What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Shadow Wolf]

I do not adhear to the Bible, but I've heard the NKJ version is actually a very terrible translation job.

 

[Caladan]

Again, Jewish religionists have no privileged perspective when it comes to interpreting the Hebrew Bible. They are just as much outsiders as Christians and Muslims, and their interpretations may be just as disparate from the original intentions of the authors as those of non-Jews.

They have as much privileges as the early Jews or Israelites. not only they are not 'outsiders' (!) perhaps the right way of putting it is to say that the Jews have the copyrights for the Hebrew Bible.
As pointed earlier, Christianity and Islam derive their theology from Judaism, the theology of Judaism therefore existed and would continue to exist regardless of Christianity or Islam, and the Jews have preserved it for centuries in the diaspora and have made it available to the rest of the world whether through the Septuagint or by Christian tradition through evangelizing to the gentiles. the Hebrew Bible is not focused on the [Christian] Europeans, or the [Muslim] Arabs but on the people of Judah and Israel, and unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism does not attempt to convert others into Jewish theology. therefore the element of propaganda as pointed out by gnostic is lacking from Judaism, what we have is Jewish interpretations, which is legit, as it has always been from the time of the second temple, legit in the sense, of a people studying their own heritage, scriptures, and preserving the traditional corpus of their community.

 

[gnostic]

"Divine beings" is also an attempt to shy away from "gods." The text in Exodus 22 to which I referred was Exod 22:8, which is often still translated "judges" rather than "God."

Well, the JPS-1985 used "God" not "judge" in Exodus 22:8. The older translation from JPS (1917), also used "God" not "judge".

Which translation are you using that giving you - "judges", if I may ask?

 

[maklelan]

They have as much privileges as the early Jews or Israelites. not only they are not 'outsiders' (!) perhaps the right way of putting it is to say that the Jews have the copyrights for the Hebrew Bible.

Special pleading. They have no more privileged perspective than anyone else. I cannot make that any more clear. Nothing about Jewish ethnicity or religion means they can, in virtue of that quality, better interpret a specific passage of scripture better than anyone else.

As pointed earlier, Christianity and Islam derive their theology from Judaism, the theology of Judaism therefore existed and would continue to exist regardless of Christianity or Islam, and the Jews have preserved it for centuries in the diaspora and have made it available to the rest of the world whether through the Septuagint or by Christian tradition through evangelizing to the gentiles.

But you ignored what I said. The Judaism of the Rabbis and the Judaism of today is not the same Judaism as that of Christ's day, which was not the same as that of Nehemiah's day, which was not the same as Josiah's day, which was not the same as Saul's day.

the Hebrew Bible is not focused on the [Christian] Europeans, or the [Muslim] Arabs but on the people of Judah and Israel, and unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism does not attempt to convert others into Jewish theology. therefore the element of propaganda as pointed out by gnostic is lacking from Judaism, what we have is Jewish interpretations, which is legit, as it has always been from the time of the second temple, legit in the sense, of a people studying their own heritage, scriptures, and preserving the traditional corpus of their community.

Totally false. Their interpretations are just as much propaganda as any proselytizing religion's interpretations of scripture, and ethnic heritage grants no transcendent interpretive framework. To claim otherwise is the very definition of special pleading and is a gross fallacy.

 

[maklelan]

Well, the JPS-1985 used "God" not "judge" in Exodus 22:8. The older translation from JPS (1917), also used "God" not "judge".

Which translation are you using that giving you - "judges", if I may ask?

Yes, the JPS translates that verse with "God." The "judges" reading of Exodus is most common these days in the Christian translations, like the NIV and NASB. That text is not quite as thoroughly misrepresented due to the possibility of reading the singular "God" rather than the plural "gods," although the verb is in the plural.

 

[idea]

But anyway, I cannot speak or read any of the languages that the earliest copies of the bible we have are written in; I cannot confirm this one way or the other. So what version do you all think is the most accurate? What is your reasoning behind your answer?

I use the JST - Joseph Smith Translation. Only a prophet can sort out the mess left by the dark ages.

 

[Caladan]

Special pleading. They have no more privileged perspective than anyone else. I cannot make that any more clear. Nothing about Jewish ethnicity or religion means they can, in virtue of that quality, better interpret a specific passage of scripture better than anyone else.

The only thing you have made clear, is that its your personal opinion. like I said earlier, the Jews do not convert others to Judaism, therefore your point of who has exclusive interpretation is moot here. however what I said was, that the Hebrew Bible has originated from the Jews and therefore the claim you have made in saying that the Jews are 'outsiders' to the Hebrew Bible is not only a fallacy but should be evaluated as to understand the agenda behind it.

But you ignored what I said. The Judaism of the Rabbis and the Judaism of today is not the same Judaism as that of Christ's day, which was not the same as that of Nehemiah's day, which was not the same as Josiah's day, which was not the same as Saul's day.

oh boy. is the Christianity of today the same as early Christianity? NO. early Christianity was a Jewish sect.
the Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism — which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism.

Totally false. Their interpretations are just as much propaganda as any proselytizing religion's interpretations of scripture, and ethnic heritage grants no transcendent interpretive framework. To claim otherwise is the very definition of special pleading and is a gross fallacy.

Again, you have overlooked what I said, to draw a different meaning. naturally all forms of religious interpretations (Judaism included) are a form of propaganda, however, here the propaganda is of the Jewish bible, which is itself a great source of Jewish propaganda and ideology. (propaganda in the broader sense of the word)

 

[maklelan]

The only thing you have made clear, is that its your personal opinion. like I said earlier, the Jews do not convert others to Judaism, therefore your point of who has exclusive interpretation is moot here.

Whether or not people actively proselytize to others does not and cannot have anything whatsoever to do with a privileged perspective on the proper interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. It's a question of ideological and socio-political context, and Jewish people are no more born with an innate comprehension of late Iron Age socio-politics than I am. In addition, the ideologies of that age are far more removed from the ideologies of modern Judaism than Judaism is removed from Christianity.

however what I said was, that the Hebrew Bible has originated from the Jews and therefore the claim you have made in saying that the Jews are 'outsiders' to the Hebrew Bible is not only a fallacy but should be evaluated as to understand the agenda behind it.

It's not a fallacy, it's the truth. Modern Judaism has very little to do with ancient Israelite religion, which was monolatrous, monarchic, cult based, and fiercely patriarchal.

oh boy. is the Christianity of today the same as early Christianity? NO. early Christianity was a Jewish sect.

No, it's not the same, but early Christianity was not a sect. See a book by Shaye Cohen (a Jewish professor at Harvard) called From the Maccabees to the Mishna for a discussion of why Christianity was never a Jewish sect.

the Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism — which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism.

Pharisaical Judaism was not "reestablished as Rabbinic Judaism." It developed into Rabbinic Judaism as a result of its hegemony after the Bar Kokhba revolts.

Again, you have overlooked what I said, to draw a different meaning. naturally all forms of religious interpretations (Judaism included) are a form of propaganda, however, here the propaganda is of the Jewish bible, which is itself a great source of Jewish propaganda and ideology. (propaganda in the broader sense of the word)

It is only a source of Jewish propaganda insofar as it is viewed through a modern Jewish interpretive framework. You're not listening to a word I'm saying, and I'll not waste any more of my time if you continue to do so.

 

[Caladan]

Whether or not people actively proselytize to others does not and cannot have anything whatsoever to do with a privileged perspective on the proper interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. It's a question of ideological and socio-political context, and Jewish people are no more born with an innate comprehension of late Iron Age socio-politics than I am. In addition, the ideologies of that age are far more removed from the ideologies of modern Judaism than Judaism is removed from Christianity.

What is 'proper' interpretation of the Hebrew Bible?
again, you are not addressing what I am saying. I have openly said that the Jewish interpretation may be subjective (naturally), however I have stressed that your eyebrow raising comment of calling the Jews 'outsiders' on Biblical matters ignores that the scriptures are Jewish, and are a part of the legacy of the Jewish people. and no Jewish person demands non Jews to accept their study of their own scriptures.

It's not a fallacy, it's the truth. Modern Judaism has very little to do with ancient Israelite religion, which was monolatrous, monarchic, cult based, and fiercely patriarchal.

Its a non sequitur. as I said modern Christianity has nothing in common with early Christianity, modern Buddhism is different from early Buddhism, and modern partitioners of Taoism are vastly alien to early Taoists. however, just like Buddhists have studied and kept the legacy of the Buddhist scriptures, just like Hindus have kept the Mahabharata in the original Sanskrit, so have the Jews kept the legacy and the study of their own respective scriptures alive.

No, it's not the same, but early Christianity was not a sect. See a book by Shaye Cohen (a Jewish professor at Harvard) called From the Maccabees to the Mishna for a discussion of why Christianity was never a Jewish sect.

After the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, there were two forms of Judaism: Rabbinical Judaism, and Christianity.

Pharisaical Judaism was not "reestablished as Rabbinic Judaism." It developed into Rabbinic Judaism as a result of its hegemony after the Bar Kokhba revolts.

You have just said what I have with a different word. thank you :yes:
Rabbinic Judaism came to be widespread among the Jews of the diaspora with the rise of the Talmud and a social need to be filled with the destruction of the temple.

You're not listening to a word I'm saying

Funny I feel the same way.

and I'll not waste any more of my time if you continue to do so.

As you are new to RF, consider this a friendly warning, we do not take lightly ad homs against members of our staff. the best way to acclimatize smoothly on a new forum is begin with the minimum, which is the ability to engage in a debate and still keep your head on.

 

[maklelan]

What is 'proper' interpretation of the Hebrew Bible?

That depends on the text.

again, you are not addressing what I am saying. I have openly said that the Jewish interpretation may be subjective (naturally), however I have stressed that your eyebrow raising comment of calling the Jews 'outsiders' on Biblical matters ignores that the scriptures are Jewish,

And I have explained that they are not Jewish. You have not responded to that, you have just barked "Nu-uh!" at me. I'm not interested in participating in such a childish discussion. Your posts will be ignored from now on.

 

[Smoke]

Modern Judaism has very little to do with ancient Israelite religion, which was monolatrous, monarchic, cult based, and fiercely patriarchal.

To believe that the ancient Israelites were monolatrous, one would have to be almost completely ignorant of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and of the Tanakh itself.

 

[Oberon]

To believe that the ancient Israelites were monolatrous, one would have to be almost completely ignorant of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and of the Tanakh itself.

What do you mean? They probably were at one point. The evidence is in the Tanakh, where YHWH competes with other gods. It wasn't until later that the Israelites were truly Monotheistic.

 

[Smoke]

The evidence is in the Tanakh, where YHWH competes with other gods.

Exactly. The prophets are always complaining about how the people worship gods other than Yahweh, Hezekiah and Josiah find it necessary to launch murderous campaigns against worshipers of other gods, and as soon as they get the chance, the people are back worshiping other gods. There was a very nasty minority that insisted on monolatry, but it was quite obviously not the majority view or practice.

 

[Oberon]

Exactly. The prophets are always complaining about how the people worship gods other than Yahweh, Hezekiah and Josiah find it necessary to launch murderous campaigns against worshipers of other gods, and as soon as they get the chance, the people are back worshiping other gods. There was a very nasty minority that insisted on monolatry, but it was quite obviously not the majority view or practice.

Prophetic literature is all later. I don't pretend to be an expert on truly ancient Judaism (as by the time of the NT, it was all reinterpreted anyway) but I recall more than a few sources and professors saying that early on Yahweh was the only god worshipped, not the only god believed to exist. I will try to dig up some good sources.

 

[Smoke]

Prophetic literature is all later.

Almost the entire corpus of scripture is post-Exilic in a way; even the parts that were written earlier were re-worked and edited. The Exiles returning to Israel found that the compatriots they left behind were, to the Exilic way of thinking, rank pagans. Yet even in the midst of a concerted effort to promote monotheism and quash their own ancestral religion, the Post-Exilic community left a lot of evidence in their scriptures. The ancient Israelite religion was, except for brief bursts of intolerance, not centralized, not aniconic, and not monolatrous.

 

[Smoke]

I recall more than a few sources and professors saying that early on Yahweh was the only god worshipped

So do I. But I haven't seen them back it up.

 

[Oberon]

To believe that the ancient Israelites were monolatrous, one would have to be almost completely ignorant of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and of the Tanakh itself.

Here's a few quotes I found from my bookshelf:

"But even if all twenty-seven instances are references to deities other than Yahweh, the evidence still seems to suggest that Israel was an overwhelmingly Yahwistic society, to an extent that it would be justified to use the term ‘monolatrous’ of the religious practice of that society. " p 52.

Bartlett, John R. ed. Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation.
London, GBR: Routledge, 1997.


"As a result, monotheism has apparently achieved a status in modern discourse that it never held in ancient Israel, where it functioned as a rhetoric expressing and advancing the cause of Israelite monolatrous practice." p 12.

Smith, Mark S.(CB). Origins of Biblical Monotheism : Israel.
Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2001.

Most of the arguments seem to stem from the treatment of the other gods and powers (such as the magicians in egypt) as real within the early books of the bible, but that as inferior to Yahweh, and the lack of the defnite declarations of Yahweh as the ONLY god until later.

 

[gnostic]

I use the JST - Joseph Smith Translation. Only a prophet can sort out the mess left by the dark ages.

I see Joseph Smith's version to be just Joseph's editing of the KJV, not a translation, and I am somewhat dubious about JS adding and deleting passages, without any source for such inclusion or exclusion.

And even inclusion of just a single word, changes the whole meaning/context of the book.

For example, I had previously brought up the topic about God sending evil spirit to Saul, to drive him insane with paranoia, in a few passages in 1 Samuel. My point on the old topic was that God was the one who controlled the evil spirits, and where and when to send them, not Satan.

One (or more) LDS member (I don't remember who) quoted the same passage (from the so-called Joseph Smith's Translation) that say God did "not" sent the evil spirit to Saul.

This single word - NOT - would change the whole theme (and plot) of the book (1 Samuel).

The whole purpose why God sent the evil spirit to torment (from all other translations), was because God didn't want Saul to be king no longer, hence the rise of David, which make sense, plot-wise or theme-wise.

JS's changes, simply don't make sense.

 

[mippop]

But anyway, I cannot speak or read any of the languages that the earliest copies of the bible we have are written in; I cannot confirm this one way or the other. So what version do you all think is the most accurate? What is your reasoning behind your answer?

I read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew and can easily say that there is no substitute for reading the Bible in its original language. However, barring that as an option, the answer lies in one's ultimate interest in the Bible. Translations, regardless of how good or bad, capture the meanings in only a single perspective and deny the reader options for any true scholastic in-depth analysis. Typically, the various translations are editorial commentaries from the perspective of the translator. If one's interest in the Bible is largely for religious reasons, then I suggest the consistency of a particular translation of the Bible rather than hopping from translation to translation. If one's interest is more of a scholastic nature, then having a number of translations available will be useful.

Because the KJV was cited as possibly being the worst of the translations, I would like to come to its defense for one particular reason. Though the Old English tends to be more difficult to read, the Old English style grammar is closer to the Original Hebrew. For example, "thou shalt" and "ye shall" are the plural and singular versions of the more modern "you shall". There is no way to discern the difference in most modern translations.

 

[Smoke]

JS's changes, simply don't make sense.

I think it makes a great deal of sense for a prophet to go back and insert into an ancient text a prophecy of his own appearing. I just don't think it's very convincing.