What Bible

[Spotted Owl]

What Bible(s) do you have and use?

For our family we use the Authorized King James Version. I am doing some study work right now. When that is done I will be able to explain in more detail as to why we have chosen the AKJV.
Mrs. Owl

[Hooked on Fish]

NIV

[happybrew]

I always end up giving my bibles to other people. We have a couple of NIV's that toddlers have drawn pictures on. I usually read it on the computer. We have the RSV (Catholic Version) and the New American Bible put out by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I like the RSV for the language, although sometimes it doesn't match modern usage. I like the NAB for the footnotes.

For a real treat, though, I like Douay-Rheims, and an updated version of that called the Challoner Bible. Incidentally, the translators of the KJV cribbed off of the Douay-Rheims version, which was finished a before the KJV.

The NIV is okay, but it was specifically tailored for a sixth grade reading level to ensure all would understand it. Accordingly, it can lack the theological depth of the RSV. Something is always lost when less precise language is used.

happybrew

[rimrock]

Way too many :hoboy: :jester:

Day-to-day NIV but not so much for word study, but there is nothing wrong with NIV it's a very good balance between thought and word.

[Sweet Melissa]

I use the NIV regularly, New King James Study Bible, New Living Translation One Year Bible, and the Message for something different.

I was recently in a Christian book store where they were trying to get customers to donate $5 to buy the Message for Katrina victims. Apparently it had been chosen by the local pastors down there because its simple language would have the broadest appeal. I watched a guy have a tantrum because he thought the only Bible people should read was the KJV, and he would not support the distribution of any other versions. WWJD? :shrug:

[happybrew]

WWJD?



Why, Jesus would simply tell it like it is! :laugh:

I'd have concerns about a translation like "The Message" because it reflects a lot of personal interpretation. There is always a balance between literal meaning and accessability. A comparison of a number of passages can be found at

http://www.bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

Even with a more literal and conservative translation, there will still be sections which are subject to interpretation. An example would be 1Cor11:16. The RSV translates that sentence, which refers to women praying with their head covered, as "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." The NAB translates that passage as "But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God." The NAB translation of that sentence seems to contradict the previous sentences, however I've been told by those who know Greek that it is the more literal translation. The NIV translation is similar to the RSV, rendering it "16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." The KJV is similar to the NAB, rendering it "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.", and the Douay Rheims version is similar if not identical.

This may seem like a small thing, but a few months ago it did create quite a stir in our homeschool group. Some of the women attend Mass wearing a mantilla. Some do not. There was self-righteousness on both sides of the e-mail debate. The guys who got involved just pointed out the difference in translation and shrugged. The more traditional practice is for women to wear a head covering. This practice has been mostly discarded. Ironically, the more liberal Protestant translation agrees with the more conservative Catholic translation, and the more conservative Protestant translation agrees with the more liberal Catholic translation. Go figure.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when there is a lack of clarity even among scholars of all denominations, a more dynamic translation like The Message will inevitably bring, however unintended, the biases and preconceptions of the translator more than a more literal translation. One doesn't need to be a scholar to read the Bible, but a more careful translation is safer, even if not as exciting. The Israelites often grew bored with God, and it came back to bite them again and again.

Oh, yeah. The Message agrees with the RSV, translating the passage in question as "16I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this. All God's churches see it this way; I don't want you standing out as an exception.", however the passages preceding it make absolutely no reference to a woman covering her head, and instead makes the issue out to be whether a man or a woman is better than the other. Quite different from how the passages in 1Cor11 have always been understood.

happybrew

[Dullhook]

1. Authorized King James
2. New King James
3. NIV

[Sweet Melissa]

I don't use the Message as a study Bible, happybrew. I see it as one man's (Eugene Peterson's) paraphrase, and that's all. However... I think people get hung-up on what translation is "correct," and miss the point of the Scriptures sometimes. We like to get stuck on passages like those on head-coverings, and seem to forget to live every day by the Greatest Commandment.

It really irks me that people will argue about stuff like whether Jesus drank wine or grape juice, without getting their nose out of their concordance to serve their neighbors, their community, and their family.

[happybrew]

It really irks me that people will argue about stuff like whether Jesus drank wine or grape juice, without getting their nose out of their concordance to serve their neighbors, their community, and their family.


:yeahthat:

[Spotted Owl]

I did some research on the Douay-Rheims and came up empty as far as the KJV goes.All I found is that "It is thought to have been pieced together with Douay-rheims". It seems all the different versions like to take credit in some way, shape or form for the accuracy and clarity of the KJV and yes I did say clarity. If it says one thing in the old testament, it's going to say the same exact thing in the new testament. No changed words ,it's the same throughout the entire book.Talk about being clear and easy to understand .Mrs.owl

[FastActionRodTip]

NIV..KJ is too hard to read for me

[Bartman]

1) Poetic edda
2) Prose edda
3) Sagas of Icelanders
4) Masks of Odin
5) New King James Version

These are probably my top five. :flowered:

[Snapset]

KJV-JST

[happybrew]

I read one of the Icelandic Sagas, Njal's saga. Very bloody.

[WyldHen]

:lurk:

[rimrock]

KJV-JST?

Hey Snapset if you don't mind what is JST? Never heard of that one before, just curious. I always like reading different translations and I’m not familiar with this one. :wave:

[Bartman]

I read one of the Icelandic Sagas, Njal's saga. Very bloody.


history has its rough moments,the sagas do cover a wide range of topics, law,religion,exploration,romance.they also contain people from all classes in society, farmers to kings.

[Snapset]

Hey Rimrock, KJV-JST means the King James Version-Joseph Smith Translation. Thanks for asking.

[rimrock]

0

[WyldHen]

rimrock:
:cool:, looking forward to reading it. Thanks again for the reply. :cheers:



Your open eyes and heart inspire me rimrock. Your like a breath of fresh air here.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/WildHen/Signatures/Angelhugs.gif

[Bartman]

snapset,my mothers side of the family migrated to utah with brigham young and eventually settled in the idaho falls area, I've read the book of mormon a couple times and look forward to chatting with ya.
Bartman