Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 2:52 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Favorite Bible Version
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 85 (191146)
03-12-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Monk
03-08-2005 11:31 AM


have read numerous Bible quotes throughout this forum and find that a majority of them are from the King James Version (KJV).

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....)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Monk, posted 03-08-2005 11:31 AM Monk has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 17 of 85 (191221)
03-12-2005 9:26 PM


Glad the OP was about Favourite Bible Version, and not most accurate Version :D
Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2005 10:42 PM Nighttrain has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 85 (191233)
03-12-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nighttrain
03-12-2005 9:26 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nighttrain, posted 03-12-2005 9:26 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nighttrain, posted 03-13-2005 2:31 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Monk, posted 03-13-2005 11:57 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 19 of 85 (191251)
03-13-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
03-12-2005 10:42 PM


And if you can believe Salibi, a lot was mis-translated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2005 10:42 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 2157 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 20 of 85 (191286)
03-13-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
03-12-2005 10:42 PM


Arachnophilia writes:

each has it's ups and downs. some are more accurate than others. (not qualifying that as a good or bad thing)

And

Nightrain writes:

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

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2005 10:42 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 03-13-2005 11:44 PM Monk has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 85 (191367)
03-13-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Monk
03-13-2005 11:57 AM


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Monk, posted 03-13-2005 11:57 AM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Nighttrain, posted 03-14-2005 11:17 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 25 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 5:18 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 22 of 85 (191575)
03-14-2005 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
03-13-2005 11:44 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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 03-13-2005 11:44 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 03-14-2005 11:52 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 85 (191589)
03-14-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Nighttrain
03-14-2005 11:17 PM


And being subjective, of course, means it can`t be inerrant.

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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Nighttrain, posted 03-14-2005 11:17 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
trent13
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 85 (191961)
03-16-2005 4:17 PM


my favorite bible
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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Angeldust, posted 03-19-2005 4:39 PM trent13 has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2157 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 25 of 85 (191975)
03-16-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
03-13-2005 11:44 PM


personal communication
Arachniphilia writes:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 03-13-2005 11:44 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2005 1:04 AM Monk has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 85 (192040)
03-17-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Monk
03-16-2005 5:18 PM


Re: personal communication
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 5:18 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Monk, posted 03-17-2005 12:01 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 2157 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 27 of 85 (192130)
03-17-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by arachnophilia
03-17-2005 1:04 AM


Re: personal communication
Arachnophilia writes:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2005 1:04 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Nighttrain, posted 03-18-2005 8:08 PM Monk has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 28 of 85 (192362)
03-18-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Monk
03-17-2005 12:01 PM


Re: personal communication
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Monk, posted 03-17-2005 12:01 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Monk, posted 03-18-2005 9:15 PM Nighttrain has responded
 Message 33 by Angeldust, posted 03-19-2005 4:35 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 2157 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 29 of 85 (192380)
03-18-2005 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nighttrain
03-18-2005 8:08 PM


Re: personal communication
Nighttrain writes:

But that`s what every splinter sect of Christianity says, too. Their guidance, their interpretation, their inner feeling. Who`s right?

There are approximately 9,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world. Link

Is 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 PM

This message has been edited by MyMonkey, 03-19-2005 12:07 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nighttrain, posted 03-18-2005 8:08 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 03-19-2005 1:00 AM Monk has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2227 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 30 of 85 (192421)
03-19-2005 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Monk
03-18-2005 9:15 PM


Re: personal communication
I have. I don`t.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Monk, posted 03-18-2005 9:15 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 03-19-2005 1:43 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Monk, posted 03-19-2005 8:37 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019