ben-elohym (sons of god) literally, but goes for "-divine beings-." it's tradition that these are angels, and the JPS feels that "sons of god" can be read "gods" like "sons of israel" can be read "israelites." it's scared of the polytheistic implication, but, i don't see any indication that the "sons of god" need be divine at all. it could be a way to refer to kings. (adam and david are both called the "son of god")i don't have a preference for the nt at the moment.personally, i'm fed up of translations. i think it requires some knowledge of the text and the language to really understand what something is about what it's saying. since i care more about the ot, i'm learning hebrew. but even the masoretic hebrew is not "the original." we don't have the originals, they simply don't exist. we have the masoretic and the septuagint (which is older, but a translation). and they usually agree, so it's a good indication that the text is fairly accurate. but there are changes, and additions.and source texts themselves appear to be compilations. much like we treat the bible as one book, people began treating the 5 books of psalms like one book. similarly, we rearranged the texts in the bible -- protestants but them in chronological order by storyline. jews do not. so it's easy to see how a book like ruth could get mixed in between judges and samuel. and then it's easy to see how three separate books could become the single book of genesis. it's all the same process, redaction, recombination, reordering. it has a very interesting and complicated history, but i feel that if we're REALLY concerned about getting "the right bible" we should forego translation entirely, and learn hebrew and greek.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-13-2005 07:12 PM

---

אָרַח

hey, don't you usually make fun of me for that?

---

אָרַח

go take arabic. that way we can curse each other out properly.

---

אָרַח

dave -- it is considered impolite and intellectually dishonest to copy and paste lengthy articles. it appears that is all you have done -- i suspected as much with your first post, and was reassured by the fact that you did not even attempt to address the points i raised. this makes three times, and it's getting annoying.what would be a lot better would be to talk about your own opinions, and contribute to the discussion with your own knowledge, citing sources (with links) when needed. even bare linking (which is also against the rules here) would be a better alternative. we can all read this essay by william kinney on any one of a dozen sites.if you don't want to contribute on your own, there's no reason to be here. filling up the forum with lengthy pseudo-essays and faux-intellectual babble of others, deprived of all formatting and heading is frankly just adding to the noise.now, i've made a geniune attempt to answer some of your issues based on my own knowledge of the material, and i raised some issues of preference and opinion. feel free to provide input on those.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-14-2005 11:26 PM

---

אָרַח

yes, i'm aware this your site: New Page 1it's not plaigarism, but it's still a lengthy cut-and-paste. which is still impolite. for especially lengthy posts, especially ones that cite bible verses or quote or other sources, it's good form to use the quote and/or qs tags. you may hit the "peek" button at the bottom of this post, or any other post, to see how the formatting is done.but still, posting an entire webpage into a forum is generally considered a no-no. frankly, this is not a good approach. you're asking to get flack from some of the more confrontational members here. this particular thread is in one of our religious forums, and is about the bible. chances are that most people posting here about which bible they prefer means they've not only read one bible, but a few.coming on here and trying to evangelize doesn't work. in my opinion, going anywhere and evangelizing in this manner doesn't work. if you want to show christ to people, show them with your love and compassion, and faith. show them by being a helping, loving christian.bible thumping and preaching just brings ridicule, and makes us all look bad.

---

אָרַח

yes, but let's try to keep this one to the bible, as per the topic. i think you'll find most major belief systems say something similar. but this is just asking for dave to get extra-preachy.

---

אָרַח

well, if you noticed in the post you were replying to, i didn't talk about what the niv said. i talked about what the masoretic hebrew says (and posted what it said, with my own translation).the fact is that the masoretic leaves out the word "brother" (as well as his name) in that verse in samuel. so it's not that NIV is leaving out words -- the kjv is ADDING them. they're not in the "original." but it makes sense for it to be goliath's brother because, as you point out, david killed goliath already. (1st samuel 17)however, it should also be noted that chronicles seems to have been written after kings, and it contains a few things considered to be corrections, or even dogmatic re-writings. in the jewish tradition, samuel and kings are holy books in the section called nevi'im ("the prophets"). chronicles is a lot less holy, in the section called kethuvim ("writings" such as psalms).i included a very prominent correction/clarification in the post before. i'm not so much concerned with trying to make the bible 100% true, complete, or the word of god. i'm more interested in understanding it, what it says, how to read it, and why it's important. i try to honor it in a truthful and honest way -- and if that makes it the word of god, so be it.but most of study i've done seems to indicate that it's not. in situations like this, people are essentially arguing that the KJV is the word of god, and no other text, not even the source it was translated from. and that, frankly, is a little cultish. i'm not into bibolatry.

---

אָרַח