What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Riverwolf]

Good.
Good.
Relatively poor.

What's wrong with Friedman?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's wrong with Friedman?

Wrong? Nothing. Why would you compare him favorably to Plaut, Sarna, etc. I think he's often interesting and more often underwhelming and focused on promoted his particular rendition/popularization of the Documentary Hypothesis. Could you give me an example of where you find him more informative and/or more accurate than the JPS?

 

[Riverwolf]

Wrong? Nothing. Why would you compare him favorably to Plaut, Sarna, etc. I think he's often interesting and more often underwhelming and focused on promoted his particular rendition/popularization of the Documentary Hypothesis. Could you give me an example of where you find him more informative and/or more accurate than the JPS?

Good point.

 

[McBell]

Guessing at best? That's not accurate. What is to be done, based on the steps I pointed out above, is speculate. Anyone can guess, few can give educated guesses, which have a far greater chance at being correct.

Yet it is still a guess.
Why?
Because you cannot find out for sure what was actually meant by the original authors.

You are right in that we don't have access to the original writings, nor do we have access to the original authors to ask them what they meant, and even if we did, the language they spoke would have been so different that nobody would understand them.

So we are back to square one: it is nothing more than a guess.
Now do not get me wrong.
I understand that some guesses are going to better than others.
I understand that some people are in a better position (through education, etc) to have their guess given more weight than someone else.
However, it still boils down to whose guess you trust the most.

And, of course, because bias is unavoidable, read multiple translations. One translator, however reputable, may have missed something that another caught.

I agree.
That is why I try to use as many translations as possible.
I also use as many commentaries as I can.

But I understand that each and every translation is merely a guess at what the original author was trying to convey and that every commentary is merely an opinion about the guesses.


Seems to me that perhaps you dislike the word guess?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yet it is still a guess.
Why?
Because you cannot find out for sure what was actually meant by the original authors.


So we are back to square one: it is nothing more than a guess.
Now do not get me wrong.
I understand that some guesses are going to better than others.
I understand that some people are in a better position (through education, etc) to have their guess given more weight than someone else.
However, it still boils down to whose guess you trust the most.


I agree.
That is why I try to use as many translations as possible.
I also use as many commentaries as I can.

But I understand that each and every translation is merely a guess at what the original author was trying to convey and that every commentary is merely an opinion about the guesses.


Seems to me that perhaps you dislike the word guess?

I don't like throwing the word "guess" around so loosely. Using "guess" alone implies taking a complete shot in the dark, without anything to base the guess on. Think of playing a game of sudoku and coming across a space that, at the moment, you can't solve, so you just put in a random number and hope you're right. That's a guess.

Hence the use of the words "theory" and "speculation" to refer to educated guesses, both words having their own connotations. (Theory being a step up from speculation, I believe.)

 

[McBell]

I don't like throwing the word "guess" around so loosely. Using "guess" alone implies taking a complete shot in the dark, without anything to base the guess on. Think of playing a game of sudoku and coming across a space that, at the moment, you can't solve, so you just put in a random number and hope you're right. That's a guess.

Hence the use of the words "theory" and "speculation" to refer to educated guesses, both words having their own connotations. (Theory being a step up from speculation, I believe.)

and yet at their very core, they are still guesses.

Though i guess I can understand why you might not like the usage of the word in this particular context.

 

[Riverwolf]

and yet at their very core, they are still guesses.

Though i guess I can understand why you might not like the usage of the word in this particular context.

I feel that it's very inappropriate. It's like saying that the theory of the 4.6 billion year old earth is just a guess, or that the k-t event was an asteroid was just a guess.

 

[McBell]

I feel that it's very inappropriate. It's like saying that the theory of the 4.6 billion year old earth is just a guess, or that the k-t event was an asteroid was just a guess.

Seems to me that you have some sort of hang up with the word guess.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
guess
n1: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

2: an estimate based on little or no information

v 1: expect, believe, or suppose;

2: put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation;

3: judge tentatively or form an estimate of (quantities or
time);
​

4: guess correctly; solve by guessing;

Seems that the green definition fits rather nicely.
Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Riverwolf]

Seems to me that you have some sort of hang up with the word guess.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
guess
n1: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

2: an estimate based on little or no information

v 1: expect, believe, or suppose;

2: put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation;

3: judge tentatively or form an estimate of (quantities or
time);
​

4: guess correctly; solve by guessing;

Seems that the green definition fits rather nicely.
Wouldn't you agree?

Each of these definitions go together, and it was by these definitions that I have been arguing. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Guessing is still very inappropriate to use in this instance, and I still stand by my statement that you saying that using the word is like saying that the k-t event was an asteroid is simply a guess rather than a real theory.

A theory can also not be proven, and can possibly be refuted. But it is several steps higher than a guess.

 

[The Enlightened One]

By the sounds of it? :biglaugh:

Yeah, "day" and "morning" ARE very different; but it still beats "Lucifer" IMO

 

[TheRattusN]

I have a question...How do Christians know which type of Bible to use? I was raised Catholic so I was told that it is the only accurate Bible, and it came with the imprimatur in the front to state the Pope says it's cool. But what about all the other Christians? And I was taught that the Catholic Bible has more books in it and that Protestants "cut out parts they didn't like." So what's the truth? Do you use the: 1. New International Version (NIV) 2. King James Version (KJV) 3. New King James Version (NKJV) 4. New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5. New Living Translation (NLT) 6. ect. ???

 

[Riverwolf]

I have a question...How do Christians know which type of Bible to use? I was raised Catholic so I was told that it is the only accurate Bible, and it came with the imprimatur in the front to state the Pope says it's cool. But what about all the other Christians? And I was taught that the Catholic Bible has more books in it and that Protestants "cut out parts they didn't like." So what's the truth? Do you use the: 1. New International Version (NIV) 2. King James Version (KJV) 3. New King James Version (NKJV) 4. New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5. New Living Translation (NLT) 6. ect. ???

Well, for the Old Testament (Tanakh), you really can't beat the JPS translation, or scholarly translations of the Torah. For the New Testament, I personally prefer the New Jerusalem Bible (which, as you know, is a Catholic Bible.)

The Protestants didn't "cut the parts they didn't like"; the books of the Old Testament they cut, the Apocrypha, actually don't appear in the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Tanakh, which was canonized around the second century C.E.

It should be noted that the Apocrypha, and several other books, however, do appear in the Septuagint, the Greek Jewish Bible, which was canonized earlier. A reason those extra books could have been removed from the Masoretic Text was because they were written originally in Greek, well after the other texts, as opposed to the other texts, which were written in Hebrew.

 

[Muffled]

Could you offer an example where the NIV is "most accurate"? Thanks.

IMO all the translations are reliable and the flaws are minor except for The New World Translation which is convoluted by a literal translation that does not even attempt to preserve meaning and even that literal translation picks and chooses (but not well) between the mnay meanings that some words have. Not to mention that Jehovah was automatically inserted for Lord whether justifiable or not.

 

[Muffled]

The KJV replaces "day-star" with "Lucifer", whereas the NIV translates it with ""morning-star", son of the dawn".
I chose that specific verse because it is personal to ME and MY beliefs. I get alot of "flack" over the term Lucifer from followers of the RHP because of that mistranslation in the KJV. What does a babylonian king have to do with Satan? I may be interpreting the verse out of its intended context, but isn't it all a matter of speculation? Whether or not the verse was referring to the "devil", that verse has gotten me into many a heated argument with some of my most beloved family members, usually ending with negative effects on our relationship.
Thats why I picked that specific verse.
As for the NIV being vastly incorrect... I wouldn't know. All that I have to trully compare it to is the KJV because those are the only two I have "picked up". In my opinion, the NIV is a more accurate translation than the KJV; as far as it being more accurate than any other bible, like I said, I wouldn't know. It looks like I have more research to do on my part. Thanks BTW, I have never before heard of the JPS, so maybe that would be a good place for me to start.

I think you will find the JPS biased by modern Jewish thinking just as the KJV could be biased by Christian thinking of its time.

The sin is the same: pride. You could call it the original sin, because it caused Satan to rebel against God.

Isa. 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.

Although the context is the king of Babylon, the accusation that God is making is that he is acting like the serpent who tempted Eve by saying that she could be like God.

 

[Danmac]

I was raised on the NKJ version. I was surprised when the Head of the Religious Studies program at my college (a lifelong christian and PhD in said topic) said that the NIV version is probably the most accurate translation of the bible in current use, and the King James version is by a wide margin the least accurate. There are numerous reasons given to support both conclusions, that I'm sure if this get's responded to people will touch on.

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?

Things cannot be determined to be true or false until they are measured by the original standard.

 

[John D]

I was raised on the NKJ version. I was surprised when the Head of the Religious Studies program at my college (a lifelong christian and PhD in said topic) said that the NIV version is probably the most accurate translation of the bible in current use, and the King James version is by a wide margin the least accurate. There are numerous reasons given to support both conclusions, that I'm sure if this get's responded to people will touch on.

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?

The one I trust the most is the one written on the heart of man. When a man speaks you can know if the translation is true or just a man made version of a Marvel comic book.
I've read thousands of comic books so far, and I think about three verses from the true Bible translation.

 

[Muffled]

I have a question...How do Christians know which type of Bible to use? I was raised Catholic so I was told that it is the only accurate Bible, and it came with the imprimatur in the front to state the Pope says it's cool. But what about all the other Christians? And I was taught that the Catholic Bible has more books in it and that Protestants "cut out parts they didn't like." So what's the truth? Do you use the: 1. New International Version (NIV) 2. King James Version (KJV) 3. New King James Version (NKJV) 4. New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5. New Living Translation (NLT) 6. ect. ???

Roman Catholicism had a very elitist viewpoint and still does to some extent.

One hopes that those who decided what books to include in the Canon had enough integrity to please God rather than themselves or other men.

4.

 

[301ouncer]

Roman Catholicism had a very elitist viewpoint and still does to some extent.

One hopes that those who decided what books to include in the Canon had enough integrity to please God rather than themselves or other men.

4.

Reading the bible is all well and good, but it does not answer the question, which if I am understanding correctly is: Given that the bible is a collection of mostly unrelated books, who chose them to be part of the collection and why? What are the criteria used in adding or removing a book from the canon list of books that is the Bible? Why were some books that were once canonical deselected? How do you know that there are not incorrect books in the current Bible, or that you aren't missing a very important bit of true information because it was in a book that didn't make the cut?

 

[McBell]

Reading the bible is all well and good, but it does not answer the question, which if I am understanding correctly is: Given that the bible is a collection of mostly unrelated books, who chose them to be part of the collection and why? What are the criteria used in adding or removing a book from the canon list of books that is the Bible? Why were some books that were once canonical deselected? How do you know that there are not incorrect books in the current Bible, or that you aren't missing a very important bit of true information because it was in a book that didn't make the cut?

Not to mention the books that are mentioned by the books that are included but were not also included.

 

[301ouncer]

Not to mention the books that are mentioned by the books that are included but were not also included.

Hey mestemia, quick example please. one or two lines would do thank you.