Favorite Bible version

[Jim47]

My Bible of choice has been the NIV for quite a few years now as I am WELS Lutheran. I have read the whole Bible in the KJV a couple times and still refer to it on occasion because some scripture I seem to remember better form the KJV.

I am not a biblical scholar, wished I were but I'm not that smart and gettin dumber every day :D

Now to my questions:

1. For those of you who still like the KJV could explain why? Please understand I am not knocking it, I just find the "Old English" very hard to translate into modern english that we use. I do also question some of the scriptures as translated, but thats not part of my question.

2. NIV translation. I have been told recently by a Baptist minister that the NIV is very inaccurate and has left out many scriptures that were in the KJV, and completely changed others. If this is true, is there a reason?

3. MY Pator told me that the newer translation "God's Word" is a very good and even better translation. What are your thoughts on that.

4. How many of you use the newer version of the KJV The "NKJV" ? My Pastor told me this also a very good translation, but because they have very strict copy right laws, it makes it very difficult for churches to use and scripture from it.

I know I'll have more questions, but that is a good start.

Thanks for your help and God Bless You all. :holy:

[Rechtgläubig]

.

2. NIV translation. I have been told recently by a Baptist minister that the NIV is very inaccurate and has left out many scriptures that were in the KJV, and completely changed others. If this is true, is there a reason?Hi Jim, I also like the NIV. Simply because it is easy to understand. I read several translations found on bibegateway.com, but generally read the NIV.

As far as inaccuracies go, this paper put out by our synod lists many changes they would like to see in the NIV and why: http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/w/wlsniv/wlsniv.htm


Now the minister you talked to probably had other issues. I am guessing he isn't complaining that the greek tense of such-n-such word isn't portrayed as it should in the NIV or whatever else, he is probably compairing passages from each translation side by side and when they don't match up, calling it inaccurate. Not so much as questioning what the Greek or Hebrew actually say, but what does the KJV say, and if the NIV differs from the KJV and it can't be used to support a doctrine born from KJVO text, then it is called wrong.

Now when confronted by the arguement that the NIV removes text, call them on it. What is pulled? Is it a entire block of text? Look it up in your NIV bible. You will see an explanation, something like "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have...", but the passages remain, or some will have footnotes with the text included there...


(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31#en-NIV-30617)1 John 5:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31#en-NIV-30617) 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 sixteenth century)
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31#en-NIV-30617)

Here is an example of KJO doctrine. Scripture support for believer's baptism, that may have gotten him riled up:

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The NIV has verse 37 at the bottom as a footnote:


36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?”[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=8&version=31#fen-NIV-27202f)] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

f. Acts 8:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=8&version=31#en-NIV-27202) Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

I don't have issues with the KJ bible, but I do have issues with KJVonlyism.

:D Hope some of my ranting proves usefull! See ya Jim and get some sleep!

:wave:

[Jim47]

That helped me a whole bunch, a big bunch. I should have thought of it myself, but my mind is a little fuzzy.

Still interested in other answers, and does anyone consider the KJV a problem in "us" modern speaking english people to understand?

Again, I am asking that you understand I want these answers in a positive context, I'm not looking to upset anyone or cause any doubts.

Sleep will have to wait for another night,been pounding on this keyboard all night. :sleep:

[Rechtgläubig]

That helped me a whole bunch, a big bunch. I should have thought of it myself, but my mind is a little fuzzy.
You're welcome and I understand. :D You seem to be up on here through the night as much as me.


Still interested in other answers, and does anyone consider the KJV a problem in "us" modern speaking english people to understand?

Again, I am asking that you understand I want these answers in a positive context, I'm not looking to upset anyone or cause any doubts.

Sleep will have to wait for another night,been pounding on this keyboard all night. :sleep: OK I will offer some responses to the rest of your questions, and try not to rant so much in the process. :holy:

As for the question about a problem:

I did have a problem. I don't so much now. I grew up mormon, which are by the way KJVO (maybe that's why I dislike KJVO so much?). I was not allowed to read any other translations. When my friend gave me a NIV bible I was excided to read it, and understood it because it was in modern english. I will teach my kids from the NIV, but not NIVO. :D

[Rechtgläubig]

:


3. MY Pator told me that the newer translation "God's Word" is a very good and even better translation. What are your thoughts on that.

I can't answer, I don't know greek or hebrew. :( My pastor does and loves the KJV. He admits there are innacuracies in the KJV, and the paper I linked to lists problems with the NIV. It seems to me it is personal preferance.


4. How many of you use the newer version of the KJV The "NKJV" ? My Pastor told me this also a very good translation, but because they have very strict copy right laws, it makes it very difficult for churches to use and scripture from it.

I used it a few times on biblegateway.com. My wife is actually thinking of getting a NKJV bible after I showed her some things that upset her in her Dake KJV and she wants a new bible now. LOL :clap:

Besides I am tired of having to explain every KJ verse she reads to her. She was raised KJVO, and it is a hard habit for her to break. :D

[Jim47]

[/color][/size][/font]
You're welcome and I understand. You seem to be up on here through the night as much as me.


[font=Comic Sans MS][color=black]OK I will offer some responses to the rest of your questions, and try not to rant so much in the process.

As for the question about a problem:

I did have a problem. I don't so much now. I grew up mormon, which are by the way KJVO (maybe that's why I dislike KJVO so much?). I was not allowed to read any other translations. When my friend gave me a NIV bible I was excided to read it, and understood it because it was in modern english. I will teach my kids from the NIV, but not NIVO. :D[size=3]I'm still able to laugh ^_^ , so I can't be too bad off.

I feel the same way about the NIV, I do really like God's Word also though, and I even have it on my Palm Pilot.

Praise God that He converted you from the Mormans :bow: That is truely awesome. I never heard the KJVO, guess its not worth my time though :thumbsup:

[SPALATIN]

I think that I stated it on a different thread, but I would like to get a new ESV(English Standard Version). NIV is ok, but comparing it to the ESV shows the ESV to be crisper in meaning than NIV. The NIV BTW is 40 years old in 2005. KJV has more holes in it than what you guys showed above as well.

[Rechtgläubig]

Yeah I like the ESV also.

[ChiRho]

NASB (eventually Greek...hopefully)

[KagomeShuko]

I tend to use the NRSV. It's just a personal preference. I also have an NIV and a NKJV. I think that somewhere I have a KJV, but I'm not certain.

I always like my Bibles to have all the footnotes, though. Things like, "some ancient authorities add. . ."

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Organist]

I like the NIV for daily reading (it doesn't strain the brain), but I use NKJV, NASB, NRSV, and KJV for studying, quoting, and sometimes just reading. I like the KJV because I'm a literary nutcase, and even have the 1611 KJV too. The 1611 version I'm eating up because I just love olde English! Absolutely I do agree the NIV has a few problems, and probably should not be relied upon for study. I also have interlinears, and these are from the MT texts. These have proven quite valuable over time to understand which versions have the best/worst translations. Also, through the years, it seems people get in a lather over nothing between the translations. Just using 2 or 3 translations at the same time helps to understand the Scriptures better if it is very important to have an indepth understanding. Some people do think it that important, and some don't. If the KJV is supposedly so awful, just remember how many people used it for hundreds of years, and didn't think that much about it. I also like the KJV because the ye (plural) and the you (singular) helps to understand who is the object of the statement. ;)

[OrthoCanuck]

I own about 8 versions (NRSV,KJV,RSV-CE,NAB,NKJV,GNB,NASB,NIV). I use the various translations for comparison in translations. I love the KJV because I was raised with it, and I love the antiquated language and it sounds good read aloud. But I normally use the NRSV. It is the bible used in many Lutheran, Anglican and RC parishes here in Canada. I was also presented with a NRSV Oxford Study Bible (w/Apocrypha) by my Lutheran pastor a couple weeks before my confirmation. I use that for study purposes. For casual reading I usually read the NRSV Catholic Ed. because it is less bulky than the Study Bible and it has pronounciation marks to aid in reading names and terms (especially in the OT). I believe each translation has it's ups and downs, and I don't think there is a perfect translation.

[Organist]

I own about 8 versions (NRSV,KJV,RSV-CE,NAB,NKJV,GNB,NASB,NIV). I use the various translations for comparison in translations. I love the KJV because I was raised with it, and I love the antiquated language and it sounds good read aloud. But I normally use the NRSV. It is the bible used in many Lutheran, Anglican and RC parishes here in Canada. I was also presented with a NRSV Oxford Study Bible (w/Apocrypha) by my Lutheran pastor a couple weeks before my confirmation. I use that for study purposes. For casual reading I usually read the NRSV Catholic Ed. because it is less bulky than the Study Bible and it has pronounciation marks to aid in reading names and terms (especially in the OT). I believe each translation has it's ups and downs, and I don't think there is a perfect translation.

I agree, there is "no perfect one" because it comes down to a matter of which one does the best for the individual. It seems I've been using the NRSV more and more lately, and not sure why. I just like the way it is set up. :)

[KagomeShuko]

I agree, there is "no perfect one" because it comes down to a matter of which one does the best for the individual. It seems I've been using the NRSV more and more lately, and not sure why. I just like the way it is set up. :)
There's definitely not a perfect one, as they are all translations. I use my NSRV the most, too. That's the version that the ELCA uses officially, I guess, since it is the one we use in our church services and we got some for Sunday School, too - though we have other versions as well.

Haha. . .finally, a google at that makes PERFECT sense in one of these threads! "Parallel Bibles."

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Qoheleth]

RSV & NKJV

[revjpw]

The NIV BTW is 40 years old in 2005.
No, the NIV first came out in 1973 which makes it 32 years old in 2005. It was later updated in 1978 and again in 1984.

My preferred version is the ESV. My second (and a close second) would be NKJV because of its readibility, but for study purposes (in English) it is the ESV, although I always defer to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Personally I dislike the NRSV completely. The editors of that one have made wholesale changes to the Greek and Hebrew texts to come up with something that is "gender neutral." They have changed the text to the point that the meaning of the text has been altered.


DaRev:preach:

[filosofer]

Personally I dislike the NRSV completely. The editors of that one have made wholesale changes to the Greek and Hebrew texts to come up with something that is "gender neutral." They have changed the text to the point that the meaning of the text has been altered.

For me the gender issue is cause for concern. However, an even worse problem with the NRSV is when they translators have opted for an non-standard reading, but never indicate that it is non-standard, i.e no footnote to say "this reading comes from the DSS" (or something like that). Thus, unless one knows Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, you might never know that they took a textual variant. And then you have no idea why they did that.

[filosofer]

There is a distinction between the translation and the textual base of the translation; and then there is the translation philosophy. The NT textus receptus is the base for KJV and essential for NKJV. While there are many manuscripts that support the textus receptus, there have been significant manuscript disocveries in the past 400 years. Most other translations use these older manuscripts and then approach the text from that which is most likely the original text. (There are many issues/difficulties in the process, so this may have to be another thread.)

For a new believer the best translation I have found when comparing the Hebrew and Greek is God's Word (GW) translation (by the God's Word to the Nations Bible Society (www.godsword.org). I would rank it better than the NLT and the NIV. The TNIV in my evaluation is also better than the NIV.

Several LCMS asnd WELS exegetes/translators were used in the process of producing GW, which started as an update of the Beck Bible. I had the privilege of assisting in reviewing the NT and then having my congregations serve as test congregations before the final revisions of 1993-4. GW translation is one of the best translations, and at times one of the more frustrating - not because of accuracy, but my background in expecting certain English words to be used. The visual layout of the poetic texts is a prominent feature that aids in understanding, connecting points that might be missed in a strictly prose approach to the text.

As for translation philosophy, there are two major categories, and then the paraphrase.

For serious study, it is helpful to have at least two translations that reflect different approaches:

Formal Equivalence (FE) (often mislabeled "word-for-word"):

NAS 95 [New American Standard]
NKJV [New King James Version]
HCSB [Holman Christian Standard Bible]
NET [New Evangelical Translation]
ESV [English Standard Version]
REB/NEB (British) [New English Bible, Revised English Bible] (some editions contain deutero-canonicals)
NRSV/RSV [New Revised Standard Version] (some editions contain deutero-canonicals)
NAB [New American Bible] (RCC)
Berkeley

Dynamic Equivalence (DE) or Meaning Based (MB):

GW [God's Word]
ISV [International Standard Version] (NT only presently)
Beck
NCV [New Century Version]
NIV (NIrV for children and ESL)
CEV [Contemporary English Version]
NLT [New Living Translation]
NJB/JB [New Jerusalem Bible ] (RCC)(some editions contain deutero-canonicals)

So the recommendation is one translation from each group. If given only a choice of two, I would take NAS and GW (Well, actually I would take the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, but I assume that we're talking English translations. ;) )

[Jim47]

There is a distinction between the translation and the textual base of the translation; and then there is the translation philosophy. The NT textus receptus is the base for KJV and essential for NKJV. While there are many manuscripts that support the textus receptus, there have been significant manuscript disocveries in the past 400 years. Most other translations use these older manuscripts and then approach the text from that which is most likely the original text. (There are many issues/difficulties in the process, so this may have to be another thread.)

For a new believer the best translation I have found when comparing the Hebrew and Greek is God's Word (GW) translation (by the God's Word to the Nations Bible Society (www.godsword.org (http://www.godsword.org/)). I would rank it better than the NLT and the NIV. The TNIV in my evaluation is also better than the NIV.

Several LCMS asnd WELS exegetes/translators were used in the process of producing GW, which started as an update of the Beck Bible. I had the privilege of assisting in reviewing the NT and then having my congregations serve as test congregations before the final revisions of 1993-4. GW translation is one of the best translations, and at times one of the more frustrating - not because of accuracy, but my background in expecting certain English words to be used. The visual layout of the poetic texts is a prominent feature that aids in understanding, connecting points that might be missed in a strictly prose approach to the text.

As for translation philosophy, there are two major categories, and then the paraphrase.

For serious study, it is helpful to have at least two translations that reflect different approaches:

Formal Equivalence (FE) (often mislabeled "word-for-word"):

NAS 95 [New American Standard]
NKJV [New King James Version]
HCSB [Holman Christian Standard Bible]
NET [New Evangelical Translation]
ESV [English Standard Version]
REB/NEB (British) [New English Bible, Revised English Bible] (some editions contain deutero-canonicals)
NRSV/RSV [New Revised Standard Version] (some editions contain deutero-canonicals)
NAB [New American Bible] (RCC)
Berkeley

Dynamic Equivalence (DE) or Meaning Based (MB):

GW [God's Word]
ISV [International Standard Version] (NT only presently)
Beck
NCV [New Century Version]
NIV (NIrV for children and ESL)
CEV [Contemporary English Version]
NLT [New Living Translation]
NJB/JB [New Jerusalem Bible ] (RCC)(some editions contain deutero-canonicals)

So the recommendation is one translation from each group. If given only a choice of two, I would take NAS and GW (Well, actually I would take the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, but I assume that we're talking English translations. ;) )


Wonderful info and very useful. Thanks :thumbsup:

[KagomeShuko]

For me the gender issue is cause for concern. However, an even worse problem with the NRSV is when they translators have opted for an non-standard reading, but never indicate that it is non-standard, i.e no footnote to say "this reading comes from the DSS" (or something like that). Thus, unless one knows Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, you might never know that they took a textual variant. And then you have no idea why they did that.

I like the NRSV, but also a good reason to have an NIV version as well.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Organist]

No, the NIV first came out in 1973 which makes it 32 years old in 2005. It was later updated in 1978 and again in 1984.

My preferred version is the ESV. My second (and a close second) would be NKJV because of its readibility, but for study purposes (in English) it is the ESV, although I always defer to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Personally I dislike the NRSV completely. The editors of that one have made wholesale changes to the Greek and Hebrew texts to come up with something that is "gender neutral." They have changed the text to the point that the meaning of the text has been altered.


DaRev:preach:

I believe the Living Bible came out in 1965 or 1966, because I remember friends using it (NT only) in Sunday School. (Not Lutheran)...that's what I was curious about, but later found out I did not like it.

[missingMN]

Well I thank you all for this thread, I just purchased the ESV version. My first Bilble Study is Friday so I can't wait to dig in. I am going to check in the KJV as well so I have another translation for reference.

[III John]

My church uses the NIV. I bought the Concordia Self-Study Bible a couple months ago and have been using that at my Life With God (adult confirmation) class I've been taking on Wednesday nights, as well as other Bible studies at church.

I also recently picked up the Concordia edition of the ESV and have been reading that for my personal Bible reading at home. I am currently reading through the Bible and have done a much better job at staying with it than on my previous attempts. I also noticed, when visiting my fiancee during Christmas, that her dad's church uses the ESV. So I figured it wouldn't hurt to pick one up, and I haven't regretted it at all.

I also own Bibles in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NLT translations. However, I use ESV, NIV, and KJV most of the time (in that order).

[filosofer]

My church uses the NIV. I bought the Concordia Self-Study Bible a couple months ago and have been using that at my Life With God (adult confirmation) class I've been taking on Wednesday nights, as well as other Bible studies at church.

I hope you continue in studies throughout your life. :)

I also recently picked up the Concordia edition of the ESV and have been reading that for my personal Bible reading at home. I am currently reading through the Bible and have done a much better job at staying with it than on my previous attempts. I also noticed, when visiting my fiancee during Christmas, that her dad's church uses the ESV. So I figured it wouldn't hurt to pick one up, and I haven't regretted it at all.

I also own Bibles in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NLT translations. However, I use ESV, NIV, and KJV most of the time (in that order).

Just be aware of the wrong translation in the ESV at John 20:23.

[SPALATIN]

I hope you continue in studies throughout your life. :)



Just be aware of the wrong translation in the ESV at John 20:23.

Is that the only place the ESV has a translation error?

[ChiRho]

JOHN 20 (ESV)

23 "If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld."

JOHN 20 (NASB)

23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

JOHN 20 (NIV)

23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Filo-

Youre gonna have to help me out with this one. Maybe you could break down the Greek for us?

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)

23 αν τινων αφητε τας αμαρτιας αφιενται αυτοις αν τινων κρατητε κεκρατηνται


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[SPALATIN]

No, the NIV first came out in 1973 which makes it 32 years old in 2005. It was later updated in 1978 and again in 1984.

My preferred version is the ESV. My second (and a close second) would be NKJV because of its readibility, but for study purposes (in English) it is the ESV, although I always defer to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Personally I dislike the NRSV completely. The editors of that one have made wholesale changes to the Greek and Hebrew texts to come up with something that is "gender neutral." They have changed the text to the point that the meaning of the text has been altered.


DaRev:preach:

Hey Rev,

Maybe the project by the International Bible Society began their work on this version in 1965. I remember that there is something in the NIV introduction regarding that year.

[Zoomer]

My dad has a bible that has 4 columns on each page, each with a different translation. It makes it easier to compared and contrast the differences. I want to buy one of those eventually. We have NIV, which we used for everyday reading and studying since it is easy to read. We also have the KJV & NRSV. My next Bible purchase is going to be ESV.

[KagomeShuko]

My dad has a bible that has 4 columns on each page, each with a different translation. It makes it easier to compared and contrast the differences. I want to buy one of those eventually. We have NIV, which we used for everyday reading and studying since it is easy to read. We also have the KJV & NRSV. My next Bible purchase is going to be ESV.
I've seen those. They are pretty neat. Sometimes they make me dizzy! LOL

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

I use many different versions. I like the NKJV a lot. I am currently going through the KJV cover to cover, using audio-bible.com to listen to it while I read it.

I dislike the RSV and NRSV. One of the reasons is their horrendous mistranslation of Exodus 21:22.

[pastel]

I use many different versions. I like the NKJV a lot. I am currently going through the KJV cover to cover, using audio-bible.com to listen to it while I read it.

I dislike the RSV and NRSV. One of the reasons is their horrendous mistranslation of Exodus 21:22.

I just found this in my Interlinear Bible, and in context the whole paragraph is speaking of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life" - and I do not see the word "misscarriage" in there. I suppose it may mean "no further injury" means the baby is simply born prematurely, so the husband may demand a fine?

I'm not a Bible scholar either... so this is my limited understanding. :confused:

[filosofer]

JOHN 20 (ESV)

23 "If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld."

JOHN 20 (NASB)

23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

JOHN 20 (NIV)

23 "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Filo-

Youre gonna have to help me out with this one. Maybe you could break down the Greek for us?

???? ??????? 20 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)

23 ?? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????????


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

In the Greek the word KRATHTE has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word "withhold" in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness."

However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural)., not forgiveness.

AN TINWN AFHTE TAS hAMARTIAS AFEWNTAI AUTOIS

if ever of whom you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to/for them

AN TINWN KRATHTE KEKRATHNTAI

if ever of whom .... you retain, they have been (and are still) retained ...

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is "the sins" (TAS hAMARTIAS); the indirect object is "to them" (AUTOIS) . In the Greek of the second part of the sentence, the direct object and the indirect object are not supplied. But normal Greek structure means that the direct object and indirect object previously mentioned would carry over. Thus, the second line would translate:

if ever of whom [the sins] you retain, they are retained [to them]

Note that ESV changes this, so that it takes the verb of the first part of the sentence and makes it into a noun to be used as the direct object in the second phrase. I don't know of any other case in which such a practice is followed, especially by a translation that favors an "essentially literal" approach.

[Protoevangel]

I just found this in my Interlinear Bible, and in context the whole paragraph is speaking of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life" - and I do not see the word "misscarriage" in there. I suppose it may mean "no further injury" means the baby is simply born prematurely, so the husband may demand a fine?

I'm not a Bible scholar either... so this is my limited understanding. :confused:You are exactly right, Charlene. The word that the RSV and NRSV mistranslate as miscarriage is “yasa”, which means “going” or “coming out”. It is used nearly a thousand times in the Old Testament, and it never indicates a miscarriage. On the other hand, there are two ancient Hebrew words that do mean miscarriage, they are “nepel” (see Job 3:16, Ecclesiastes 6:3-4, and Psalms 58:8) and “sakal” (see Genesis 31:38, Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, and Job 21:10).

There is nothing in the text or the context to indicate that the child is dead. It (the RSV/NRSV) simply translates this badly. It is a bad translation that baby killers and those that support those killers latch on to and attempt to use to suppress the truth.

If two are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman, causing a premature birth, with no harm - to either mother or child - a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness, and for all the problems surrounding a premature birth. But if there is any harm to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out per the law of retribution. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.

[revjpw]

ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.

NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

In the Greek the word KRATHTE has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word "withhold" in this context. Notice that it appears as if the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness."

However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against the person are the sins (plural)., not forgiveness.

AN TINWN AFHTE TAS hAMARTIAS AFEWNTAI AUTOIS

if ever of whom you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to/for them

AN TINWN KRATHTE KEKRATHNTAI

if ever of whom .... you retain, they have been (and are still) retained ...

Note, the parallel construction of the sentence. The direct object in the first part is "the sins" (TAS hAMARTIAS); the indirect object is "to them" (AUTOIS) . In the Greek of the second part of the sentence, the direct object and the indirect object are not supplied. But normal Greek structure means that the direct object and indirect object previously mentioned would carry over. Thus, the second line would translate:

if ever of whom [the sins] you retain, they are retained [to them]

Note that ESV changes this, so that it takes the verb of the first part of the sentence and makes it into a noun to be used as the direct object in the second phrase. I don't know of any other case in which such a practice is followed, especially by a translation that favors an "essentially literal" approach.

The Greek word KRATEO also means "to restrain" or "to hold back". Are they to restrain the sin or the forgiveness of sin? With this intepretation the ESV is accurate.


DaRev

[pastel]

You are exactly right, Charlene. The word that the RSV and NRSV mistranslate as miscarriage is “yasa”, which means “going” or “coming out”. It is used nearly a thousand times in the Old Testament, and it never indicates a miscarriage. On the other hand, there are two ancient Hebrew words that do mean miscarriage, they are “nepel” (see Job 3:16, Ecclesiastes 6:3-4, and Psalms 58:8) and “sakal” (see Genesis 31:38, Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, and Job 21:10).

There is nothing in the text or the context to indicate that the child is dead. It (the RSV/NRSV) simply translates this badly. It is a bad translation that baby killers and those that support those killers latch on to and attempt to use to suppress the truth.

If two are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman, causing a premature birth, with no harm - to either mother or child - a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness, and for all the problems surrounding a premature birth. But if there is any harm to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out per the law of retribution. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.

We think of a miscarriage as a loss of the baby. However, in my dictionary it doesn't indicate a dead baby, just a premature birth. Now I'm really "confoosed" :scratch:

However, I'm with you, that was a bad choice of word for the NRSV. Thanks for the warning.

[Qoheleth]

The Greek word KRATEO also means "to restrain" or "to hold back". Are they to restrain the sin or the forgiveness of sin? With this intepretation the ESV is accurate.

Interesting...filo, your turn

[filosofer]

The Greek word KRATEO also means "to restrain" or "to hold back". Are they to restrain the sin or the forgiveness of sin? With this intepretation the ESV is accurate.


As you have asked it, neither. That is, the direct object in the sentence is TAS hAMARTIAS ("sins") - plural. Note, that "forgiveness" is not in the noun form in the sentence, rather it is the verb parallel to "restrain. Thus, the parallel of the verbs is: "forgive" / "restrain". Now the question is what is forgiven and what is restrained? In the first phrase, the direct object of "forgive" is TAS hAMARTIAS ("sins") - plural. So they are to "forgive sins". There is no direct object associated with "restrain, and so the normal Greek sequence is to repeat the direct object of the earlier verb: "restrain the sins"? The question then arises whether "restrains" is appropriate translation in this context.

If a person claims that the direct object of "restrain" is "forgivness", then the only way to get that is to ignore the first ddirect object, change the the first verb into a noun and make it the direct object (none of which the Greek does).

So, no matter how you slice it, the ESV is inaccurate, and reflects a poor choice. BTW, there are other places(OT) where the ESV does not follow the original closely, causing questions about it as a reliable translation, or perhaps better: it is in need of a second step translation (like it wasn't fully proofed). Had I offered some of these as translations for the Hebrew in seminary, I would have failed, or at best gotten a D. However, I will say that overall the NT is done fairly well aside from this. I have not checked every verse, but I have examined many critical passages, and this is most glaring mistake.

[GlowingFirefly]

You are exactly right, Charlene. The word that the RSV and NRSV mistranslate as miscarriage is “yasa”, which means “going” or “coming out”. It is used nearly a thousand times in the Old Testament, and it never indicates a miscarriage. On the other hand, there are two ancient Hebrew words that do mean miscarriage, they are “nepel” (see Job 3:16, Ecclesiastes 6:3-4, and Psalms 58:8) and “sakal” (see Genesis 31:38, Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, and Job 21:10).

There is nothing in the text or the context to indicate that the child is dead. It (the RSV/NRSV) simply translates this badly. It is a bad translation that baby killers and those that support those killers latch on to and attempt to use to suppress the truth.

If two are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman, causing a premature birth, with no harm - to either mother or child - a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness, and for all the problems surrounding a premature birth. But if there is any harm to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out per the law of retribution. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.


That's really interesting Dan. I didn't know that the NRSV translated it that way.

I actually started out using a Teen Devotional Bible a few years ago, which was a NIV. The thing I liked about that Bible was that in the back it lists a variety of different things that refer to Bible passages and where to find them.

Example, if say I wanted to find a passage about depression, the Bible would say where there were passages about it in the back of the Bible and on what page. It was very helpful for me.

Not too long ago I recieved a NRSV Bible when I was confirmed. I really like it better than the NIV only because when I read it I can understand it. I've looked at a KJV before and it is so hard for me to understand it. I personally like the modern Bibles a lot better.

The only bad thing about my NRSV Bible is that all it has in the back of the Bible is a map of I don't even know what. There are no listings of Bible passages or anything like in my NIV. So that's the bad thing.

I've been trying to find a Teen Bible that has listings like that in the back and is a NRSV Bible, but so far no luck. :( If I could just find a Bible like that, I would be set. :)

[KagomeShuko]

That's really interesting Dan. I didn't know that the NRSV translated it that way.

I actually started out using a Teen Devotional Bible a few years ago, which was a NIV. The thing I liked about that Bible was that in the back it lists a variety of different things that refer to Bible passages and where to find them.

Example, if say I wanted to find a passage about depression, the Bible would say where there were passages about it in the back of the Bible and on what page. It was very helpful for me.

Not too long ago I recieved a NRSV Bible when I was confirmed. I really like it better than the NIV only because when I read it I can understand it. I've looked at a KJV before and it is so hard for me to understand it. I personally like the modern Bibles a lot better.

The only bad thing about my NRSV Bible is that all it has in the back of the Bible is a map of I don't even know what. There are no listings of Bible passages or anything like in my NIV. So that's the bad thing.

I've been trying to find a Teen Bible that has listings like that in the back and is a NRSV Bible, but so far no luck. :( If I could just find a Bible like that, I would be set. :)
If you want a good NRSV Bible, go through Augsburg Fortress and get one of the Student's Study Bibles by Zondervan and Augsburg.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[theologia crucis]

GW translation is one of the best translations, and at times one of the more frustrating - not because of accuracy, but my background in expecting certain English words to be used.

By this, do you mean "God's approval" instead of "justification" as one example?

Romans 3:28 (ESV)

[28] For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 3:28 (GW)

[28] We conclude that a person has God’s approval because of faith, not because of his own efforts.

I definitely expect the former, or something like it!

Filo, in your estimation, would it better to leave "justification" in the reading, but then put a note next to it and explain what the term means theologically?

I do kinda like "not because of his own efforts" though; I can sort of feel the "sola"...

[Protoevangel]

That's really interesting Dan. I didn't know that the NRSV translated it that way.

I actually started out using a Teen Devotional Bible a few years ago, which was a NIV. The thing I liked about that Bible was that in the back it lists a variety of different things that refer to Bible passages and where to find them.

Example, if say I wanted to find a passage about depression, the Bible would say where there were passages about it in the back of the Bible and on what page. It was very helpful for me.

Not too long ago I recieved a NRSV Bible when I was confirmed. I really like it better than the NIV only because when I read it I can understand it. I've looked at a KJV before and it is so hard for me to understand it. I personally like the modern Bibles a lot better.

The only bad thing about my NRSV Bible is that all it has in the back of the Bible is a map of I don't even know what. There are no listings of Bible passages or anything like in my NIV. So that's the bad thing.

I've been trying to find a Teen Bible that has listings like that in the back and is a NRSV Bible, but so far no luck. :( If I could just find a Bible like that, I would be set. :)I don't know anything about what study Bibles are available for the NRSV, because like I said, I don't personally care for it very much. I do know about a NKJV teen study Bible. The NKJV is not hard to read like the old King James Version, it is a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.

You can check out the New King James Version, along with many other translations, to compare them or to do your studies at http://www.biblegateway.com.

The New King James Version can be purchased at Amazon: HERE (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785200827/qid%3D1106286126/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-6818445-2537751)

[Phoebe]

RSV or King James. The others seem too watered down in text.
The ELCA uses the NRSV, but I prefer the older version.

[KagomeShuko]

I don't know anything about what study Bibles are available for the NRSV, because like I said, I don't personally care for it very much. I do know about a NKJV teen study Bible. The NKJV is not hard to read like the old King James Version, it is a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.

You can check out the New King James Version, along with many other translations, to compare them or to do your studies at http://www.biblegateway.com.

The New King James Version can be purchased at Amazon: HERE (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785200827/qid%3D1106286126/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-6818445-2537751)
When it comes to NRSV study Bibles, this is the one I've personally found to be the best:
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/item.asp?clsid=113094&isbn=0806600209

Yes, biblegateway is awesome! I tend to use http://bible.crosswalk.com

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[revjpw]

So, no matter how you slice it, the ESV is inaccurate, and reflects a poor choice.

Not really. The variation in the interpretation of the word does open the door for such a translation, although you are correct that the grammar suggests otherwise. However, let me ask this: Does not the retaining of sins also restrain forgiveness? Your argument seems to be that the ESV reading gives too much power to the disciples, however, this passage is part of the institution of the Pastoral office, which has that power and authority.

I am not so quick to dismiss the ESV on this note. I prefer it over most others, especially the NRSV and other paraphrases.


DaRev

[Protoevangel]

When it comes to NRSV study Bibles, this is the one I've personally found to be the best:
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/item.asp?clsid=113094&isbn=0806600209

Yes, biblegateway is awesome! I tend to use http://bible.crosswalk.com

Stein Auf!
BridgetYes, the interlinear and parallel Bibles, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and lexicons there make bible.crosswalk.com an extremely valuable resource. The only thing I don't like about it is that it had the RSV and NRSV. ;) ^_^ :P

[KagomeShuko]

The only thing I don't like about it is that it had the RSV and NRSV. ;) ^_^ :P

Oh, :P !

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

The variation in the interpretation of the word does open the door for such a translation, although you are correct that the grammar suggests otherwise.

"Let me be perfectly clear!" [to quote a former president]... :)

Note carefully what my approach is on this issue:

1. We have to understand the Greek text. After all, we establish doctrine on the basis of the original language texts, not on the basis of a translation. And doctrine is based on exegeis, not the other way around. Thus, Greek grammar and syntax are important, even critical, and they must not be dismissed, even if such an approach might fit our theology. If you are a pastor, you have the responsibility to know, translate, and understand Greek (and Hebrew).

2. Translating the original language text is a critical step in bringing the Word to other humans, and especially if we are to serve the target audience, namely English speaking people. Thus, translators do not have the luxury of claiming "well, at least my doctrine is correct." That is inexcusable for a translator or translator team. Again, a pastor should never be satisfied with that position.

3. As Bible-based Lutherans we follow Luther's dictum: "What does the text say?" If we hedge on that by accepting an inaccurate/wrong translation "because at least we can get the theology right" then we have moved away from the Lutheran position and accepted the reason-based approach of the Reformed (such as, we translated PAS/PANTES everywhere as "every/all" except where Christ's atonement is concerned).

4. For Lutheran students of the Word, we all (in the inclusive sense of the word!) should be concerned with accurate translations.

However, let me ask this: Does not the retaining of sins also restrain forgiveness? Your argument seems to be that the ESV reading gives too much power to the disciples, however, this passage is part of the institution of the Pastoral office, which has that power and authority.

Although I mention that, that is not the basis of rejecting the translation. That is a consequence of a bad translation, namely to open the door to wrong theology. The issue is not whether the apostles had the authority; rather the issue is whether the bad translation gives the wrong authority, or even an inaccurate view of authority. It does make a difference wehther the direct object is sin, or forgiveness, or sins. Thus, even if it is the basis for the institution for the Pastoral Office that does not give us license to accept a bad translation for the passage to support it.


I am not so quick to dismiss the ESV on this note. I prefer it over most others, especially the NRSV and other paraphrases.


Note, I have not dismissed the ESV translation. In fact, it's amazing when you consider how much bad translating can be done, that the ESV comes out as well as it does. When people ask me about a translation to use, I recommend the NAS, NKJV, and ESV (in that order) for those who desire a Formal Equivalence translation. I strongly recommend it over the NIV. Of course, I also prefer the TNIV over the NIV, but that is another discussion.

If you have read any of my assessments of the ESV elsewhere on this board, you will find that I highly recommend it, especially as a liturgical text.

So my objection to the ESV rendering of John 20:23 does not prevent me at the same time from accepting the overall translation as good.

Finally, isn't it interesting that when the 1986 Small Catechism came out the NIV was used as the translation based - except in John 20:23 - because the NIV got it wrong. So the Small Catechism used the NKJV at that point. Now on the verge of a new Small Catechism (approved at convention), the translation this time is the ESV- except for John 20:23. Why do you suppose that our best theologians objected to the use of both the NIV and the ESV for that verse? Because the translations for both were inaccurate.

Greek (and Hebrew/Aramaic) grammar and syntax are important, and translation of such texts are equally important.

[revjpw]

Now on the verge of a new Small Catechism (approved at convention), the translation this time is the ESV- except for John 20:23.

Actually, it was voted down at convention.


DaRev

[Qoheleth]

filo,

Great info. Thanks much


Q

[filosofer]

Actually, it was voted down at convention.


DaRev

Yes, you are corect. I was combining two issues: one on the ESV for the liturgy/hymnal, which was approved, and the ESV for the catechism, which remained with NIV. My point is that the theologians did not approve of either the NIV or ESV translation of John 20:23.

[CSMR]

The NKJV is not hard to read like the old King James Version, it is a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.
Or one can go back in time to the Tyndale (+Coverdale for the Old Testament that he didn't finish). He borrowed quite a bit from Luther, including some prefaces and notes. His translation is easier to read than the KJV (in a modern-spelling edition). The KJV is of course based on it, but made it more formalised and less direct. The KJV does have more of a metre, which is sometimes nice.

Of modern translations, I don't like the NIV because I find its expression is too literalistic. I like the RSV/NRSV which communicates the content naturally.

[filosofer]

I don't like the NIV because I find its expression is too literalistic.

Can you expand on this assessment? It is unusual to find those two in the same sentence (NIV, literalistic).

[pastel]

Can you expand on this assessment? It is unusual to find those two in the same sentence (NIV, literalistic).


Very true. The NIV is a thought-for-though translation, as opposed to a word-for-word translation.

[revjpw]

Can you expand on this assessment? It is unusual to find those two in the same sentence (NIV, literalistic).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^_^ ^_^
That's funny!!

[filosofer]

Here is an example of the ESV presenting an acceptable translation, but awkward English:

Jeremiah 31:8
ESV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and her who is in labor, together..."

NAS95 "Behold, I am bringing them from the north country and I will gather them from the remote parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she who is in labor with child, together..."

NKJV "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and the one who labors with child, together..."

The ESV misses on two counts: The use of "her" is awkward and yields very unnatural English. Also, the other elements in parallel all have the definite article in English, which would suggest that the NKJV has rendered the parallelism best.

[revjpw]

The use of "her" is awkward and yields very unnatural English.

Actually it is proper English, but it's not conversational so it does sound awkward. This is one of the places where the ESV retains an "RSVism."


DaRev

[filosofer]

Actually it is proper English, but it's not conversational so it does sound awkward.

True, if you strip away all other words in the sentence except the subject-verb-DO, then it 'sounds appropriate/natural. However, given the context and the parallelism, it does sound as if it is "not proper English". This brings up an important point about the aural quality of a translation, that is, how does it read to the ear. I usually try translations by reading silently, but then reading aloud. That will tell much about the cadence, rhythm, and intelligibility of the translation. I think this is one area in which the NIV fails, and an area in which the ESV for the most part does very well. Hence the ESV makes for a good liturgical text, the NIV does not.

This is one of the places where the ESV retains an "RSVism."


Yes, I was aware of this. However, never having been an RSV person, I seldom even look at it. Although now that I use MacSword for quick concordance/reference when doing computer work, I generally use RSV (it is a free version, NAS, NKJV, ESV, NET are paid versions). When I study, I am hard copy, old-school theologian/linguist, so I pull out Moulton-Geden or Evan Shoshan.

[CSMR]

Can you expand on this assessment? It is unusual to find those two in the same sentence (NIV, literalistic).

I don't mean keeping to the letter of the text. I mean that it reduces the grammar to something straightforward. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it literalistic, but that is how the word seems normally to be used these days: reading as if the words straightforwardly express the meanings. If Origen were reading the NIV, he would be hard-pressed to find any senses other than the literal. The NIV seems to make the text straightforward by removing ambiguity and insisting on simple grammar, sometimes seeming like an interpretive paraphrase.
(For instance in Romans 1:5:
RSV: to bring about the obedience of faith
Vulgate literally: to obedience of faith
Tyndale: unto obedience of the faith
NIV: to the obedience that comes from faith.)

[CSMR]

True, if you strip away all other words in the sentence except the subject-verb-DO, then it 'sounds appropriate/natural. However, given the context and the parallelism, it does sound as if it is "not proper English".
It would be less natural, as well as wrong, to use she rather than her, unless one has forgotten the subject and verb! The unnaturalness seems to be created by the word together: does it have to qualify both the bringing and the gathering? 'I will bring these and gather those together' is not natural English. Perhaps 'I will bring together them from.. and gather together them from...' would fix it.

[filosofer]

It would be less natural, as well as wrong, to use she rather than her, unless one has forgotten the subject and verb! The unnaturalness seems to be created by the word together: does it have to qualify both the bringing and the gathering? 'I will bring these and gather those together' is not natural English. Perhaps 'I will bring together them from.. and gather together them from...' would fix it.

If you look at what I suggested was more natural it was not to use "she", rather "the one who..." which allows the paralelleism and retains natural English.

[filosofer]

I don't mean keeping to the letter of the text. I mean that it reduces the grammar to something straightforward. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it literalistic, but that is how the word seems normally to be used these days: reading as if the words straightforwardly express the meanings. If Origen were reading the NIV, he would be hard-pressed to find any senses other than the literal. The NIV seems to make the text straightforward by removing ambiguity and insisting on simple grammar, sometimes seeming like an interpretive paraphrase.
(For instance in Romans 1:5:
RSV: to bring about the obedience of faith
Vulgate literally: to obedience of faith
Tyndale: unto obedience of the faith
NIV: to the obedience that comes from faith.)

Well, you are not using the terms as historically used. And a translation should retain the meaning as close as possible in a translation. Who cares about Origen and his false interpretations? There are not multiple meanings to the text that can be forced upon it. That was one of the benefits of the Reformation which asked "What does the text say?" Not "What other meanings can be hidden and discovered that are not obvious?"

Yes, you are correct that the NIV takes away some of the ambiguity, but that does not make it more literal, nor more faithful to the text. But be clear - ambiguity does not lend itself to the "hard-pressed to find any senses other than the literal" point of view. That is a non-Lutheran, and in fact non-Biblical. If you look at these, what has happened is that the NIV has forced the interpretation of the text by giving one possible understanding of the underlying Greek. In that sense, the NIV is less literal, because it has demanded that the only way to understand the genitive is this way.

[BigNorsk]

Whenever asked what my favorite translation is, I have to ask, "For what?"

Many seem to find almost everything to be a bad translation, I find most translations to be pretty good, they all have a problem or two, but on the whole, it amazes me what a good job various groups have done. You could pretty well just close your eyes pick up a Bible and read, and if you aren't exactly correct according to God, it would have a lot more to do with you, than which translation you are reading.

For in depth study I like the NASB, but that is mostly because I can use it with the Strong's numbers to help understand the passage. I have the Strong's helps for it and not for others so I end up using it for a foundation for learning. Close second is the NET due to the 60,000 plus translators notes, I always look up difficult passages in the NET to see what the footnotes say.

For memorization the KJV, the same olde language that makes it more difficult to understand, makes it easier to remember.

To sit and read, the NET (New English Translation), the little translator in my mind pretty well goes away, the English is English as I know it.

If I was reading to a large group with various ages present. It would be the NLT, the NRSV or the NET. Unless they are all asleep then I'd probably whip out a Patch paraphrase and start reading how Jesus left Atlanta to go to Mexico (that'll wake them up!), but that's just me.

I think the ability of word for word translation to line up with the Strong's numbers or with the type of translation that would most easily come from the Greek text is why so many pastors like the more "literal" translations and don't like the thought for thought translations. Since most people don't bother with the Greek, they tend to like the better, easier English of the thought for thought.

One thing about word for word translations, they are often called literal. But it seems to me that to have the same word in Hebrew or Greek translated as say five or six different English words stretches the idea of literalness. If you said this Greek word is this English word and stuck with it, that to me would be literal. Interestingly, there is a translation that is that way, the name slips me at the moment. I've listen to those that say a translation must be literal, tear down the most literal as unreadable, go figure.

The thing is, the thought for thought, is often a better true translation. There is often one more level of translation left for the reader to perform in the word for word translations. Now the thought for thought are another level already performed and as such are more open to criticism because the person reading might understand the passage differently, and so ends up criticising the translation, whether fairly or unfairly. The other weakness, if you will, of thought for thought is that it is more specific to the audience. The translation relies on culture as well and language.

For example, the NIV works very well for me, but you see my English is about the same age and from the same instruction as it's language. Already, it is a little off for my children. It is harder to take a developed thought from years ago and update it, it is easier to take word for word and explain them. When someone commits a sin, my children would understand it perfectly if the person confessing it said "My bad." I would not, I may have even used it incorrectly here, I don't know, but they would.

When the issue of gender neutral comes up, it depends most on your English. Most of the new translations will drive most people over 40 a bit batty, but take someone under 30 and they say it looks good. I think the issue isn't really gender neutral, but gender correct. The original languages are actually gender neutral in many places. Older translations especially, aren't gender neutral in those places to younger people so are effectively incorrect. An older person can read chairman and understand that it can be either a man or a woman, most younger people, especially in the NE US do not. They would read it and take it to mean only a man.

Gender neutrality can go farther than I think it should, where the translation starts to translate as neutral things that are either masculine or feminine in the original language, and a couple of newer translations seem to me to do a handful of those cases. What is interesting, is that it seems to me, many of the critics seem to make the same mistake the King James Version Only people make of using a previous translation as the standard, not the original languages. Due to problems in English making a passage one that is gender neutral to all readers often makes the passage a little less elegant, it doesn't flow smoothly. We really need a whole set of words that don't exist to do the job.

If, at this point, you were to say I had to pick one Bible and use it for everything, I would probably go with the NET. It's literal where it can be, while still using thoughts where literalness would loose the thought. It reads easy. It does it's best to be gender correct. It is understandable to a lot of different ages and backgrounds. And best of all, it documents these things in the footnotes, so I can see the decisions the translators made and why, and that gives me something I can't get anywhere else. You can read it online or download it free at www.bible.org (http://www.bible.org).

Just so people know, I am a volunteer with the netbibleinstitute which produced the NET. When I read the last paragraph, it sounds a bit like a sales pitch, I want it out in the open, because I do not receive a dime from NET bible sales, but I do know some of the people and help out as a volunteer. But you don't have to believe me, go to the site, go to the NET bible on the menu and read it or download it freely. The translation is currently 2nd Beta version and is still taking comments, so if there is something you think should be different, please participate, and make comments so the translation can be improved.

Thanks,
Marv

[Qoheleth]

filo, and anyone else, what does everyone think of the 21st Century King James Version??


Q

[pastel]

I just found out about the TNIV - Today's New International Version, and apparently has the gender neutral trait of the NRSV too.

[Protoevangel]

filo, and anyone else, what does everyone think of the 21st Century King James Version??
Q

The 21st Century King James Version isn't a new translation, it's just another update to the KJV, eliminating obsolete words, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. I like it alright.

[Dr. Martin Luther]

You can't beat Luther's version of the Bible. But I guess few of you read German? :(


Pity. :P

[filosofer]

You can't beat Luther's version of the Bible. But I guess few of you read German?


What's a pity is that many people know know the essence of your translation, Dr. Luther. Obviously they haven't read what you consider the heart of translating - "Peter should sound so German that..." :)

[Dr. Martin Luther]

What's a pity is that many people know know the essence of your translation, Dr. Luther. Obviously they haven't read what you consider the heart of translating - "Peter should sound so German that..." :)

Ich habe keine Ahnung. - I have no idea. :)

[KagomeShuko]

You can't beat Luther's version of the Bible. But I guess few of you read German? :(


Pity. :P
Herr Doktor,

I know very few German words.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

vo ist der panzerzug?

nein, nein... einbahnstrasse!!!

:scratch:

[KagomeShuko]

vo ist der panzerzug?

nein, nein... einbahnstrasse!!!

:scratch:
something, something. . .

No, no. .something. . .

Huh? LOL

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[pastel]

vo ist der panzerzug?

nein, nein... einbahnstrasse!!!

:scratch:

:eek:

[Protoevangel]

vo ist der panzerzug?Where is the tank platoon? (Or: where is the armored train?)




nein, nein... einbahnstrasse!!!no, no... One Way Street!!!

:sorry: Sorry, with all this talk about German, I just felt the need to spout out all I remembered.

[revjpw]

vo ist der panzerzug?

nein, nein... einbahnstrasse!!!

:scratch:

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat??:scratch:

[ChiRho]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat??:scratch:


I dont need none of this education. ;)

[Protoevangel]

I dont need none of this education. ;)Floyd quotes? Oo goody! :clap:

When cometh the day we lowly ones,
through quiet reflection and great dedication,
master the art of karate,
lo, we shall rise up,
and then we'll make the buggers eyes water.

[pastel]

I know that Panzer means panther...zug means train .... and one way street.... ;)

[KagomeShuko]

Where is the tank platoon? (Or: where is the armored train?)




no, no... One Way Street!!!

:sorry: Sorry, with all this talk about German, I just felt the need to spout out all I remembered.
Sehr gut. . .I think?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Qoheleth]

I dont need none of this education


....Just another brick in the wall....


Q

[KagomeShuko]

....Just another brick in the wall....


Q
that's really written on one of the bricks in the chemistry building at McNeese State University. . .we have no idea who did it. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[pastel]

It all depends on what I'm using the study for. I really like the NASB, and have for years, especially for indepth study. The NKJV was quite a novel thing when it came out, and immediately I purchased one of those. The NIV Study Bible, the Concordia one, is really nice when in group Bible study. Now I have the Life Application Bible in NASB and learning how to use that. Then there is the Thompson Chain KJV with the Strong's numbering system. That is really cool to study words, and haven't done that in a long while, but I should dig them out and dust them off someday soon - to keep up with filo and the rest of the scholars on this board. ;)

[ByzantineDixie]

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat??:scratch:

^_^ This is killin' me. It is such a GERMAN thing to say. I can hear my mom (a native) now. They have an interesting sense of logic...as if the whole world should see things their way. And those that don't...well, they are just defective. ;)

Loved it.-----R

[KagomeShuko]

^_^ This is killin' me. It is such a GERMAN thing to say. I can hear my mom (a native) now. They have an interesting sense of logic...as if the whole world should see things their way. And those that don't...well, they are just defective. ;)

Loved it.-----R
For somebody whose ethnicity is 50% German, I just don't get it. . .I think that might come from growing up in Louisiana. . .LOL

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[filosofer]

50% German, I just don't get it.

This makes sense! :D

[KagomeShuko]

For somebody whose ethnicity is 50% German, I just don't get it. . .I think that might come from growing up in Louisiana. . .LOL

Stein Auf!
Bridget
This thread lost me a few posts ago. . .

Maybe it's that Lithuanian in me? If not. . .that English? Norweigen? Dutch? Irish?

LOL

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[RevJoshua]

I kinda like the NKJV. My church uses the NIV.

[revjpw]

Michael D. Bridges is droolworthy.



He is single... and looking.;)

(yeah, I know its a tad off-subject for this thread...)


DaRev

[revjpw]

I kinda like the NKJV. My church uses the NIV.

I kinda like the NKJV, too. It's the first version I read cover to cover.
It rates a close second to the ESV for me, which we use during services.


DaRev:)

[KagomeShuko]

He is single... and looking.;)

(yeah, I know its a tad off-subject for this thread...)


DaRev
LOL. . .yes, so I hear. . .um, wow. . .actually, what one of my roommates and I heard at the "Extra Vaganza" was odd to hear. . .who knew he'd just say what he did while there were fans standing around. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[revjpw]

LOL. . .yes, so I hear. . .um, wow. . .actually, what one of my roommates and I heard at the "Extra Vaganza" was odd to hear. . .who knew he'd just say what he did while there were fans standing around. . .


We heard him say it at the LCMS Youth thingy in Orlando!;)

I've known Michael for a while. The kids in my youth group were so impressed that he knew my name when we met him in the hallway.

DaRev

[KagomeShuko]

We heard him say it at the LCMS Youth thingy in Orlando!;)

I've known Michael for a while. The kids in my youth group were so impressed that he knew my name when we met him in the hallway.

DaRev
Well, I'll just say that what my roommate and I heard could be considered a bit more "rumorish" than just him being single and looking. . .but it made us be hyper squealing girls when they asked, "so, like you're practically in love with Michael?" LOL

I saw them in 2000 and then I got to know Michael and George in 2002, and they know my name. George always said hi to me every time I passed him and Monday morning, Michael called me over to the sales table to ask how things were going.

I do a whole lot of praying about my liking Michael . . .who knows. . .but I've had a HUGE crush on him heading for about two years now.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[johnnymapson]

To sit and read, the NET (New English Translation), the little translator in my mind pretty well goes away, the English is English as I know it.


If, at this point, you were to say I had to pick one Bible and use it for everything, I would probably go with the NET. It's literal where it can be, while still using thoughts where literalness would loose the thought. It reads easy. It does it's best to be gender correct. It is understandable to a lot of different ages and backgrounds. And best of all, it documents these things in the footnotes, so I can see the decisions the translators made and why, and that gives me something I can't get anywhere else. You can read it online or download it free at www.bible.org (http://www.bible.org).

Thanks,
Marv
I haven't heard a lot about the NET bible on the boards. It's good to bring some attention to it. I have a copy and like it, it just takes me time to change, especially bible versions! I think the bible.org web site is awesome. There are so many good articles there. I use them frequently in the sunday school class I teach. The translator notes in the NET bible are really neat. It is awesome to see how the translation came about. The only thing I would offer with that bible is to have the notes in the back and have them refrenced some how. I like to read the bible for what it is sometimes and my eyes sometimes wander to much from the task at hand, meaning the notes can sometimes be to distracting. From what I have read it seems good. I am with you on using different translations for different purposes. I have been reading the ESV a lot lately. If I had to take ONE I would probably pick the KJV, just because I am the most familiar with it and have the most memorized from it. Keep up the good work on the NET bible, I am sure that God will do great things with that ministry!:clap: