What bible do you trust most, and which one do you trust least?

[AlexB23]

I can live with most translations and make allowances for the variations, but I dislike paraphrases.

Agreed. Same here, cos I can not stand paraphrases, but I will not judge anyone who prefers a paraphrase.

 

[HTacianas]

I like going to The Message occasionally to see what Peterson's interpretation of particular verse is.

There's really nothing wrong with doing that. As long as you remember that it is someone's interpretation of what it means. But the Message tends to color over a lot of things. It becomes almost a bible for the politically correct in places.

 

[AlexB23]

There's really nothing wrong with doing that. As long as you remember that it is someone's interpretation of what it means. But the Message tends to color over a lot of things. It becomes almost a bible for the politically correct in places.

My buddy, @ozso could just send me a PM, and then I can use AI to interpret a verse. He does not need to use The Message. But hey, it is one's choice or personal preference to use The Message, so I will not judge folks who listen to Peterson's stuff. For myself, I put more trust into a computer over Peterson. Forgive me, if that came out a little harsh.

These are the documents that the AI uses.

 

[ozso]

There's really nothing wrong with doing that. As long as you remember that it is someone's interpretation of what it means. But the Message tends to color over a lot of things. It becomes almost a bible for the politically correct in places.

I wouldn't recommend it as a regular bible. His goal was to simplify scripture as much as possible. So once in a while I'll come across a passage I'm not sure about, so I'll check out his simplified rendering just to see what it is. I usually check other sources like got questions too.

 

[ozso]

My buddy, @ozso could just send me a PM, and then I can use AI to interpret a verse. He does not need to use The Message. But hey, it is one's choice or personal preference to use The Message, so I will not judge folks who listen to Peterson's stuff. For myself, I put more trust into a computer over Peterson. Forgive me, if that came out a little harsh.

These are the documents that the AI uses.

View attachment 353466

It's just a simple "I wonder how so-in-so interprets this?". It's not a matter of leaning on Peterson or whoever for understanding. It's just a matter of a quick examination of a concise interpretation. What you have there is a list of large works. For an AI take I'd want a concise AI overview.

 

[AlexB23]

It's just a simple "I wonder how so-in-so interprets this?". It's not a matter of leaning on Peterson or whoever for understanding. It's just a matter of a quick examination of a concise interpretation. What you have there is a list of large works. For an AI take I'd want a concise AI overview.

Yep, the AI does a concise overview, and typically picks one to three sources from what I have noticed so far. If you want, I can demonstrate it for you in the near future. Anyways, it is getting late here brother. We can talk later about this, but if you need this technology, just ask. I can paste your question into my laptop and it will spit out an answer. God bless, brother in Christ.


This is Mistral AI explaining four verses related to marriage, using two sources (Catholic Bible and a Lutheran Catechism).

 

[trophy33]

Yes I apologize it’s was the Jews who didn’t consider them canonical, I confused them with the apocryphal books. My mistake it was late and my brains wasn’t functioning properly.

I would rather say the relatively late Jews, the Jews who came up with Judaism (after the second temple destruction). Before that, they did not have any defined, strict canon and many various Scriptures and textual families have been used in Palestine and elsewhere. Which can be seen in the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What bible do you trust most, and which one do you trust least?

Putting the small attempt at humor I made above to the side, I'd have to admit that in my own more existentio-evidentialist mode of reasoning as a Christian Philosopher, I don't think in terms of the question, "What Bible [or which Bible version] do you trust the most?"

Rather, I think in more historical and existential terms of the question, "What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kerygma by which His diverse Ecclesia have expressed His Gospel?"

It's not really merely a matter of deciding which English version of written remnants from the past (i.e. the Scriptures) we must most account for and adhere to. No, it's a matter of how much willingness and ongoing commitment we each have to understand that which Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord and Savior, has injected into the historical spaces of the World in which He has placed us to live.

I think we in the English World need to get over two things here: 1) Placing too much focus on having, or deciding upon, a finalized, English version of the Bible when it was never given in English in the first place, and 2) stop avoiding from having to do, at the least, some moderate work both individually and collectively for a better understanding of the historically instantiated Message God has given the World through His Son.

But to ask, "Which English version is best"? is to play a game of veiled one-upmanship over and against each another. I don't think that Jesus or His Apostles would have approved of all of the social nuances which can exist within that veiled, and sometimes clearly unveiled, contention among those of us who claim the mantle of "being a Christian." We can do better than that and realize that all attempts to translate the Scriptures are limited; we can also refrain from thinking that reading a favored translation, in whatever language, somehow guarantees that we're in perfect sync with God's Will.

[P.S. ... just to be useful, and to answer more concisely and relevantly your question, I'll briefly mention that for most of my Christian life I've read and studied from the NKJV and the NASB, but this doesn't mean I haven't occasionally used the NIV or the RSV-with Apocrypha.]

 

[tampasteve]

I reference many different versions of the Bible, but most of my daily readings are done in the NKJV and RSV-CE. Often I will bring a KJV to church since they tend to use ESV and NLT and I like the comparison. Often for readings in the OT I will gravitate to a combination of Artscroll and NKJV.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I reference many different versions of the Bible, but most of my daily readings are done in the NKJV and RSV-CE. Often I will bring a KJV to church since they tend to use ESV and NLT and I like the comparison. Often for readings in the OT I will gravitate to a combination of Artscroll and NKJV.

A mix of good translations is the best approach I think.

 

[AlexB23]

I reference many different versions of the Bible, but most of my daily readings are done in the NKJV and RSV-CE. Often I will bring a KJV to church since they tend to use ESV and NLT and I like the comparison. Often for readings in the OT I will gravitate to a combination of Artscroll and NKJV.

So you are Methodist, and use the Catholic Bible? That is awesome. Do you believe in the Eucharist?

The NRSV-CE is also a good one as well. NKJV is a good idea to always use. Seems that most of us here like the NKJV. What are your thoughts on the NIV?

 

[tampasteve]

So you are Methodist, and use the Catholic Bible? That is awesome. Do you believe in the Eucharist?

I don't believe in the same manner as practicing Catholics, but I probably have higher view than most Methodists since I am also a lapsed Catholic. My views align pretty well with a high-Anglican view.

The NRSV-CE is also a good one as well. NKJV is a good idea to always use. Seems that most of us here like the NKJV. What are your thoughts on the NIV?

I don't have an issue with NIV, but it is not my favorite, I just don't feel like the way it reads has a lot of soul, but if someone likes it then that's fine for them.

 

[AlexB23]

I don't believe in the same manner as practicing Catholics, but I probably have higher view than most Methodists since I am also a lapsed Catholic. My views align pretty well with a high-Anglican view.

I don't have an issue with NIV, but it is not my favorite, I just don't feel like the way it reads has a lot of soul, but if someone likes it then that's fine for them.

That is awesome, that you have a good view on the Catholics. Anglicans are the closest Protestant religion to Catholics, then Lutherans. So, if you want to, find an Anglican church in your area, and try it out. Yeah, the NIV can be a little different, but is good for making devotionals at least. I use NIV, NKJV and NRSV-CE in my devotionals, and maybe a KJV to add some old-school 17th century spice to a devotional every once in a while.

So, do you believe in Eucharistic miracles / transubstantiation?

 

[tampasteve]

So, do you believe in Eucharistic miracles / transubstantiation?

I do not. Happy to continue that conversation, but it is probably outside of the scope of this thread

 

[AlexB23]

I do not. Happy to continue that conversation, but it is probably outside of the scope of this thread

That is alright, you can PM me if you want about this, or drop by in the Catholic thread some time in the future. There is a little joke of a headline that I found on a Catholic online newspaper a few months ago: When Miracles Make Protestants Act Like Atheists

What do Protestants and agnostics have in common? Both do not believe in transubstantiation. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters, as we both believe in Christ saving power. But hey, this is a thread about Bible translations.

So what do you think about the AMP Bible? Some people read it, but it is a little too much commentary for a Bible in my opinion.

 

[tampasteve]

That is alright, you can PM me if you want about this, or drop by in the Catholic thread some time in the future. There is a little joke of a headline that I found on a Catholic online newspaper a few months ago: When Miracles Make Protestants Act Like Atheists

What do Protestants and agnostics have in common? Both do not believe in transubstantiation. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters, as we both believe in Christ saving power. But hey, this is a thread about Bible translations.

Good call, I will try and send you a PM today

So what do you think about the AMP Bible? Some people read it, but it is a little too much commentary for a Bible in my opinion.

I haven't really read it, but it is my mother's favorite version.

 

[AlexB23]

Good call, I will try and send you a PM today

I haven't really read it, but it is my mother's favorite version.

Thank you. I will get to your PM this evening. It is alright that your mom likes the AMP Bible. At least it has good commentary. For myself, a Bible is easier to read with the commentary elsewhere on the page, or off to the side.

 

[Jonaitis]

What bible do you trust most, and which one do you trust least?

If you mean English translations, then I would say NASB, ESV, LSB, and HCB are good, while the NLT and Message, to name a few, are not so good.

 

[RileyG]

I like the New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, and the Douay-Rheims. I have nothing against the KJV version. I do not like anything to do with the Book of Mormon or JWs because I do not agree with their theology.

 

[RileyG]

Well I have an Orthodox Study Bible. The old testament is based on the Septuagint so all of the books are in it. It uses the NKJV for the new testament.

I also own the OSB, and find it very beautiful.