• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Your favourite Bible translation and why?

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 28, 2000
Messages
2,641
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
When I was in a mental ward in 2019 I was reading the ward's Gideon's Bible.... I was trying to get "God" to curse me (to "prove" that people were trying to poison me) by reading it upside down. A day or two later I received a sealed NIV Bible from my sisters that was printed upside down... see:



I see that as evidence of the presence of an intelligent force though I think most of the Bible isn't historical.

Anyway it was a 2011 edition NIV Bible. That is the same version that my church uses - even for their large print versions. My version had red text for the words of Jesus.... but the start of John 8 is in black italics... in my Bible and the church's it says this at the top:

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

So it is saying that Jesus probably didn't say that.

For 1 John 5:7-8 it says:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement

The footnote says:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

On the other hand the KJV says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Some fundies like how the KJV supports the doctrine of the trinity....

There is a subset of the NIV called the NIrV - the New International Reader's Version.... I like how it uses plainer language. As a test of the accuracy consider Ezekiel 23:20:

There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses.

As opposed to the Contemporary English Version: (called "The Good News Bible" in Australia)

She eagerly wanted to go to bed with Egyptian men, who were famous for their sexual powers.


The KJV:

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Some Bible versions, like the KJV/NKJV, keep the original word order of the Hebrew/Greek/etc but the NIV doesn't. Some versions paraphrase the words and some go to the extremes like "the Message" where they sometimes don't even keep the verses in the same order.
 
The Adulter's Bible translation, of course.
I looked it up:
The Wicked Bible, sometimes called the Adulterous Bible or the Sinners' Bible, is an edition of the Bible published in 1631 by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, meant to be a reprint of the King James Bible. The name is derived from a mistake made by the compositors: in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14, the word "not" was omitted from the sentence "Thou shalt not commit adultery," causing the verse to instead read "Thou shalt commit adultery."
 
The RSV for the cadence of the language, thought structure and the sheer majesty of the prose. Plus easer to understand than the AV.
And not infected by so many "isms".
 
I used the Oxford Bible in college. Plenty of annotation on academic issues like interpretion isuues and authorship issues. Discussion of anomalies. If you want a good historical and acadmic overview I'd suggest it.


I believe the NRSV project started in the 30s or 40s to bring it into modern vernacular. The idea was a scholarly inter faith look at all of available sources up to modern times.

Rejected by conservatives as 'liberal'. It softened the misogyny. No more Old English thees and thous Evangelocals are fond of.



Gender language​

In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.[2] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neutral word. This move has been widely criticised by some, including within the Catholic Church, and continues to be a point of contention today. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]
 
JPS. Since it was originally written in Hebrew, I think the Jews would be the most accurate
 
I have a small collection of Bible editions and use most of them at least occasionally. My go-to, especially if I'm reaading without any specific goal in mind, is the New Oxford Annotated Bible, whose neutrality and scholastic thoroughness have already been praised upthread. For your interest, this was also the standard when I was at seminary. It's important to pick up the version "with Apocrypha" if you wish to understand Christianity as a whole rather than Protestantism exclusively. If I'm continuing study, the next stop is the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek Bible if it's a New Testament passage that is in question. Its Greek is quite readable, and the footnotes are much more informative than the NOAB. I don't speak or read Hebrew, so in the case of the Hebrew Scriptures, my next stops are usually my Green Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear, followed by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and an extensive internet dive to help me better understand what's going on linguistically.

Others, sometimes. The King James Version is not the most accurate translation, but I would argue that it is the most beautiful. The Voice is notorious for a reason, but tends to get the sense of a passage across better than a more literal-minded translation would.

It's impossible for something to truly be "the best" translation of an anthology for which we possess no autograph - we're always reading translations of translations, because that's all we now have - and theological/philosophical biases effect how many of the common words and phrases are translated into English at all, their original meaning having been lost to linguistic changes in the centuries that have past, if they weren't neologisms to begin with. There are a lot of Greek and Hebrew words, in short, whose only ancient attestation is in the Bible itself, so there is no neutral body of use to compare to if their meaning has become disputed or different ancient translations seem to understand them in rather different ways. With the Hebrew Scriptures, you have the added complication of a written language with no vowels or spacing, making it a matter of scholarly controversy in some cases what word is even meant.
 
I used the Oxford Bible in college. Plenty of annotation on academic issues like interpretion isuues and authorship issues. Discussion of anomalies. If you want a good historical and acadmic overview I'd suggest it.


I believe the NRSV project started in the 30s or 40s to bring it into modern vernacular. The idea was a scholarly inter faith look at all of available sources up to modern times.

Rejected by conservatives as 'liberal'. It softened the misogyny. No more Old English thees and thous Evangelocals are fond of.



Gender language​

In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger wrote for the committee that “many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text”.[2] The RSV observed the older convention of using masculine nouns in a gender-neutral sense (e.g. "man" instead of "person"), and in some cases used a masculine word where the source language used a neutral word. This move has been widely criticised by some, including within the Catholic Church, and continues to be a point of contention today. The NRSV by contrast adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.[2] According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.”[2]
And here I thought I would never be reading the Bible again... Thanks Steve...
 
Back
Top Bottom