Bible Question

I would like to buy an updated Bible but I'm not familiar with all the various interpretations out there.

I'm asking for input from fellow members. I would like the most contemporary, easiest to comprehend, version available.

Thanks for all replies.

Zero

www.usccb.org...

The New American Bible if you're looking for "easy" to understand/read.

Personally, I read the Douay-Rheims which was published prior to the KJV (and was ripped off by the KJV translators).

Food for thought though, the Douay-Rheims is only at a 12th grade reading level.

You can check it out here:

drbo.org...

Both of these are available in any Catholic bookstore, or you could swing by a Catholic parish and ask for one with an offer to make a donation for its cost.

king James is you want the edited and censored version - I'm afraid you'll have to raid the Vatican for anything that resembles the original text

KJV drives me crazy with all its thee, thy, thou. I would like something easy to read.

EDIT: I don't want editing or censoring either but, at this point in history, I'm afraid we have no choice in the matter.

And it's not very nice to try to deceive people that way. I knew better, but you were hoping I didn't. That doesn't say much about you as a human being.

reply to post by subjectzero


Personally, I use the New International Version, mostly because that's what I used during my years in the Methodist Church, though a number of my more conservative friends poo-poo that translation.

I also utilize the New American Bible (St. Joseph edition of the Catholic Bible) and a Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition,) but those are more for study, rather than everyday reading and citation.

Compare the different versions online, and pick the one you like the best. It's that simple.

This is a topic that can be debated all day long with no resolution. I always used the KJV. To me, it's as easy to read as the rest, with a few exceptions. But I find those same types of exceptions in other "translations" as well.

adjensen is right, many of the KJV only crowd call the NIV, the "Never Inspired Version", but it really comes down to a personal choice between Literal, Dynamic, and Free translation. Which do you want?

Most say literal. But literal is not always easy reading because of language syntax.

Bottom line. Suit yourself. At the end of the day, there isn't enough difference to worry about. You can always keep a parallel around for comparison.

ETA:
Had to hunt it down, but you might find this helpful...

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).
Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.

New American Bible. Readable, and for the footnotes, of course, because what other use would an agnostic find for a Bible except to study it?

I also from time to time use the recent American edition of the New Testament of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible, "EOB," when I need a Greek speaker's perspective. Also footnoted.

reply to post by subjectzero


I have always been a big fan of the New King James.

reply to post by subjectzero


The King James Version is the Authorized Version and the #1 recommended version,

If you struggle with the 1611 Olde English than go with a New King James Version,

number 2 would be an American Standard Version or Revised Standard Version,

Also I recommend an Interlinear Hebrew / Greek Transliterated and Translated Bible along with a Strongs Concordance, you can download a free program that has this built in along with a KJV Bible, and I like to download the Concordance Literal Version (CLV) module to put side by side for comparison.

www.scripture4all.org...

Good luck, God bless

reply to post by Klassified


The NIV is just a junk translation,

I'm not KJV only, read my above post, and I have other versions I like as well (Gods Word, Jewish Orthodox, etc)
but the NIV is just a weak, bunk translation. There are so many words omitted and so many mistranslated items, the NIV is probably the single worst translation available, unfortunately, it's also one of the most widely distributed....

reply to post by godlover25

As I said above, this can be debated all day long with no resolution. To me, it's no different than debating which translation of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or Grimm's Fairy Tales is the best.

Personally, I prefer a literal translation, but I don't mind wading through the sentence structure and syntax issues. Others do. They want something readable, and they don't care what gets lost in translation. To each their own I guess.

reply to post by Klassified


Why not take my advice and examine the original manuscripts then?

The Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are perfectly reliable, only a person unlearned in history would say otherwise

reply to post by subjectzero

The Revised Standard Version is close to the Authorised, but much more modern language.

The versions that try to be really up-to-date ought to be avoided, because they tend to drift towards paraphrase, and paraphrase distorts the meaning.

Originally posted by Klassified

adjensen is right, many of the KJV only crowd call the NIV, the "Never Inspired Version",

On the other hand, I've heard people call it the "Nearly Infallible"- (though it's not the one I use myself).

Originally posted by godlover25
reply to post by Klassified

 

Why not take my advice and examine the original manuscripts then?

The Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are perfectly reliable, only a person unlearned in history would say otherwise

I did. For many, many years. When I studied, I always had those tools right beside me, and referenced them often.

Is there a version that has all the pre-Nicea books in it?

Originally posted by subjectzero
Is there a version that has all the pre-Nicea books in it?

What "pre-Nicea books"?

The first Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the selection of what books would be part of the Christian canon, Dan Brown books notwithstanding.

reply to post by adjensen

Dan Brown has nothing to do with this. I wish people would stop talking about him.

Originally posted by subjectzero
reply to post by adjensen

 

Dan Brown has nothing to do with this. I wish people would stop talking about him.

Then what are you talking about? Do you believe that the Council of Nicaea determined which books would be included in the Christian Bible, as your previous post implies, and, if so, what is your basis for thinking that?

The only two books that were widely used in early Christian churches, and considered for inclusion in the New Testament, that didn't "make it" into canon were The Shepherd of Hermas and The Apocalypse of Peter, neither of which is particularly controversial.

reply to post by adjensen

There is a widespread and "erroneous" belief that the council of Nicea determined what books would comprise scripture. The problem is, all we have are rumors and legend to confirm this. Of course, neither are suitable. There also seems to be a mix-up between the councils of Nicea and Trent. The latter being the council that merely reaffirmed what had already gained consensus in the church as a whole. So at least from what is historically recorded, neither council made a determination of what would comprise scripture.

Some synods of the 4th century published lists of canonical books (e.g. Hippo and Carthage). The existing 27-book canon of the New Testament was reconfirmed (for Roman Catholicism) in the 16th century with the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546,[100] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Eastern Orthodoxy. Although these councils did include statements about the canon, when it came to the New Testament they were only reaffirming the existing canon, including the Antilegomena.

Source

Oops. This was supposed to be for subjectzero, not you adjensen. Wrong reply button.