Bible versions

[BabyLutheran]

What would you veteran Lutherans recommend as a good study Bible for a new Lutheran like me?

[AngCath]

I'm not Lutheran, but the two Lutheran (ELCA) pastors I know both use the New Oxford Annotated NRSV for their principle Bible. The one LCMS pastor I used to know used the Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV.

[RevCowboy]

What would you veteran Lutherans recommend as a good study Bible for a new Lutheran like me?

The NRSV is what you will hear on Sunday mornings in a ELCA church. Even though I do own an NIV, I tend to call it the "Not Inspired Version" because of "pastoral changes" made by the committee,but it is still a good version for personal use. I tend toward a more scholarly use of the bible. I use the Greek for the NT.

If you want something that sounds quite different from what you hear in church, or just a new way of hearing the bible the New Jerusalem Bible is another excellent translation. I use it for my personal devotions because I like the different sound.

There are other versions out there that are excellent as well. The best paraphrase in my books is the Book of God by Walt Wangerin (http://www.amazon.com/Book-God-Bible-Novel/dp/0310236126/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200079667&sr=8-1).

Pretty much anything that Augsburg Fortress sells would be good. They are the official publisher of the ELCA
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/

[BabyLutheran]

The NRSV is what you will hear on Sunday mornings in a ELCA church. Even though I do own an NIV, I tend to call it the "Not Inspired Version" because of "pastoral changes" made by the committee,but it is still a good version for personal use. I tend toward a more scholarly use of the bible. I use the Greek for the NT.

If you want something that sounds quite different from what you hear in church, or just a new way of hearing the bible the New Jerusalem Bible is another excellent translation. I use it for my personal devotions because I like the different sound.

There are other versions out there that are excellent as well. The best paraphrase in my books is the Book of God by Walt Wangerin (http://www.amazon.com/Book-God-Bible-Novel/dp/0310236126/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200079667&sr=8-1).
I actually read the Book of God about 5 years ago, it was very good.

More specifically, what is your opinion of the NLT. I have that one currently, but as they say, "you can never have too many Bibles."

[RevCowboy]

I know the NLT is a popular paraphrase right now and I even own one somewhere. But I really don't have much use for it. At best it could be a good companion to an actual translation. I would only use it after I had read a passage from an actual translation.

[BabyLutheran]

Thanks, that's what I needed to know. I will shop around for another Bible ASAP.

[stumpjumper]

I prefer the NRSV but I also enjoy the Good News Bible or Today's English Version.

[RevCowboy]

Thanks, that's what I needed to know. I will shop around for another Bible ASAP.

Now I feel bad for suggesting that you spend money...

You know BL, you should consider moving to Canada. I would love to have a congregation full of folks as eager as you are about your faith!!!

[BabyLutheran]

Have you ever thought of how redundant the NRSV name is.

I guess next they will make a Revised New Revised Standard Version.

It could go on forever.

[DaRev]

If you want a Bible that you can study from I would avoid the paraphrases like the plague (NLT, CEV, God's Word, The Message, etc.) And the GNT (Good News Bible) is really good for camp fires... they burn real well, but aren't good for much else. The problem with these is that they contain too much in the way of prejudice of the paraphraser. In many cases they have even changed the tone of the text.
I also personally avoid any version that has tried to neutralize the gender descriptions of God, like the NRSV and the TNIV. They, too, have changed the tone and content of the texts.

While the NIV has some good qualities, it isn't really a good translation either. It does read very well as it's written in an 8th grade level, but there are some issues with it as well.

Personally, as an English translation, I use the English Standard Version (ESV). It reads well and stays pretty much in line with the original language texts. Concordia Publishing House is preparing a study Bible using this version to be available within the next year or so.

The NKJV (New King James) is a good version to read and study from as well.

If you want real Bible study capability, I suggest you learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek and then invest in the BHS Hebrew Bible and the Nestle-Aland Greek NT. These are pretty much the standard in Lutheran circles.

[stumpjumper]

Hey.

I like the Good News Bible!

Sure it's not very scholarly but it's easy to read and it reminds me of my childhood. I still have the one I received at confirmation.

Maybe it's the nostalgia but there's nothing wrong with that :P

[Lupinus]

Personally I really like the english standard version, it's my personal favorite.

For a study bible though of whats reasonably easy to find, widly used, etc a NIV study bible is good and concordia offers one. I'll be picking up the ESV study bible as soon as concordia gets it printed.

[JoeCatch]

I'll second AngCath's recommendation for the New Oxford Annotated Bible. The augmented third edition was released a little under a year ago. The study notes are geared toward discussing historical-critical issues that arise within the texts, so it's not really a "devotional" bible like a lot of others with study notes that you might encounter. But if you want to read with an awareness of the scholarly issues surrounding the texts of the bible, the New Oxford Annotated NRSV is probably your best bet.

Other study bibles with similar (i.e., scholarly, historical-critical) emphases are the New Interpreter's Study Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible. Again, no devotional or "life application" notes here. I haven't had a chance to get my hands on either of them, so I can only discuss them by reputation. Those who have made use of them say that they're good, though. All three use the New Revised Standard Version as their text--it's a fairly literal translation done by a group of scholars who didn't approach the texts with a theological agenda. And, like RevCowboy pointed out, it's the translation you'll most likely hear on Sunday mornings in ELCA congregations.

[DaSeminarian]

The NRSV is what you will hear on Sunday mornings in a ELCA church. Even though I do own an NIV, I tend to call it the "Not Inspired Version" because of "pastoral changes" made by the committee,but it is still a good version for personal use. I tend toward a more scholarly use of the bible. I use the Greek for the NT.

If you want something that sounds quite different from what you hear in church, or just a new way of hearing the bible the New Jerusalem Bible is another excellent translation. I use it for my personal devotions because I like the different sound.

There are other versions out there that are excellent as well. The best paraphrase in my books is the Book of God by Walt Wangerin (http://www.amazon.com/Book-God-Bible-Novel/dp/0310236126/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200079667&sr=8-1).

Pretty much anything that Augsburg Fortress sells would be good. They are the official publisher of the ELCA
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/

I neither prefer the NRSV or the NIV. NIV is too reformed in its translation. I have not looked at the NRSV to determine whether or not it is a good translation or not.

I use the ESV which does have a few problems in translation of some verses, but is overall fairly accurate. All in all I like the original language bibles better than anything written in English. But then I am in the Seminary and understand those languages as well.

[DaRev]

I neither prefer the NRSV or the NIV. NIV is too reformed in its translation. I have not looked at the NRSV to determine whether or not it is a good translation or not.

The NRSV was purposely translated to be gender neutral. In doing so it has changed the dynamic of the text in many places. The TNIV is the same way. Neither of them are good for deep Scripture study since they do not accurately represent the original languages.

One version that was not mentioned but is really very good for deep study is the NASB, especially for the New Testament. It is a bit of a clunky read, but it maintains the integrity of the Greek. The KJV is also a decent text for Old Testament study for the same reason.

[DaSeminarian]

The NRSV was purposely translated to be gender neutral. In doing so it has changed the dynamic of the text in many places. The TNIV is the same way. Neither of them are good for deep Scripture study since they do not accurately represent the original languages.

One version that was not mentioned but is really very good for deep study is the NASB, especially for the New Testament. It is a bit of a clunky read, but it maintains the integrity of the Greek. The KJV is also a decent text for Old Testament study for the same reason.

I use the NASB when I am translating the original greek. Only a couple of times have I found there to be a discrepancy.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The English Standard Version is based upon the best scholarly reconstructions of the Hebrew and Greek texts (unlike the King James), is a very accurate translation that doesn't embed the theological interpretation of the translator into the text (unlike the New International), is thoroughly Christian in its presentation of key Old Testament texts (unlike the Revised Standard), and doesn't purposeful alter the text based on a gender-neutral translation philosophy (unlike the New Revised Standard).

I highly recommend the English Standard Version.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I really like the NKJV, but I also use the NAB Catholic edition, I like the way it reads, and the notes are good, and it has the apocryphal books as well. My Pastor likes it as well.

[BigNorsk]

Has the Concordia Study Bible in ESV come out yet? That would be a real good choice and I know it's in the works, but I wasn't sure if it's been published.

Marv

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No, unfortunately, I don't believe it has. I'll be ordering the old NIV Concordia Study Bible to prepare for my entry-level exams. Right now, the best ESV study Bible that's out is the Reformation Study Bible, but unfortunately its from a heavily Calvinistic perspectives- which isn't all bad, if you can wade through the rationalistic assumptions.

[synger]

I'm waiting for the ESV Concordia. I just got an interlineal greek new testament, but it's based on the texts used by the KJV. But for someone who can barely figure out greek letters yet, it's a start.

[Zecryphon]

Personally I really like the english standard version, it's my personal favorite.

For a study bible though of whats reasonably easy to find, widly used, etc a NIV study bible is good and concordia offers one. I'll be picking up the ESV study bible as soon as concordia gets it printed.
Any idea when Concordia is gonna get around to printing that one? I'm eagerly waiting for that one.

[Lupinus]

according to the websites faqs summer 2009

I currently have the reference addition, which is nice but a study bible would be better.

Some more ESV offerings-

They also have what they are calling a study companion

[DaSeminarian]

Has the Concordia Study Bible in ESV come out yet? That would be a real good choice and I know it's in the works, but I wasn't sure if it's been published.

Marv

My sources at the Concordia Bookstore at CTS said that they are working on one and it should be out sometime in 2009.

[Melethiel]

Here's another vote for the ESV - I find it very readable, and from what I've heard, quite accurate.

[JoeCatch]

Just out of curiosity, how is the ESV doing outside the Lutheran churches? Like any new bible translation, there's always the downright pragmatic issue of whether it's going to catch on with people. I know that the ESV was not an exclusively Lutheran translation, but still really never hear anyone other than Lutherans mention it when these sorts of discussions come up. I know that the fact that it's been embraced by Lutherans has a lot to do with the fact that the LCMS/Concordia got behind it by using it in their new hymnal. I was still a Missouri Synod Lutheran myself at the time that was still being discussed, and recall that while just about everybody thought it was a good translation, some still worried that it might be perceived as sectarian if it just failed to garner widespread use and acceptance. I've got a copy myself and like it, though I hardly ever use it because the NRSV is almost always sufficient for my needs, so it just hardly ever crosses my mind to look elsewhere. But how is the ESV doing in other churches outside of Lutheranism?

[Melethiel]

It's catching on in Reformed circles as well, from what I can tell.

[DaRev]

There were a number of different Bible scholars involved in the ESV translation. Besides scholars from the LCMS were Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglican/Episcoplaian, Wesleyan, among others.

[RevCowboy]

I haven't heard much about the ESV, but to hear you all talk about it I might have to get a copy. I am probably out of the loop because my igloo's internet connection is sketchy at best in the winter and simply non-existent in the summer. ;)

[DaRev]

I haven't heard much about the ESV, but to hear you all talk about it I might have to get a copy. I am probably out of the loop because my igloo's internet connection is sketchy at best in the winter and simply non-existent in the summer. ;)

Check it out here (http://www.esv.org/).

[BigNorsk]

The ESV is a good translation with an occassional brain cramp. There's the occassional verse that is almost inexplicable as to why it's translated the way it is.

Anyway there is a revision being worked on and it should really give a good solid translation, at least that is the hope.

filosofer who graces us with his presence has been somewhat involved in the revision. He gave a really good explanation of a few of the verses that are a bit off awhile ago, maybe you can search and find it.

A lot of translations have that. The HCSB is a good translation but it looks like the verses concerning baptism you could just as well put an footnote that says see Southern Baptist Convention explanation of baptism.

Marv

[Till]

There is an ad for the Archaeological Study Bible at the bottom of this page. I have already thought about ordering that study bible. Does anyone own it?

[Tofferer]

There is an ad for the Archaeological Study Bible at the bottom of this page. I have already thought about ordering that study bible. Does anyone own it?


Yes. I have one. It was a graduation gift from my pastor when I was awarded my A.Th. It is very well done and quite full of information regarding issues of translation notes, historical evidence of events, photographs of various locations etc....

My copy is an NIV, which is the bible version I generally use for both study and personal reading. I really like how readable the text is and yet it is not overly simplistic. I also have a Confraternity (read Roman Catholic) bible that was a wedding present to my mom and dad back in 1977 (when they divorced, they decided to give it to me). It is also pretty easy to read, but it also tries to occassionally reinterpret scripture to prove RC doctrine. I'd like to find an Archaeological Study Bible in the ESV format someday so that I can compare it side by side with the NIV. I think that would be fun.

[Zecryphon]

Just out of curiosity, how is the ESV doing outside the Lutheran churches? Like any new bible translation, there's always the downright pragmatic issue of whether it's going to catch on with people. I know that the ESV was not an exclusively Lutheran translation, but still really never hear anyone other than Lutherans mention it when these sorts of discussions come up. I know that the fact that it's been embraced by Lutherans has a lot to do with the fact that the LCMS/Concordia got behind it by using it in their new hymnal. I was still a Missouri Synod Lutheran myself at the time that was still being discussed, and recall that while just about everybody thought it was a good translation, some still worried that it might be perceived as sectarian if it just failed to garner widespread use and acceptance. I've got a copy myself and like it, though I hardly ever use it because the NRSV is almost always sufficient for my needs, so it just hardly ever crosses my mind to look elsewhere. But how is the ESV doing in other churches outside of Lutheranism?
In the ND church I attended prior to becoming a Lutheran they changed from the NASB to the ESV. I personally never understood the rationale as the two are so similar when compared side by side. I did think church politics played a role as one of the members of that church was a translator on the ESV project.

[Zecryphon]

There is an ad for the Archaeological Study Bible at the bottom of this page. I have already thought about ordering that study bible. Does anyone own it?


I own it and agree with everything Toff said. I didn't finish reading Toff's post but another thing I like about it and this may just be me, is the pretty pictures and informative articles as well as the sepia-toned paper. It make reading that Bible easier on the eyes. And yes I'd love a Bible that had pop-up pictures! LOL

[Kirkhaven]

I too own an Archaeological Study Bible and have found it to be a real gem of a study bible. When it comes to making user freindly study bibles, I believe Zondervan has always held a strong corner of the study bible market. Personally, I would have liked to seen this particular bible in a different translation. While some of the more scholarly readers assert that NIV is the 'Nearly Inspired Version', it's still a very readable version of the scriptures. My own preference however is the NKJV.

[DaSeminarian]

I too own an Archaeological Study Bible and have found it to be a real gem of a study bible. When it comes to making user freindly study bibles, I believe Zondervan has always held a strong corner of the study bible market. Personally, I would have liked to seen this particular bible in a different translation. While some of the more scholarly readers assert that NIV is the 'Nearly Inspired Version', it's still a very readable version of the scriptures. My own preference however is the NKJV.

It is interesting to me that you would pick a picture of an actor, who though he portrayed King David in a movie, is a Budhist in his own practice. I'm not saying his portrayal was bad, but because I know of the actor's true religious leanings are not Jewish or Christian.

[BabyLutheran]

sort of like listening to the Barbra Streisand Christmas album, I guess!?

[Kirkhaven]

Good point, and I like it that you recognized where the picture is from. Rest assured, I am a Christian. The reason why I posted it was because I've been told I look like him. As for the movie King David...well, it could have been worse I suppose.

[filosofer]

filosofer who graces us with his presence has been somewhat involved in the revision. He gave a really good explanation of a few of the verses that are a bit off awhile ago, maybe you can search and find it.


Here is one of the discussions on this board (http://christianforums.com/t2233139-nasb-esv-kj3-litv2005-or-kj3-interlinear.html) where I identify a few problem areas with ESV.

[Zecryphon]

Here is one of the discussions on this board (http://christianforums.com/t2233139-nasb-esv-kj3-litv2005-or-kj3-interlinear.html) where I identify a few problem areas with ESV.


Do you think those problems are severe enough to cause someone to not use that translation? Or are those errors like other errors in other Bible translations. What I concluded a long time ago is that there is not one Bible translation out there that will satisfy everybody. Once you publish a translation, you'll find a hundred critics of it, saying why it's not as good as their preferred translation.

[LutherNut]

The ESV isn't meant to be a "modern English" version, but rather a traditional English version. We have enough of that "modern version" crap floating around.

[Zecryphon]

The ESV isn't meant to be a "modern English" version, but rather a traditional English version. We have enough of that "modern version" crap floating around.
I think the most "modern" English version is The Message. But in my opinion that doesn't qualify as scripture.

[filosofer]

Do you think those problems are severe enough to cause someone to not use that translation? Or are those errors like other errors in other Bible translations. What I concluded a long time ago is that there is not one Bible translation out there that will satisfy everybody. Once you publish a translation, you'll find a hundred critics of it, saying why it's not as good as their preferred translation.

If you read my follow on comment in that thread, you will notice that I conclude with the assessment that the ESV is still a very good translation. Of the Formal Equivalence transations I rank them this way;

1. NAS
2. NKJV
3. ESV

So, it is in good company. And liturgically it is a fine translation.

[Izdaari]

There is an ad for theArchaeological Study Bible at the bottom of this page. I have already thought about ordering that study bible. Does anyone own it?


Yes, and I love it for its beauty and for the excellent historical notes! Mine is NIV, I hadn't noticed if it came in any other translations.

And for a non-Lutheran (moderate Pentecostal with emergent tendencies, Lutheran sympathizer) perspective on the ESV, I own one and like it about as much as my other two favorites, the HCSB and the NKJV. It seems about equally readable and about equally accurate overall.

[Kirkhaven]

I find this fascinating because often ideology, whether corporate or individualistic have a role in determining what bible version is adapted.

Mainline churches often choose the NRSV, as well those who consider themselves to be liberal.

Conservative churches, seem to take ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB.

Fundamentalists often choose the KJV.

WHile in college, I even noticed that those who moderate would take the bible versions found between these other two; NLT, TNIV, NCV, The Message.

[Izdaari]

I find this fascinating because often ideology, whether corporate or individualistic have a role in determining what bible version is adapted.

Mainline churches often choose the NRSV, as well those who consider themselves to be liberal.

Conservative churches, seem to take ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB.

Fundamentalists often choose the KJV.

WHile in college, I even noticed that those who moderate would take the bible versions found between these other two; NLT, TNIV, NCV, The Message.
Hmm. I suppose so. I'd say I'm mostly conservative, though with some liberal tendencies, and anything but fundamentalist. KJV is about the only major translation I don't have. Maybe I'll pick one up, but only for the sake of a complete collection; I have a strong dislike for its Elizabethan English.

One thing though: I'm not so sure where the paraphrase translations fit into this. I hadn't noticed them being particularly favored by any group, though I see them disliked by fundamentalists and by serious bible scholars, understandably so since since serious study is not what they're for.

[filosofer]

It seems about equally readable and about equally accurate overall.

Just out of curiosity, for those who do not read Hebrew/Greek, I have two questions:

1. How do you determine whether a translation is "accurate"?

2. What do you mean by "accuracy" in translation?

[MagnusEmboden]

Just out of curiosity, for those who do not read Hebrew/Greek, I have two questions:

1. How do you determine whether a translation is "accurate"?

2. What do you mean by "accuracy" in translation?



I compare it with the KJV.

If it continues to use words like "propitiation", "wrath" and "Sacrifice" it's "more accurate".

:)

[filosofer]

I compare it with the KJV.

If it continues to use words like "propitiation", "wrath" and "Sacrifice" it's "more accurate".

:)

So how do you determine whether the KJV is accurate?

And what do you mean by that?

[RadMan]

So how do you determine whether the KJV is accurate?

And what do you mean by that?

Just curious filo. Does it help to have a Greek lexicon used in conjunction with any bible that is read? Unfortunately the lexicon gives all textual translations of any given Greek word. Since many of us aren't Greek/Hebrew scholars is it best just to leave it alone? Or What?

[DaRev]

I'm not Filo, but...

Just having the lexicon isn't enough. One would have to have some knowledge of Greek grammar and the various word forms and how they fit into different contexts.

[filosofer]

Just curious filo. Does it help to have a Greek lexicon used in conjunction with any bible that is read? Unfortunately the lexicon gives all textual translations of any given Greek word. Since many of us aren't Greek/Hebrew scholars is it best just to leave it alone? Or What?

Rad, excellent question. Just to clarify, I am not a professional linguist nor translator. But I do spend considerable time working in both areas because I think it important for pastors to be as knowledgeable as possible.

Lexicon (or dictionary) lists words according to usage.

1. BDAG (3rd ed. Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich) is the most common one, and it is listed according to root words (and occasionally by form). A specific Greek word is list in only one place with all possible meanings.

2. GEL (Greek-English Lexicon by Louw-Nida) lists words according to semantic range. In this case, a specific Greek word could occur in 3-4 different places depending on its usage.

Just to note there are other complementary lexicons such as: LSJ Liddell-Scott.

However, in both cases, the lexicon provides "glosses" (meanings) for the specific word. The danger is that some people have the idea that a word has an inherent meaning. However, the meaning of the word is dependent on context. Consider the word "ran" - do you know what it "means"? Actually we don't until it has a context.

She ran into the office (she hurried to a place of employment)

She ran into a friend (she accidentally met a friend somewhere)

She ran for office (she put her name in for election)

She ran her car into the ditch (she is a poor driver ;) )

She ran him down (she tried to find out where he was)

She ran him down with a car (She was causing him bodily injury)

She ran her nylons (she has a tear in them - yeah, I know, I'm really old ;) )


Sometimes people who begin using interlinears and lexicons without studying and knowing the language assume that a specific Greek (or Hebrew) word can mean any one of the lexical meanings in any context. Even the translators of the Amplified Bible do this often. That isn't responsible use of the lexicon because it gives a person the idea that I can mix and match word meanings and come up with something far different than the original text.

Other times people will demand that a specific Greek (or Hebrew) word has to be translated the same way in every occurrence. Languages do not work that way. For instance, some claim that TORAH has to be translated into English as "law" everywhere it occurs in the Hebrew Testament, but such misses the fluidity and flexibility of the word. Psalm 19 offers a classic case where people can minsunderstand and misapply such a position.

There is more to this, but this is a long post already.

[RadMan]

Rad, excellent question. Just to clarify, I am not a professional linguist nor translator. But I do spend considerable time working in both areas because I think it important for pastors to be as knowledgeable as possible.

Lexicon (or dictionary) lists words according to usage.

1. BDAG (3rd ed. Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich) is the most common one, and it is listed according to root words (and occasionally by form). A specific Greek word is list in only one place with all possible meanings.

2. GEL (Greek-English Lexicon by Louw-Nida) lists words according to semantic range. In this case, a specific Greek word could occur in 3-4 different places depending on its usage.

Just to note there are other complementary lexicons such as: LSJ Liddell-Scott.

However, in both cases, the lexicon provides "glosses" (meanings) for the specific word. The danger is that some people have the idea that a word has an inherent meaning. However, the meaning of the word is dependent on context. Consider the word "ran" - do you know what it "means"? Actually we don't until it has a context.

She ran into the office (she hurried to a place of employment)

She ran into a friend (she accidentally met a friend somewhere)

She ran for office (she put her name in for election)

She ran her car into the ditch (she is a poor driver ;) )

She ran him down (she tried to find out where he was)

She ran him down with a car (She was causing him bodily injury)

She ran her nylons (she has a tear in them - yeah, I know, I'm really old ;) )


Sometimes people who begin using interlinears and lexicons without studying and knowing the language assume that a specific Greek (or Hebrew) word can mean any one of the lexical meanings in any context. Even the translators of the Amplified Bible do this often. That isn't responsible use of the lexicon because it gives a person the idea that I can mix and match word meanings and come up with something far different than the original text.

Other times people will demand that a specific Greek (or Hebrew) word has to be translated the same way in every occurrence. Languages do not work that way. For instance, some claim that TORAH has to be translated into English as "law" everywhere it occurs in the Hebrew Testament, but such misses the fluidity and flexibility of the word. Psalm 19 offers a classic case where people can minsunderstand and misapply such a position.

There is more to this, but this is a long post already.

I understand the complexities of context since I've taken 2 years German and 2 years of Latin. And I realize the dangers for someone who hasn't had Greek. I haven't used it for specifics but for overall meanings of the words. It just gives me better ideas of what the Greek word might means in any given context.

I can't remember what bible I read years ago but whoever translated it used, in context, translations of the immediate verses on the same page. Of course that would be up to who translates it and what their agenda is. Is there any Bibles like that now that have the, in context, translations with the chapter/verses that would be reliable?

[filosofer]

I will address your question in a later post. Here are some thoughts about how the Amplified Bible goes astray.


The Amplified Bible can give good insight but it also causes problems by presenting something out of context. By giving several alternatives for a Greek/Hebrew word in a specific instance, it almost appears that the specific Greek/Hebrew could mean any of those things. However, the meaning of the word is determined by, and derived from, context, that is, the surrounding words/sentences. Thus, to imply that a specific Greek/Hebrew word could mean one of several different words, because there are lexical (dictionary) definitions (or better, glosses) available is not helping us understand the meaning of that word in this specific context.

This also leads to interpreting rather than translating in the Amplified Bible

Issues of translating vs. interpreting the text -- two examples from the Amplified Bible:

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah].

Words inside [ ] indicates "Amplified" phrasing, words which are added to the text. First, note that the "coming wrath" is restricted by the added words ["upon the impenitent"]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Even more questionable is the last added phrase ["investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah"]. There is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to this phrase. This is purely commentary, not translation, made to appear as if it is specifically intended by the Greek text. It is misleading to say the least.


1 Thessalonians 2:3

AMP: For our appeal [in preaching] does not [originate] from delusion or error or impure purpose or motive, nor in fraud or deceit.

There are major concerns here: the first is with the inserted text ["in preaching"]. The Greek word is PARAKLHSHS, often translated as exhorted or comforted. But nowhere is the connection made with this word and preaching, unless the word KHROUSW is present in the context. In other words, the AMP Bible has limited this appeal to a preaching context when the text does not allow such a restriction/limitation.

Also in this text, how many items in last portion of the text are actually mentioned in the Greek text? From the AMP it would appear at first glance as if there are six items that Paul enumerates. Yet the Greek text has only three. Now the question arises, why the expansion? And then, why those particular words for expansion because the six listed do not exhaust the semantic domains of the three Greek words? The reader is left with a false impression, twice in this verse alone, because the AMP Bible is not translating but interpreting and providing commentary.

[MagnusEmboden]

filo,

I was kidding around...

I tend to think that most modern translations are okay. To a large degree I take the opinion of men I trust and I look for the translation which best satisfies their standards for accuracy and at the same my my own literary tastes.

I come up with the ESV.

[filosofer]

I can't remember what bible I read years ago but whoever translated it used, in context, translations of the immediate verses on the same page. Of course that would be up to who translates it and what their agenda is.


Not sure which translation you are referring to.



Is there any Bibles like that now that have the, in context, translations with the chapter/verses that would be reliable?


There are really several issues involved in this. The goal should be to use translations to better help us to understand the original language text. There is no "perfect" translation. And as has been noted, there are different philosophies about how to translate. Despite common claims otherwise, there are benefits to using translations with differing philosophies.

Formal Equivalence (or Functional Equivalence) translations

I think that NAS and NKJV are the best, ESV is right below them. NAS in particular provides insight into verbal relationships (tense, voice, mood, etc.). NAS tends to avoid some common inconsistencies when translating "all" with and without the definite article. For the most part, if you had one translation, any of these would be very serviceable and reliable.

Others: This might surprise some on this forum, but from a translation standpoint, NRSV is quite good (apart from the agenda to avoid any masculine generic pronouns). The REB is very good, but shows its British heritage. NJB is very good as well. The RCC 2002 edition of the RSV is excellent. My wife and I have been using it for family devotions that past six months. In fact, if you read it, you might not guess that it is the RSV, but rather the ESV, because the thee/thou pronouns are removed and some texts have been translated as more traditional, Is. 7:14.

Dynamic Equivalence or Meaning-Based

GW (God's Word) is far better than NLT2, but at times frustrating. From 1986-1995 I helped review some portions, made suggestions, and used it in congregations for testing purposes. There was a major shift between 1992 and 1995 in the Bible Society which began to be reflected in the translation, particularly the NT. Some of the decisions were necessary, but others left me concerned.

AAT (or Beck's Bible) was the predecessor of GW (the intermediate was known as NET - New Evangelical Translation, not connected to the current NET Bible available online). Considering the breadth of knowledge required to produce a translation today - 1960's, this is an amazing job. It is still better than any of the DE/MB translations. Many of his translation choices became the foundation for NRSV translation work.

NLT2 is good but frustrating. There are times I think this is excellent, and other times, I scratch my head. But it can be helpful, particularly in difficult passages, not that I necessarily agree with the conclusion, but again, it gives insight into possibilities for translation.

Most others of this category are not really helpful. I tend to recommend the above three and to stay away from these (i.e. the Message, CEV, NCV) unless there is a specific need for it (by a pastor, for example). They tend to flatten out style, so there is little difference in style between the Psalms, the Prophets, Gospels, and Epistles, even though each is a unique genre.

Some translations that bridge the gap between Functional and Dynamic Equivalence

HCSB (soon to be CSB) is actually quite good. It does tend to flatten out some of the poetic passages, but I find it better than NIV in some places.

NIV is a good translation, but again, we have to be aware of the idiosyncrasies and sometimes less than good translations (i.e. John 20:23, Acts 3:21, etc.). I have used it for congregational use (pew Bible and Bible study) over the years, and it is workable.

TNIV the latest revision of NIV follows the trend to avoid masculine singular pronouns for generic purposes. In the process it will change singular to plural, without indicating that such is done. Of course, what happens when the original language text switches from singular to plural? The problem, for instance, in the Psalms, is that the switch between singular and plural may serve a critical factor in understanding and application. But if there is no indication that in some cases the original language text does so, and in others it does not, but the translation does, is that helpful for understanding the original language text? I don't think so.

On the other hand, the TNIV does improve the NIV (no room to give examples here) in selected places. So, a good translation, but must be used with discretion, as with the NRSV.

NET is an okay translation. But the 61,000+ translation notes make it unique among all Bibles. However, even here the translation footnotes may not get it right, see for example Gen. 4:1 and the arrogant dismissal of what many think is the correct translation and understanding of the original language text.

---------

I have many other translations, but this gives a little of where I stand on the above. I am no expert, rather a continuing student of Greek and Hebrew, and of translating and translations.

What I recommend is at least one from each group. I think the best combination is one from each of the following:

NAS/NKJV
GW/NLT2
HCSB/NET

If in doubt, lean toward the FE translations, but be open; sometimes they can give a less than helpful understanding of the original language text. This would be an area in which examining the underlying word/phrase of the original language text can be beneficial.

[filosofer]

filo,

I was kidding around...

I tend to think that most modern translations are okay. To a large degree I take the opinion of men I trust and I look for the translation which best satisfies their standards for accuracy and at the same my my own literary tastes.

I come up with the ESV.

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether someone is joking or not. I have encountered Lutherans who take the KJV Only position. So wasn't sure.

:wave:

[RadMan]

AAT (or Beck's Bible) was the predecessor of GW (the intermediate was known as NET - New Evangelical Translation, not connected to the current NET Bible available online). Considering the breadth of knowledge required to produce a translation today - 1960's, this is an amazing job. It is still better than any of the DE/MB translations. Many of his translation choices became the foundation for NRSV translation work.Beck's AAT is the most recent addition I've purchased. Considering he was Lutheran and an amazing Greek scholar.

What's the difference between Functional and Dynamic?

[DaRev]

Filo,

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of the Ecclesiatical Text.

[filosofer]

Filo,

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of the Ecclesiatical Text.

You mean as used by Theodore Letis and the title of his book?

[DaRev]

You mean as used by Theodore Letis and the title of his book?



Yes.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just out of curiosity, for those who do not read Hebrew/Greek, I have two questions:

1. How do you determine whether a translation is "accurate"?

2. What do you mean by "accuracy" in translation?



I look to our Synod, and in particular the seminaries for guidance regarding translations, after all they are the Greek and Hebrew Scholars, and I trust their judgement.

[DaRev]

Did you know that Filo is a seminary president?

(...or soon to be one...)

[DaSeminarian]

I'm not Filo, but...

Just having the lexicon isn't enough. One would have to have some knowledge of Greek grammar and the various word forms and how they fit into different contexts.

The same holds true for Hebrew. The standard lexicon is the Brown-Driver-Biggs. But if you don't understand the pointing system which was developed by the Masoretes it can be even more confusing.

[RadMan]

I look to our Synod, and in particular the seminaries for guidance regarding translations, after all they are the Greek and Hebrew Scholars, and I trust their judgement.Filo might clear this up but I think I also remember reading one of his posts that mentions that he also has been involved reviewing and translating some Greek translations. Probably not how he put it though.

[Izdaari]

Just out of curiosity, for those who do not read Hebrew/Greek, I have two questions:

1. How do you determine whether a translation is "accurate"?

2. What do you mean by "accuracy" in translation?


1. I have to take the word of people with good reputations who do read Hebrew and Greek; people like yourself, for example. :D

2. I don't really know. I just trust my chosen authorities when they say its a good translation.

So thanks for the recommendation of GW/NLT2, neither of which I'm familiar with. I'll check them out. I already use and like NKJV and HCSB, so I guess I've got your other two categories covered.

[latebloomer]

As to the accuracy of translations, for someone who does not read Greek or Hebrew, I have to trust my pastor and other trusted resources. I like the way ESV reads. It reminds me of the KJV and RSV the LCMS was using when I was growing up, but without the antiquated language. The places I have checked tend to agree the NASB is very accurate but "wooden". With no disrespect to the translators, once in a while, I'll read a sentence in NASB and the sentence structure will remind me of the way Yoda spoke in the Star Wars movies.

Anyway, it looks like Concordia will have a rash of orders when that ESV study Bible is finally published. As to the OP, which version is being used at your church? For example, at mine, the pew Bibles are still NIV and the kids are still being given NIV's when they start 3rd grade, but for Scripture readings during worship services, we have made the switch to ESV during the past year. What is your reading level? What is your budget? I've seen that NIV Archeological Study Bible at Walmart. Anyway, Easter comes early this year, so the Easter Bible sales will be earlier than usual.

[ByzantineDixie]

Re: Ecclesiastical text

When I took my hermeneutics course, as part of my LCMS lay ministry training, we were taught that only the "original" manuscripts were "inspired". I didn't realize until much later that this point of view was not the view of Luther and his contemporaries but rather has its origins in modern textual criticism.

In this thread I was a little surprised that a discussion of translations from which starting manuscripts hadn't come up as a question regarding preferred translations. For a very brief introduction to the topic written by a LCMS Lutheran pastor see this article (http://www.tmbible.com/Related%20Matter/TerjesenArticle.htm).

[filosofer]

Just a note on Letis. He died in 2005. I have several of his writings. Terjesen's article is helpful. Later I will address a couple of issues related to translation that he does not address, but Letis opens the door for discussion.

[DaRev]

The places I have checked tend to agree the NASB is very accurate but "wooden". With no disrespect to the translators, once in a while, I'll read a sentence in NASB and the sentence structure will remind me of the way Yoda spoke in the Star Wars movies.

Difficult for you the NASB is? :D

The reason it's translated that way is because it is attempting to maintain the sentence structure of the Greek text. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English. In English, where a word appears in a sentence determines it's use in the sentence; subject, direct object, indirect object, etc. In Greek, that is determined by how a word is spelled, so it's place in a sentence is not as important in determining it's use. Word order in Greek effects the emphasis of the word more than it's grammatical use. And Koine (New Testament) Greek is not as bad at this as Classical Greek is. In Classical Greek, you had to wait until the end of a sentence in order to get to the verb (Yoda speak)!

[DaSeminarian]

Difficult for you the NASB is? :D

The reason it's translated that way is because it is attempting to maintain the sentence structure of the Greek text. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English. In English, where a word appears in a sentence determines it's use in the sentence; subject, direct object, indirect object, etc. In Greek, that is determined by how a word is spelled, so it's place in a sentence is not as important in determining it's use. Word order in Greek effects the emphasis of the word more than it's grammatical use. And Koine (New Testament) Greek is not as bad at this as Classical Greek is. In Classical Greek, you had to wait until the end of a sentence in order to get to the verb (Yoda speak)!


In respect to how a greek word is spelled is more about the endings of the word which determines its placement. Nouns have a gender, number case. Verbs have Person, number, tense, mood, voice. So each word has an ending. Verbs all have specific endings to denote middle/Passive or Active. Some verbs that are in the simple past are called "aorist" and they have a prefix of "e "as well as the suffix ending. For Nouns you have declensions and cases and number. Greek has rules much like Spanish or French.

Just my two cents

[filosofer]

In respect to how a greek word is spelled is more about the endings of the word which determines its placement. Nouns have a gender, number case. Verbs have Person, number, tense, mood, voice. So each word has an ending. Verbs all have specific endings to denote middle/Passive or Active. Some verbs that are in the simple past are called "aorist" and they have a prefix of "e "as well as the suffix ending. For Nouns you have declensions and cases and number. Greek has rules much like Spanish or French.

Just my two cents

Of course, that is a simplification. You knew I would write something, eh? :)

Aorist is not strictly past, but often used that way, as is the Imperfect. Also, verbs can have prefixes and suffixes for determining that, and not just Aorist, but Imperfect, Perfect, etc.

And then there are those intriguing participles, which denote type of action.

And....

And....

And....

:D

[BabyLutheran]

It's all Greek to me!

You knew somebody would say it, didn't you?

[RadMan]

Difficult for you the NASB is? :D

The reason it's translated that way is because it is attempting to maintain the sentence structure of the Greek text. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English. In English, where a word appears in a sentence determines it's use in the sentence; subject, direct object, indirect object, etc. In Greek, that is determined by how a word is spelled, so it's place in a sentence is not as important in determining it's use. Word order in Greek effects the emphasis of the word more than it's grammatical use. And Koine (New Testament) Greek is not as bad at this as Classical Greek is. In Classical Greek, you had to wait until the end of a sentence in order to get to the verb (Yoda speak)!Verbs at the end of a sentence. Sounds like German sentence structure. Not that that has anything to do with what we're talking about except if you want to read Luther's German translation. :)

[MagnusEmboden]

An old Favorite: The Awful German Language, by Mark Twain
(http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html#x4)

[Melethiel]

In respect to how a greek word is spelled is more about the endings of the word which determines its placement. Nouns have a gender, number case. Verbs have Person, number, tense, mood, voice. So each word has an ending. Verbs all have specific endings to denote middle/Passive or Active. Some verbs that are in the simple past are called "aorist" and they have a prefix of "e "as well as the suffix ending. For Nouns you have declensions and cases and number. Greek has rules much like Spanish or French.

Just my two cents
Well, that's somewhat a simplification of the aorist - it also depends on which group the verb is in.

Although, the aorist is nowhere near as annoying as the past simple of the passive. :doh:Still trying to get the hang of that.

[filosofer]

Well, that's somewhat a simplification of the aorist - it also depends on which group the verb is in.

Although, the aorist is nowhere near as annoying as the past simple of the passive. :doh:Still trying to get the hang of that.

Aorist shows completed action.

Try the Future Perfect Passive Participle in Matthew 18:18. :D

[DaRev]

Of course my favorite was what Dr. Schuchard called the "declension from hell!", namely the 3rd Declension. :D


Greek has rules much like Spanish or French.

As far as gender, das ist wahr, but as Rad said it's also very similar to German in sentence structure.

[Till]

Have you ever thought about how privileged you are to have not just one but so many good translations to your native language to choose from?

My wife is from former Yugoslavia and there are very few translations in SerboCroatian. Plus they are not very good. Sometimes people in churches there have wrong beliefs based on wrong translations.

What a privilege you - and me as well - have to be able to read the Word of God in our own languages.

[BabyLutheran]

That is so true!

A question: I am looking online at the ESV Journaling Bible. Has anyone used this? One complaint I am reading is that the print is real small. When you are 46, that is not good! lol

[Zecryphon]

That is so true!

A question: I am looking online at the ESV Journaling Bible. Has anyone used this? One complaint I am reading is that the print is real small. When you are 46, that is not good! lol
Don't most bookstores sell reading glasses next to the Bibles nowadays?

[BabyLutheran]

Don't most bookstores sell reading glasses next to the Bibles nowadays?
Just wait, your time is coming!!!! lol

[DaRev]

There is a Literary Study Bible available in the ESV version.

http://www.esvliterarystudybible.org/

[DaSeminarian]

That is so true!

A question: I am looking online at the ESV Journaling Bible. Has anyone used this? One complaint I am reading is that the print is real small. When you are 46, that is not good! lol


What? You haven't been fit for bi or tri focals? I thought all of us 46 year-olds were required at this point to wear them. ;)

[DaRev]

I have progressive lenses. :P

[BabyLutheran]

I have them, but this Bible is in 7.5 font.

[BabyLutheran]

here is a sample. It would kill me to read this for more than 5 minutes at a time. It will open at 138%, so make sure your reduce it to 100% so you can get the full effect of 7.5 font

http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/bibles/esv.journaling.sample.pdf

[Melethiel]

here is a sample. It would kill me to read this for more than 5 minutes at a time. Make sure your zoom is at 100% so you can get the full effect of 7.5 font

http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/bibles/esv.journaling.sample.pdf
That's about the text size in the Bible I use for reading...

[filosofer]

I have them, but this Bible is in 7.5 font.

There ought to be a law that all print should be 11 point or larger (unless it is Georgia or Lucida Bright!). ^_^

[BabyLutheran]

but you have young eyes, Melethiel!

[filosofer]

but you have young eyes!

I vaguely remember when I was as young as you. :D

[BabyLutheran]

Pardon my French, but who was the moron who designed a bible with print that small? Must have been someone under the age of 40! lol

I guess Lifeway didn't have any "focus" groups give feedback on it.

They do make large print ESV, but none that are specialized Bibles, like the journaling one.

[filosofer]

Re: Ecclesiastical text

When I took my hermeneutics course, as part of my LCMS lay ministry training, we were taught that only the "original" manuscripts were "inspired". I didn't realize until much later that this point of view was not the view of Luther and his contemporaries but rather has its origins in modern textual criticism.

In this thread I was a little surprised that a discussion of translations from which starting manuscripts hadn't come up as a question regarding preferred translations. For a very brief introduction to the topic written by a LCMS Lutheran pastor see this article (http://www.tmbible.com/Related%20Matter/TerjesenArticle.htm).

Regarding The Ecclesiastical Text, I think Pastor Terjesen did a fine overview of that. Two aspects of Letis's book stand out to me:

1) Maintenance/preservation of the text shifted from the Church to Academia. For many centuries there was no distinction between the two, but by the 18th century, two divergent roads were taken. I think this has some affect on textual transmission and study. By the end of the 19th century, this includes the publishing of Biblical texts, not by Churches, but by publishing houses, whose primary goal is making money.

2) Separation of Biblical texts and studies from liturgical context. To me, this is the area that has affected conservative Lutherans today. Thus, which translations have been produced with a specific eye toward liturgical use? Realistically, only NRSV, NJB, and secondarily NKJV and ESV. God's Word was a step in the right direction. The translation Committee and stylists specifically examined oral patterns of English. If you read the GW translation out loud it is one of the best for that work. There are a few problems with liturgical use, but it goes a long way toward an oral style, which lends itself to liturgical use. The God's Word to the Nations Bible Society changed basis in 1992/1993 and moved away from its Lutheran and liturgical heritage. Had it remained as it had been, I think it would have been a good candidate for liturgical use and oral presentation.

[seajoy]

Pardon my French, but who was the moron who designed a bible with print that small? Must have been someone under the age of 40! lol

I guess Lifeway didn't have any "focus" groups give feedback on it.

They do make large print ESV, but none that are specialized Bibles, like the journaling one.
I have a tiny ESV bible that I keep in my purse. It is hard to read, but because of my fibro, I can't carry around a larger bible. I have friends who can't even tell what it says.

[DaRev]

I have a small "pocket" ESV that I carry with my communion kit. Before I got my new specs I couldn't read it very well and so had to carry a larger one. But now I can read the small one fine. :P

[MarkRohfrietsch]

here is a sample. It would kill me to read this for more than 5 minutes at a time. It will open at 138%, so make sure your reduce it to 100% so you can get the full effect of 7.5 font

http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/bibles/esv.journaling.sample.pdf

One of the few times I'm lucky to be near-sighted! Can't see the other side of the room though...:sigh:^_^^_^

[porterross]

As to the accuracy of translations, for someone who does not read Greek or Hebrew, I have to trust my pastor and other trusted resources. I like the way ESV reads. It reminds me of the KJV and RSV the LCMS was using when I was growing up, but without the antiquated language. The places I have checked tend to agree the NASB is very accurate but "wooden". With no disrespect to the translators, once in a while, I'll read a sentence in NASB and the sentence structure will remind me of the way Yoda spoke in the Star Wars movies.


Yep, but the beauty of that is the technical accuracy. :thumbsup: When I am studying and want to further my understanding of certain verses, I refer to the NASB and NKJV combined. If I want to read Scripture peacefully for spiritual fulfillment and pure enjoyment, the ESV is by far my favorite with the NKJV coming in second.


Anyway, it looks like Concordia will have a rash of orders when that ESV study Bible is finally published. As to the OP, which version is being used at your church? For example, at mine, the pew Bibles are still NIV and the kids are still being given NIV's when they start 3rd grade, but for Scripture readings during worship services, we have made the switch to ESV during the past year. What is your reading level? What is your budget? I've seen that NIV Archeological Study Bible at Walmart. Anyway, Easter comes early this year, so the Easter Bible sales will be earlier than usual.


Unless Concordia does something to dramatically improve and increase the extent of their notes, explanations and references, I won't be one of those ordering its ESV study Bible. Compared to my MacArthur study Bibles, the Concordia notes are most disappointing and incomplete (MacArthur's erroneous theology aside :P ).

As curious and serious as Lutherans are about Scripture, why are the Concordia study Bibles not more informative and scholarly, anyway? :scratch: It is a bit irritating.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Re: Ecclesiastical text

When I took my hermeneutics course, as part of my LCMS lay ministry training, we were taught that only the "original" manuscripts were "inspired".

This seems to be rather hard to fathom in that I understand that we have NO original manuscripts, all are copies. If this were in fact true, then we poor LCMS and affiliates would have NO inspired Scripture.:doh:

[DaRev]

Re: Ecclesiastical text

When I took my hermeneutics course, as part of my LCMS lay ministry training, we were taught that only the "original" manuscripts were "inspired". I didn't realize until much later that this point of view was not the view of Luther and his contemporaries but rather has its origins in modern textual criticism.

In this thread I was a little surprised that a discussion of translations from which starting manuscripts hadn't come up as a question regarding preferred translations. For a very brief introduction to the topic written by a LCMS Lutheran pastor see this article (http://www.tmbible.com/Related%20Matter/TerjesenArticle.htm).

Luther and his contemporaries relied more on the Received Text.
It is true that the autographs are considered inspired which is why we look to the composite Greek text rather than the Majority Text. The composite text seeks to replicate the autographs, although there's no way of knowing for sure how "close" the composite text is to the originals.

[RadMan]

This seems to be rather hard to fathom in that I understand that we have NO original manuscripts, all are copies. If this were in fact true, then we poor LCMS and affiliates would have NO inspired Scripture.:doh:Nobody has the "originals" Even the EO. Unless the Dead Sea Scrolls would be considered "original" from the OT. The earliets know NT manuscripts second and third centuries have established about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. The very earliest is a tiny fragment of Gospel of John dated around 125AD.

[filosofer]

This seems to be rather hard to fathom in that I understand that we have NO original manuscripts, all are copies. If this were in fact true, then we poor LCMS and affiliates would have NO inspired Scripture.:doh:

And that is one point that Letis makes. Until the late 19th century, the inspired Scriptures referred to the existant texts (actual existing manuscripts), and "inerrancy" as used by the reformers referred to the same existing text - but not in the way inerrancy is used today. B. B. Warfield shifted the referent point from the existing texts to the "original manuscript" in his attempt to deal with higher criticism. Sadly his influence infiltrated many areas of Christendom. Letis claims that the influence of Warfield came into the LCMS through Wm. Arndt.

[filosofer]

Nobody has the "originals" Even the EO. Unless the Dead Sea Scrolls would be considered "original" from the OT. The earliets know NT manuscripts second and third centuries have established about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. The very earliest is a tiny fragment of Gospel of John dated around 125AD.

I think the latest total number of NT papyri is about 110.

[RadMan]

I think the latest total number of NT papyri is about 110.

Oh OK--shows how many years ago I tried to dredge that information from my memory.

Also thought there were problems with authentication of many of the scrolls so that might be why my count was low.

[Izdaari]

Have you ever thought about how privileged you are to have not just one but so many good translations to your native language to choose from?

My wife is from former Yugoslavia and there are very few translations in SerboCroatian. Plus they are not very good. Sometimes people in churches there have wrong beliefs based on wrong translations.

What a privilege you - and me as well - have to be able to read the Word of God in our own languages.
That's a very good point! I have a dozen or so bibles in different translations, and any one of them is Good Enough. They all suffice to get across what God wanted us to know.

[latebloomer]

[quote=DaRev;42613100]Difficult for you the NASB is? :D

Pay attention to what I'm reading, the NASB makes me.:)

No, I don't have a problem reading NASB. Two languages as different as Greek and English naturally have different sentence structure. Or Hebrew & English. I'm reading Genesis right now. If something doesn't make sense to me in one translation, I can look up the passage in another and eventually it will make sense to me. And I agree with Filo about type size. I found a page size magnifier in a bookstore next to the Bibles. And I have an appointment with the optometrist soon. I need new glasses.

[BabyLutheran]

I bought a bible last night, and I don't recall it being mentioned as good or bad on this thread. It is a Holman Christian Standard Bible, the illustrated study bible version.

It has a lot of footnotes showing the original word for word, or indicating whether some texts omit or add certain scriptures. From the intro is seems to be a balanced translation (not all word for word, but not all thought for thought, either). It reads pretty well.

The ESV people need to get a grip. All of their bibles were sealed so you couldn't even flip through and read a passage or two, or see the layout. I was considering the Literary Study Bible, but not without being able to look inside.

Now that it's too late to take it back, I am ready to hear if it the Holman is a decent bible or not! lol

Here is a link to some info on their methods

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77&lang=2

[Izdaari]

I bought a bible last night, and I don't recall it being mentioned as good or bad on this thread. It is a Holman Christian Standard Bible, the illustrated study bible version.

It has a lot of footnotes showing the original word for word, or indicating whether some texts omit or add certain scriptures. From the intro is seems to be a balanced translation (not all word for word, but not all thought for thought, either). It reads pretty well.
Excellent choice! I have the same edition and I love it. :thumbsup:

That's one of the translations filosofer recommended:.


Some translations that bridge the gap between Functional and Dynamic Equivalence

HCSB (soon to be CSB) is actually quite good. It does tend to flatten out some of the poetic passages, but I find it better than NIV in some places.

<snip>

What I recommend is at least one from each group. I think the best combination is one from each of the following:

NAS/NKJV
GW/NLT2
HCSB/NET

[BabyLutheran]

Oh good! I thought his HCSB stood for Harper Collins Study Bible!

[porterross]

Oh good! I thought his HCSB stood for Harper Collins Study Bible!


Would that be better than a Cliff's Notes version? :D

[Zecryphon]

Would that be better than a Cliff's Notes version? :D
I haven't cheated off of Cliff or his notes since High School. Good times, good times. :P In college my study partner was Bud the Weiser. LOL

[DaRev]

The ESV people need to get a grip. All of their bibles were sealed so you couldn't even flip through and read a passage or two, or see the layout. I was considering the Literary Study Bible, but not without being able to look inside.

That's the fault of the book store. You could have asked if you could look at one, that you weren't going to consider purchase unless you could see it. The large Christian book store near hear has many different versions and study bibles available and they are all available to look at and read. They even have comfy chairs for folks to sit in.
(And don't worry, the Spanish inquisition is no where in sight! :D)

[BabyLutheran]

Oh, I figured it was the ESV people since none of the other bible versions were sealed up.

If anyone from ESV reads this, I apologize for insulting you.

[Zecryphon]

Oh, I figured it was the ESV people since none of the other bible versions were sealed up.

If anyone from ESV reads this, I apologize for insulting you.
Dude, why even bother going to the bookstore to read that Bible? You can read it at www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com) along with alot of other versions for free, before deciding which one to buy.

[BigNorsk]

That's true as far as just the translation itself goes, but the whole bible experience can't be gotten online.

The layout, the study aids, even the question of does the bible open and lay properly so you can read it. You don't get those things online.

Which translation is used is just one consideration in selecting a Bible.

Marv

[filosofer]

That's true as far as just the translation itself goes, but the whole bible experience can't be gotten online.

The layout, the study aids, even the question of does the bible open and lay properly so you can read it. You don't get those things online.

Which translation is used is just one consideration in selecting a Bible.

Marv

Very true. That is one reason that GW makes a good reading Bible - always and only single column. It is visually laid out to make oral comprehension easier. They spent considerable time developing that specific format.

[Jim47]

Very true. That is one reason that GW makes a good reading Bible - always and only single column. It is visually laid out to make oral comprehension easier. They spent considerable time developing that specific format.




I tried to find one that is large print but they have nothing but super teeny :doh:


I do have it on my Palm Pilot though which I read when I go to the doctor

[Melethiel]

I have the GW (was a gift to me), but I've never actually read it...prefer the ESV, and I'm so used to two columns in Bibles that the one-column versions confuse me. :P

[filosofer]

I tried to find one that is large print but they have nothing but super teeny :doh:


I do have it on my Palm Pilot though which I read when I go to the doctor

Are you sure? I have the genuine leather edition and the print is far larger than anything I have seen for ESV.

For several years I had the hardback, and the print was also large (not true large print, but easily readable).

[Jim47]

Are you sure? I have the genuine leather edition and the print is far larger than anything I have seen for ESV.

For several years I had the hardback, and the print was also large (not true large print, but easily readable).




I searched on line and at Barnes and Nobel, nothing in large print and even hard to find the regular print. Is this bible still in print? And do you remember where you got yours?

Thanks for your help Filo :)

[filosofer]

Here is the God's Word to the Nations site (http://www.godsword.org/cgi-bin/gwstore.cgi?cart_id=1745544_19706&page=product.htm) for products. On the lower left choose "Premier Editions".

Again, it is not Large Print (in the traditional sense), but it is a very readable size and font choice.