***The Bible: What Version do you Swear By?***

I haven't seen this discussion anywhere, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss what version of translation you would deem as most reliable.

Keep in mind you don't have to be a christian to post your opinion. Actually, if you could keep your responses semi-objective, I'm sure it would keep the religious debate at a minimum, as that is for another thread.

Of all the versions out there, do you have a favorite?

 

Well it depends. If I'm just using it in a literature class or setting I'd go with the King James. Great language and some beautiful passages, plus it would probably fit in nicely.

However, for theology, the version is not as important as having good notes, a concordance, and a Greek and Hebrew translation guide.

But yeah, I like the King James for that too.

 

for working with kids : CEV
for personal devotions : NLT
for theology: NASB/NRSV with concordances and hebrew/greek dictionary

tho i have fond the more ways you look at a passage, the more insight you are given. simple translations (niv, cev) are good for younger people or people without a whole lot of biblical background. I usually stay away from KJV (tho NKJV isn't bad) because the newer translations have older manuscrips that they're working off of

 

I don't swear by any. For convenience I generally refer to the JPS translation from the Masoretic texts. If it's important, I go back to the Hebrew and translate from there.

 

The King James version

 

Why do people use the KJV? It's probably the worst translation out of the ones in common use today.

 

I have both the 'Youth Bible' and the NIV, but I only really read the Youth Bible. Some of the translatons in the King James (though I think John) version sound better, for example, the 'yae though I walk through the shadow ofthe valley of death . . ' bit as apposed to 'eve though I walk through a really dark place'.



. . gay fanfic forever . .

 

Why do people use the KJV? It's probably the worst translation out of the ones in common use today.


It's basically what I grew up with and am used to. Plus, I like it's language, and it is important historically/in literature.

But if you know a translation that's better I'd be glad to hear it.

 

Pretty much any translation is better. The KJV was translated during very puritanical times, so some things were changed.

NIV, NJV, etc etc etc, are all better.

But then some people think that every version other than the KJV has been edited by liberal and "politically corrected"

[image=http://www.swmcmmj.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif]

 

Yeah, that's pretty silly. Sometimes it's as if they think the Bible was originally written in English.

 

omg don't you know, AMerica is GOD'S NATION, so of course it was originally in ENglish!1

 

I use NASB for all things.

 

I haven't read enough New Testaments, and I don't know enough Greek, to talk about the best of those, but the JPS translation is the best that I've read of the Tanakh -- it's readable, yet takes as few liberties and flourishes of language as possible, giving about the closest possible translation of the actual words.

One thing that annoys me is how many translations feel the need to use archaic English. It's a translation! Use modern English! Just because you're translating something old doesn't mean the translation needs to sound old, too!

 

the KJVdoes use beautiful language, but for the average person, especially coming from an unchurched background, it would be a little dry and hard to understand

the newer translations keep the meaning of the words, but make it easier to understand without a lot of the "in head" translating

a good way to see the difference a translation makes it to read an interlinier bible

 

I have several religous mythical books I keep for reference, but I don't beleive any of them have any true validity.

 

That doesn't pertain to the subject of this thread.

 

Why not? The question was, what version of the bible do you swear by? Since I don?t believe any religious book is factual, I wouldn?t swear by or on any of them.

 

None. But I do beleive the bible is a good story. It's totally made up, but it's a good story.

 

KJV. It's just the right thing to read.

 

I think the NIV is more understandable, and my husband has a KJV that is beautifully written and poetic. I don't "swear by" any of them though as I believe the Great Creator gives me his message using other sources.

 

QueanarReg: you don't even think it has any hostorical value what-so-ever? Even if you don't agree with it religious conent, surely it must have some value in describing what the past was like?



. . gay fanfic forever . .

 

I'm with QuanarReg, and I'll respond to Angel's comments, since they partially apply to me as well. No, I don't think it has any historical value, well none in the literal sense, now, literary historical value, I'll give it, but only as a book of fiction.

 

I really like my Youthwalk NIV bible. It has some great devotionals and has 'hot topic' pages that tackles how Christanity is included modern day topics and debates.

 

No, I don't think it has any historical value, well none in the literal sense, now, literary historical value, I'll give it, but only as a book of fiction.


The Bible named and described Hittite civilization before it was discovered by archeologists.

 

It has some historical value.

Cases in point:

There is evidence of a great flood covering the known world.

The evidence regarding the Israelite kings--David, Solomon, etc.--is there.

The Israelites were exiled to Babylon for a time.

There is evidence to coarborate (sp?) much of the story of Moses. Ramses II was Pharaoh at the time. The Nile River ran red, for example, because it was polluted with red mud--if I remember correctly, the mud came from a mudslide on a nearby mountain. There was also a plague of frogs and darkness. Don't remember the other plagues right off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to look them up, but I think there is evidence to prove them also.

Finally, there is evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth was born in a stable in Bethlehem, was raised by a carpenter and his wife, and began a ministry when he was 30 as a prophet who performed miracles. I think there is also evidence that he proclaimed himself the son of God. He was crucified by the Romans for treason after being turned over to them by the Jewish High Priests. There is also evidence that darkness covered the land for three hours after his crucifixion (a solar eclipse) and that his body was missing three days later. I personally believe he rose from the dead but I'm not sure how much non-refutable proof there is of this.

What there is no evidence of is the immaculate conception, and for this reason, many people believe that Jesus was actually Joseph's son and that Mary was covering her butt because she had...*gasp*...had premarital sex. My husband and I tend to believe this, although my husband still considers himself a Christian.

Personally, I believe in Jesus of Nazareth and I believe that he was/is divine. I just don't buy into the infallibility of the Bible.