Berean Study/Literal Bible

[Godislove94]

Hello all! I go on BibleHub quite a bit because I like how you can see the different translations side by side. I've recently started looking at the Berean Bible translations and really like how they read. I currently read the ESV mostly because it's what my church uses but I will at times read from the KJV and NIV. Have any of you used this translation? I'm also a fan of the New American Standard and may look at getting that one as well.

 

[1watchman]

Just be sure in your own mind that you have the mind of God, and not be seeking that which pleases the senses. Various Bible renderings pervert the mind of God by changing words to lose the intent of God. I value the KJV for many reasons, and can share some papers to help one appreciate this venerable rendering. Write me if you please.

 

[mikedsjr]

Haven't used the Berean.

Do you know why most bibles are started? Money, in short. Publishers don't want to pay fees to other publishers so they start a new bible under their publishing house.

I will personally stick with ESV and NASB for backup verification. I don't like to stray far from the word-for-word translations because they say what the Greek/Hebrews says. When the NIV first came out, I remember issues affecting interpretation.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

I haven't heard of the Berean, is that bad?

I am a NKJV and GNB kinda guy.

 

[Dom Puccio]

I'm also a fan of the New American Standard and may look at getting that one as well.

I love the NASB. It is very true to the Hebrew and Greek and uses strong verbs in their translations. I would recommend using it for long term studies that you may undergo in the future. It's a great tool.

 

[Godislove94]

I haven't heard of the Berean, is that bad?

I am a NKJV and GNB kinda guy.

Not at all! It's a newer translation but the grammar is a little odd because it attempts to be word for word even more so than the ESV I think. It's companion which is the study bible smooths that out.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

Not at all! It's a newer translation but the grammar is a little odd because it attempts to be word for word even more so than the ESV I think. It's companion which is the study bible smooths that out.

Ah I see, thank you for your help.

 

[Cangel101]

I read the NASB, NIV and the NLT, I do have the NKJV. I do have the ESV, but haven't really read it.

 

[pescador]

I'm just beginning to read the Berean Study Bible. As of August 1, 2016 there are several English versions, including "Interlinear", "Literal", and "Emphasized". Not all are available yet.

I like the Bible so far but don't see much difference between it and other modern translations (NIV, NET, NRSV, etc.)

 

[Greg J.]

I like all the translations that help the reader know the real God better.

I am traditional in the sense that I think the human needs to learn to understand what God said rather than changing the Word so the human can understand it. However, the reality is that some people can be saved and grow closer to God through a more dynamic translation than a literal one.

If someone is patently skeptical of less literal translations that they use, I feel happy to have run into one of the few people who has a scholarly level of fluency of both Greek and Hebrew (because only they have a logical reason to look down on a dynamic translation, although not the right to). For the purpose of connecting with God more deeply, I don't have a problem with any of the mainstream Bibles.

When it comes to trying to have a more exact understanding of a passage, I use multiple translations (which anyone can do).

 

[pescador]

I like all the translations that help the reader know the real God better.

I am traditional in the sense that I think the human needs to learn to understand what God said rather than changing the Word so the human can understand it. However, the reality is that some people can be saved and grow closer to God through a more dynamic translation than a literal one.

If someone is patently skeptical of less literal translations that they use, I feel happy to have run into one of the few people who has a scholarly level of fluency of both Greek and Hebrew. For the purpose of connecting with God more deeply, I don't have a problem with any of the mainstream Bibles.

When it comes to trying to have a more exact understanding of a passage, I use multiple translations (which anyone can do).

There is a vast difference between the meaning and grammar of ancient languages and the cultures in which they were spoken and written and ours today. So-called "literal" translations are not literal because they, like all translations, had to be changed from the original Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic so that the reader can understand what was being said in the receptor language. The goal IMHO is understanding, which is the main reason that I don't like the (Authorized) King James version. Almost invariably when 400-year-old English is read in church, the pastor (or whomever) rewords it on the fly so that the audience can understand what was said. Modern scholarship has made incredible progress, not only in understanding the ancient languages, but also the cultures in which they were used. As a result, we have better bible translations than we ever had before in history. I'm interested in the Berean Bible for just that reason.

Like you I use multiple translations. I believe that the best study bible is the New English Translation (NET Bible) because of the 60,932 translators notes. I believe that no translation is perfect, but the NET people (bible.org) give very, very detailed explanations for everything they have done. That's the reason that I don't like it when anyone says that theirs is the perfect translation.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

There is a vast difference between the meaning and grammar of ancient languages and the cultures in which they were spoken and written and ours today. So-called "literal" translations are not literal because they, like all translations, had to be changed from the original Hebrew-Greek-Aramaic so that the reader can understand what was being said in the receptor language. The goal IMHO is understanding, which is the main reason that I don't like the (Authorized) King James version. Almost invariably when 400-year-old English is read in church, the pastor (or whomever) rewords it on the fly so that the audience can understand what was said. Modern scholarship has made incredible progress, not only in understanding the ancient languages, but also the cultures in which they were used. As a result, we have better bible translations than we ever had before in history. I'm interested in the Berean Bible for just that reason.

Like you I use multiple translations. I believe that the best study bible is the New English Translation (NET Bible) because of the 60,932 translators notes. I believe that no translation is perfect, but the NET people (bible.org) give very, very detailed explanations for everything they have done. That's the reason that I don't like it when anyone says that theirs is the perfect translation.

I'll take a look at the Berean Bible also as I've not heard of it till this. I like the NET Bible because one of the contributors to its formation is Dr. Daniel Wallace. Said to be one of the foremost scholars of New Testament studies. He's also a Professor.

The Blue Letter Bible on-line is a go-to for me as well.

I agree that proper interpretation means everything in comprehending the meaning of the text in scripture. Great thread by the way. I think it will help many of the newly arrived that I've spoken to in Introductions.

I found the Berean study Bible at Bible Hub. I had to share. Here is their link

 

[pescador]

I'll take a look at the Berean Bible also as I've not heard of it till this. I like the NET Bible because one of the contributors to its formation is Dr. Daniel Wallace. Said to be one of the foremost scholars of New Testament studies. He's also a Professor.

The Blue Letter Bible on-line is a go-to for me as well.

I agree that proper interpretation means everything in comprehending the meaning of the text in scripture. Great thread by the way. I think it will help many of the newly arrived that I've spoken to in Introductions.

I found the Berean study Bible at Bible Hub. I had to share. Here is their link

I've never heard of the Blue Letter Bible until now. I went to their web site and it really piqued my interest. I will explore it more this week.

I agree about this being a great thread. I wish more of the threads on the Christian Forums were about all facets of Christianity instead of the endless, sometimes nasty arguments over subjects that have little to do with our faith.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I've never heard of the Blue Letter Bible until now. I went to their web site and it really piqued my interest. I will explore it more this week.

I agree about this being a great thread. I wish more of the threads on the Christian Forums were about all facets of Christianity instead of the endless, sometimes nasty arguments over subjects that have little to do with our faith.

I think that is the great thing about this community. There is a Christian community section with many boards to explore. And there's what I call the worlds secular section. Worldly topics and with many boards to explore there too.

You can choose as I do to stay mostly in the Christians communities and therein avoid much of the strife that goes on in the world.
I'm glad you found Blue Letter Bible site to your liking.

 

[RaphaCam]

I haven't read much into Berean, but I have Young's Literal Translation on high regard. Same principle.

 

[pescador]

I haven't read much into Berean, but I have Young's Literal Translation on high regard. Same principle.

I don't like Young's Literal Translation very much, primarily because it was done by a single person instead of a committee of scholars. Young was also self-taught, which is a problem for me, and the work was done more than 100 years ago. Scholarship in biblical languages and biblical times has advanced a lot since then, which is why I favor modern translations done by a committee of mixed ecumenical scholars, archaeologists, English editors, etc.

 

[1watchman]

Just be sure in your own mind that you have the mind of God, and not be seeking that which pleases the senses. Various Bible renderings pervert the mind of God by changing words to lose the intent of God. I value the KJV for many reasons, and can share some papers to help one appreciate this venerable rendering. Write me if you please.

I just want to add an important reason I value the KJV. It is not because I especially like the reading (for it might be a bit difficult with old English for some souls), but it has stood the purifying study of time by many scholars --400 years (which cannot be said of most new writings); and in good quality editions of KJV ---notably the Old Scofield Edition of KJV, one will see footnotes and commentaries to correct any errors without changing the main text. We must realize there are errors in every writing of men, and one can pray and trust that God will help us if we pray-read God's Word.

 

[pescador]

I just want to add an important reason I value the KJV. It is not because I especially like the reading (for it might be a bit difficult with old English for some souls), but it has stood the purifying study of time by many scholars --400 years (which cannot be said of most new writings); and in good quality editions of KJV ---notably the Old Scofield Edition of KJV, one will see footnotes and commentaries to correct any errors without changing the main text. We must realize there are errors in every writing of men, and one can pray and trust that God will help us if we pray-read God's Word.

The Authorized Version, a.k.a. The King James is based on the textus receptus, which has been shown by a mountain of scholarship to be considerably different than the oldest manuscripts available. (Of course you realize that the oldest manuscripts are, by their very nature, closer to the originals than those that came later.)

The original Authorized Version did not have footnotes, deliberately. King James was very concerned that an educated laity might upset the church hierarchy and its carefully constructed doctrine that reinforced the authority of the king (which is of course why he authorized it).

Without a doubt the KJV language is beautiful and it is a true treasure in the history of the English language. It's a great read, but if you want as accurate translation as possible I would go with any of several excellent modern translations. My favorite for reference and footnotes is the NET Bible, with its 60,932 footnotes.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The New English Translation (NET) Bible is about my favorite. Neck and neck is the Revised New English Bible (NEB). (I was seriously confused for awhile.) I use the Blue Letter Bible site quite often as they have excellent search functions and a great lexicon function. I have an Amplified Bible as well; great for study, a bit 'ponderous' for public reading (but not impossible).

I find it quite suggestive the Koine Greek used in the New Testament, the Vulgate Bible, the Wycliffe Bible and the Wycliffe derived King James Bible were ALL translated and published for the stated purpose of providing a full Bible in the actual and current language of the reader.

This 'language of the reader' concept also accounts for the two or three 'updates' of the King James Version - mostly updating spelling - and a good deal of the 'recent' (last fifty years or so) translations.

 

[pescador]

The New English Translation (NET) Bible is about my favorite. Neck and neck is the Revised New English Bible (NEB). (I was seriously confused for awhile.) I use the Blue Letter Bible site quite often as they have excellent search functions and a great lexicon function. I have an Amplified Bible as well; great for study, a bit 'ponderous' for public reading (but not impossible).

I find it quite suggestive the Koine Greek used in the New Testament, the Vulgate Bible, the Wycliffe Bible and the Wycliffe derived King James Bible were ALL translated and published for the stated purpose of providing a full Bible in the actual and current language of the reader.

This 'language of the reader' concept also accounts for the two or three 'updates' of the King James Version - mostly updating spelling - and a good deal of the 'recent' (last fifty years or so) translations.

One of the most important things to me about any bible are the aids to understanding: indexing, scriptural references, footnotes, explanatory articles, dictionary, concordance, maps, etc. I have a couple of "readers editions" that I take to church that don't have these aids. I also have several commentaries, dictionaries, and other books separately from the bound bibles.

It is interesting that when the original King James Bible was published it didn't have footnotes because the king didn't want lay people to think for themselves.