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....)

Glad the OP was about Favourite Bible Version, and not most accurate Version

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.

And if you can believe Salibi, a lot was mis-translated.

And I was intentional about the OP being about "favorite" instead of "accurate" Bible versions because I wanted to keep it friendly and was curious about which Bible version most folks on this board use.There are several threads that challenge Bible accuracy. But not from the standpoint of which version is more/less accurate. At least I couldn't find any.Maybe another thread is in order posing the "version accuracy" question.

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

And being subjective, of course, means it can`t be inerrant. Except in the eyes of the true believer. Of whichever sect. I wonder how many sections of Christianity who originally hailed the Qumran Scrolls as a confirmation, now wish they hadn`t turned up. Possibly, coming to a dig near you, we might recover the words of one of the twelve. Even Jesus`'How to be a Real Christian' manual. Without footnotes. Or redactions. Signed.

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.

My father was a Bible fanatic - we must have had close to ten different bible's in the house growing up, eventually we narrowed it down to one, the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, which was held for a long time to be the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (that changed after Vat. II) Interestingly enough, as I was reading over everyone's posts, the whole thing about when death was introduced called to mind the belief that the Tree of Life in the garden of paradise was the means by which Adam and Eve sustained life, that was how God intended them to live forever, but with the fall and the subsequent removal from paradise, obviously access to the Tree of Life was cut off and death was introduced to man. I suggest that those of you who are interested in interpretations of the bible, check out the Douay-Rheims version. I want to say that it was put together around the time of the C. of Trent (Middle Ages) and I find it simple to understand. Doctrinally, as compared to Protestant versions, there are quite a few semantic differences - which of course make a huge difference. For example, in one Protestant version of the bible the angel announcing the birth of Our Lord to the shepherds exclaims, "Peace and goodwill to all men." The Catholic version is, "Peace to all men of goodwill." That is a huge difference in the content of those two phrases. Thanks for the thread, it was interesting reading everyone's replies.

Exactly right! It is subjective, personal, and private.The more important rendering is the one that speaks to the heart of the individual. It speaks to her/him in a personal way, the same way in which s/he communicates with his/her God.

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.

Yes, it is subjective. When I read the Bible, it is my understanding, my interpretation. I can’t say that my view is the way it is, or the way the authors intended it to be, or that it is the best interpretation for anyone else. I can only speak for myself.Now in other threads there are posts that claim individual Bible interpretations lead to anarchy, but I suppose that’s another topic.Anyway, that’s the journey to understanding that I enjoy when I read/study the Bible. And if I’m still curious about a particular passage, I’ll get a study Bible and see what commentators are saying about the verse in question, or another version and see what the protestants are reading in the NIV, or what Catholics are reading in the NAB. This of course has the side benefit of understanding, at least in part, the point of view of other believers.By doing this, the passage begins to make sense to me. Speaking metaphorically, it comes "alive". Why is this so? Why should some passages "speak" more clearly than others? I’m not talking about grammar here, I’m talking about content.I read all sorts of material all the time as do most people. I'm in a technical profession so I read technical subject matter quite frequently. I also enjoy all sorts of literature, both fact and fiction. During the course of reading any material, there comes a time when the pieces fall together and there is a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Everyone experiences this, but I find the Bible to be different.There is something there other than my intellect or my environmental influences that causes me to truly understand what I am reading. It cannot be defined, it cannot be proven, but it is there for me nonetheless.Well, here is where faith comes in because I believe it is the Spirit of the Lord guiding me.

But that`s what every splinter sect of Christianity says, too. Their guidance, their interpretation, their inner feeling. Who`s right?This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 03-18-2005 08:09 PM

There are approximately 9,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world. LinkIs there a single sect out of those 9,000 that is more correct than others? Is there such a great distinction between those 9,000 that God would declare it correct?Would Jesus proclaim that denomination, out of so many, as the one true Christian faith?If you have read the New Testament and have examined the life of Christ on earth, his teachings, his philosophy, then you already know the answer.{edited for grammer and to add link}This message has been edited by MyMonkey, 03-18-2005 08:19 PMThis message has been edited by MyMonkey, 03-19-2005 12:07 AM

I have. I don`t.