which translation is your favorite?

[t3gah]

Which translations are your favorites?


Note: You can choose more than one choice before clicking "Vote Now"*.

If your Abrahamic translation is not listed please post the actual name of the translation you like to use the most for reference and reading instead of just the abbreviation for it. Also please post the year it was translated if you know it.


Thank you and God bless! :jiggy:

 

[Melody]

I prefer the King James, but have to admit that it's because it's the one I'm most familiar with. I have about 4 or 5 different translations though and will go to one or the other when I'm not quite sure what the KJV is saying.



Melody

 

[chuck010342]

I like the NIV because it was made by 100 of scholars

 

[anders]

For quoting in English, I often use my KJV. Because of its handy size, it is easy to have at hand. But when I need the correct meaning of a verse, I compare several other translations into several languages. I often, but not always, agree with the interpretation of the Swedish "Bibel 2000", and when it is an OT question I try to use the HB/TaNaK. (My Greek is not enough for the NT.)

 

[Doodlebug02]

Probably the New International Version for general reading. I also like the King James Version but it suffers from some translation errors and the language is rather archaic. However, the language is very poetic which I like. For serious study, I'd probably use a more literal Bible like the New American Standard Version.

 

[Ark]

None of the translations is perfect. The King James version is the closest to accuracy.

Why is it important?

Here is an example...

Often, in earlier times, words or phrases had different meanings than percieved. Just like the word "cool" is meant to be something other than having to do with temperature, the word "cloud" does not necessarily mean something in the sky.

So in regard to something as important as a "second comming", one might consider that when the book of Revelation (1:7) says "behold, he cometh with clouds...", one might assume that the King James English of those times explicitly states that he will be in the clouds which are in the sky...rather than the meaning associated with haziness, a type of "screen", or "chamoflage". Something which limits visibility.

Still...it is a much better translation than those versions who state "...he comes with THE clouds...". Definitely a serious error in translation.

Take it from those who know about the languages and the meanings in those times...The KJV is better.

 

[No*s]

I like the KJV, despite those occasions where it mistranslates something. I guess I like the archaic feel to it.

 

[Lintu]

I don't like translations. Several of the classes I took for my linguistics degree concentrated on Biblical translation. I don't trust anything that's not in its original language.

 

[goodjewishboy]

and even if it's in the original language, there will be disputes on meaning.

 

[HelpMe]

though flawed, the scriptures.

 

[Lintu]

and even if it's in the original language, there will be disputes on meaning.

Absolutely. So I think we can both agree that if the original meaning is disputed, what happens when you translate something time and time again with certain political agendas and lexical mistakes? A big fat mess and a lot of inaccuracy.

 

[fromthe heart]

I like the King James version..it has the least mistakes in translation. Just my own opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To list the Tanach as a (single) translation demonstrates a rather fundamental ignorance if the Jewish text.

 

[t3gah]

To list the Tanach as a (single) translation demonstrates a rather fundamental ignorance if the Jewish text.

I should have added Brit Hadashah to the Tanakh option but some people don't use both. Also you can only have 10 choices max to vote on a poll and the Brit Hadashah made the count 11.

Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say "single". My Tanakh has the Tohrah', Nevi'im, and Kethuvim' which is what to in your books? Single translation?! I'm confooosed! :sarcastic (if the Jewish text and ?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I should have added Brit Hadashah ...

What pretentious poppycock ... :banghead3

Also I'm not sure what you mean when you say "single".

That much is obvious. Forgive me, but I get a little tired of folks who throw around terms like 'Tanach' in an effort to impress but without having a clue about the subject.

 

[t3gah]

What pretentious poppycock ... :banghead3

That much is obvious. Forgive me, but I get a little tired of folks who throw around terms like 'Tanach' in an effort to impress but without having a clue about the subject.

My Tanakh is published by the Jewish Publication Society, copyright 1985. I bought it at Barns & Nobles 4 years ago.

 

[jewscout]

To list the Tanach as a (single) translation demonstrates a rather fundamental ignorance if the Jewish text.

agreed Deut.
I like my Artscroll Tanach and chumash personally

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can think of at least 3 major variants of the Torah alone.

 

[arthra]

I have had a copy of the Jerusalem Bible for some time and feel it is a good translation and in modern idiom. I've also had George Lamsa's translation which is from the Aramaic.

To me most Bibles have strong points and some weak ones and you really should be aware of what the underlying text is trying to say without being wedded to any particular translation.

- Art

 

[anders]

I can think of at least 3 major variants of the Torah alone.

Please expand! My knowledge of Bible Hebrew is very wanting, but I try to use my Latin-Hebrew parallel edition of 1740, the Hebrew according to Belgian Everardus van der Hooght; a TaNaK "according to the masorah" printed in Vienna 1878; and the BHS in the smaller version of 1984. They seem to agree almost perfectly.