What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Humanistheart]

"Accurate" based on what?

That's partially a matter for discussion, but if you're not familiar with the complexity of the issue's in relation to accuracy in translation then I do not see how you're prepared for a discusion on the topic.

 

[Humanistheart]

Personally, though I am not religious and stay out of Bible discussions and the like, I like the New King James version. I usually poke around through different versions to see if I can garner what's being said in a text, and this one usually makes my ears perk.

Can't speak to "accuracy", though.

Yeah, I liked the 'flavor' of it in relation to other bibles translations, but flavor doesn't make it a good translation.

 

[Oberon]

That's partially a matter for discussion, but if you're not familiar with the complexity of the issue's in relation to accuracy in translation then I do not see how you're prepared for a discusion on the topic.

If one doesn't know the language of the text being translated, how would one even be in a position to judge accuracy?

 

[Humanistheart]

If one doesn't know the language of the text being translated, how would one even be in a position to judge accuracy?

A good point. For the majority of us who cannot read the languages that the oldest copies of the books that went into the bible were written we largely must base our conclusion on other things, including what others tell us, which can be quite problamatic. Am I remmembering correctly, did you say you can read the orginal languages? If so, what translation would you recommend?

 

[Oberon]

A good point. For the majority of us who cannot read the languages that the oldest copies of the books that went into the bible were written we largely must base our conclusion on other things, including what others tell us, which can be quite problamatic. Am I remmembering correctly, did you say you can read the orginal languages? If so, what translation would you recommend?

I can read greek and hebrew, but I am much better with greek (i.e. I still need to refer to a lexicon with hebrew). I like my Oxford bible with apocrypha by Metzger.

 

[McBell]

That's partially a matter for discussion, but if you're not familiar with the complexity of the issue's in relation to accuracy in translation then I do not see how you're prepared for a discusion on the topic.

interesting.
So what "complexities" are you talking about?

If one doesn't know the language of the text being translated, how would one even be in a position to judge accuracy?

Very good point.
I wonder if Humanistheart is "well learned" in the original languages..?

In fact, I wonder why there has not been a test presented that one has to pass in order to be included in the discussion....

 

[Humanistheart]

I can read greek and hebrew, but I am much better with greek (i.e. I still need to refer to a lexicon with hebrew). I like my Oxford bible with apocrypha by Metzger.

Oh, very interesting. Why the oxford bible?

 

[Oberon]

Oh, very interesting. Why the oxford bible?

I've found it is the right mix of sticking to the text without making the translation incomprehensible.

 

[Humanistheart]

interesting.
So what "complexities" are you talking about?


Very good point.
I wonder if Humanistheart is "well learned" in the original languages..?

Well, complexities such as determining the proper english word (or whatever language your translating into) or phrase to coincide with the original authors intended words. There are for example instances where a word can mean different things by context. Also there are phrases and expressions that were relevant to the time and culture which would not make sence when literally translated to a laymen who is not familiar with them. It's like if someone from another language and culture heard us say it's raining cats and dogs. Would they know we mean it's pouring out? So I would think it's not just a matter or knowing how to read the language but understanding the culture in which the books were produced. Also understanding that expectiation/definition can change how a person translates it. For example our usage of the word 'hell' convey's a rather different image than it would have say 1900 years ago, so again cultural relevance comes into play.

And no, not at all. I know a little spanish and french, nothing relevant to the scriptures, which is why I started the thread then for the most stepped back and just enjoyed reading the discussions of others on it.

 

[McBell]

Well, complexities such as determining the proper english word (or whatever language your translating into) or phrase to coincide with the original authors intended words. There are for example instances where a word can mean different things by context. Also there are phrases and expressions that were relevant to the time and culture which would not make sence when literally translated to a laymen who is not familiar with them. It's like if someone from another language and culture heard us say it's raining cats and dogs. Would they know we mean it's pouring out? So I would think it's not just a matter or knowing how to read the language but understanding the culture in which the books were produced. Also understanding that expectiation/definition can change how a person translates it. For example our usage of the word 'hell' convey's a rather different image than it would have say 1900 years ago, so again cultural relevance comes into play.

You forgot the intentions, biases, agendas, etc. of the one(s) doing the translation....

Other than that, I agree 100%.

And no, not at all. I know a little spanish and french, nothing relevant to the scriptures, which is why I started the thread then for the most stepped back and just enjoyed reading the discussions of others on it.

fair enough.

My apologies for getting a bit snippy.

 

[Humanistheart]

You forgot the intentions, biases, agendas, etc. of the one(s) doing the translation....

Other than that, I agree 100%..

Agreed, good additions to consider.

fair enough.

My apologies for getting a bit snippy.

Thank you, I aprreciate that very much And don't worry about it, it's probably just an understandable carry over from our dissagreement on the other thread.

 

[McBell]

Thank you, I aprreciate that very much And don't worry about it, it's probably just an understandable carry over from our dissagreement on the other thread.

Actually that has nothing to do with it.
I allowed personal non-forum related things to spill over into the forum.

 

[Riverwolf]

I can read greek and hebrew, but I am much better with greek (i.e. I still need to refer to a lexicon with hebrew). I like my Oxford bible with apocrypha by Metzger.

Is that the same Oxford Annotated Bible which uses the NRVS translation, or is it something else?

 

[Oberon]

Is that the same Oxford Annotated Bible which uses the NRVS translation, or is it something else?

It used the RSV (not NRSV), which Metzger was a huge part of, only it includes translations of they Apocrypha. The one I have is not the latest version (mine is 1962).

 

[Riverwolf]

It used the RSV (not NRSV), which Metzger was a huge part of, only it includes translations of they Apocrypha. The one I have is not the latest version (mine is 1962).

Are there any important differences between the RVS and NRVS that you're aware of? (By "important," I mean differences that change the overall meaning of the text. i.e., "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy.)

 

[Oberon]

Are there any important differences between the RVS and NRVS that you're aware of? (By "important," I mean differences that change the overall meaning of the text. i.e., "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah's Immanuel prophecy.)

Not that I am aware of, no. I have a few editions of the bible, and i don't even know which ones (I know I have the KJV and a revised version of the KJV, but I don't know what the other ones are). However, I don't usually use translations for the NT, and tend to go to my translations when I need to read a longer section of the OT. I have found the Oxford one to be the closest to what the text says while remaining more or less "english."

 

[TheSunscientist]

I tend to use the original Greek text but when I use a translation, I use TNIV.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think you know either, but tis neither here nor there.
Self fulfilling prophesy being fulfilled does not impress me none.
Nor does making a "prediction" after the fact.
But hey, whatever helps you ratify your beliefs, right?

It was not self fulfilled prophesy nor fulfilled with my pre-knowledge or bequest. It happened just as God said.

Obviously it supports my beliefs. It is one thing to see something written but entirely something different to see it in action.

I have seen pictures of NYC but visiting the city makes the place more real. I have seen pictures of airplanes taking off but it is much more real to be in a plane taking off.

That is why the Psalmist says:
Ps 34:8 Oh taste and see that Jehovah is good: Blessed is the man that taketh refuge in him.

 

[Muffled]

If one doesn't know the language of the text being translated, how would one even be in a position to judge accuracy?

The same way that the Canon ws established, The Holy Spirit gives guidance.

 

[McBell]

It was not self fulfilled prophesy nor fulfilled with my pre-knowledge or bequest. It happened just as God said.

nice twist you got going there