OT - Hey C. Cash - list of translations

[AmBraCol]

Not to further hijack the guns for sale thread, here's a list of translations I currently have on my shelf. I look through used book stores and garage sales for different translations. There's a few on the hard drive too, the ones on the list are all hard copies though. I'm always interested in other translations in languages I speak/read or related languages. I've found that I can piece together some of the Italian and French translations - enough to catch the gist of how it was translated anyway.

English
New American Standard
Holman’s Christian Standard
New International Version
Good News For Modern Man
James Moffatt
Revised Standard Version
King James
New King James
The Message (NT)
Live It Now(NT)
Charles B. Williams (NT)
Berkeley Version
The Living Bible
International Children’s Bible (NT)


Spanish
Nueva Versión Internacional
Reina Valera 1960
Reina Valera Actualizada 1987
Reina Valera 1995
La Biblia Para El Pueblo de Dios
Dios Habla Hoy
A Viva Voz
Bernardo Hurault y Ramón Ricciardi
La Palabra De Dios Para Todos (NT)
La Biblia De Las Américas
La Biblia En Lenguaje Sencillo (NT)
Traducción Del Nuevo Mundo de las Santas Escrituras



Portuguese
João Ferreira De Almeda
Nova Versão Internacional
Linguagem De Hoje

Other
Nestlês Greek New Testament

[Ysabel Kid]

Paul -

Which Bible would you recommend to someone who wanted to read the Bible, for the first time, cover to cover? I've probably read the bible in total over the years, but I've never sat down and actually just read it straight through. I'm looking for one translated into modern English - as I have read most of it between church and religious education, but in translations using the original, albeit archaic, terms and phrases. I started to read it cover to cover this year, but one (at least me) gets bogged down in the endless "begats" of the Old Testament". I don't want to just skip sections - but figure that I'd make more progress if the edition was a bit more readable.

You have to start somewhere...

[AmBraCol]

Paul -

Which Bible would you recommend to someone who wanted to read the Bible, for the first time, cover to cover? I've probably read the bible in total over the years, but I've never sat down and actually just read it straight through. I'm looking for one translated into modern English - as I have read most of it between church and religious education, but in translations using the original, albeit archaic, terms and phrases. I started to read it cover to cover this year, but one (at least me) gets bogged down in the endless "begats" of the Old Testament". I don't want to just skip sections - but figure that I'd make more progress if the edition was a bit more readable.

You have to start somewhere...

Ysabel, there's some begats in the New Testament too, in Matthew and Luke. But not near as many of them. Anyway, as for translations in modern English, my current favorites are:

New American Standard
Holman’s Christian Standard
New International Version



They are all good, accurate (for the most part) translations that are fairly readable. Of the three you'd not go wrong with any of them I believe. The NAS is the closest to the KJV style of phraseology. The NIV and HCS are modern enough that they don't "sound biblical" to folks raised with the KJV, but are good and clear and readable.

[Ysabel Kid]

Thanks Paul!

[AmBraCol]

You're welcome. As a congregation we're reading through the NVI (in spanish) this year. I like their translation philosophy and they did a good job for the most part. Tonight we had a "pop quiz" for the congregation. Folks did pretty good, for the most part. It's amazing what's "in there" once you get to reading and studying...

[shooter]

I really like the New American Standard. I think that some of the newer translations are just too dumbed down, IMO. I think you lose a lot with some of the translations. I wouldn't get any more "modern" than the NIV. I've heard some good things about the Holman, but haven't actually read it.

[C. Cash]

Wow! That is some list. I have to declare ignorance of even 3/4 or them even existing. Most of the old ones I have come across have been the King James of course. Now, since I have been back to PA you come across alot of Dutch(German) Bibles and suspect there may be some translations there that you've missed ....they didn't cotton to us "English" much with our fancy notions so I would imagine they have their own translated versions. German is a language that is lost on me, even though I lived there for a short time...but the book is usually a work of art in itself. The next time I am at the mass garage sales that they have around here I will keep my eye peeled for something new for your collection. It will be fun looking.

Personally I like the New International Version for my own reading ....it is very readable and is also highly accurate in my view. Still love the King James though...especially when reading of the Psalms.

[Grizz]

Here's one that wasn't mentioned:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/08 ... ewpoints=1

It's the Reese Chronological Bible, King James text. For reading thru the Bible this has a lot going for it. It makes the history much easier to grasp. I don't suppose the time line is perfect, and it's a little disconcerting at first because of the re-arrangement. But it gets the main bits right and aids in understanding what happened when.

I prefer the King James or other translations based on textus receptus, but that't personal preference.

I also have had a translation made from Aramaic, preserved by the Copts down through the ages in its own separate line of descent. It accords well with textus receptus, but not ever translated into latin so without any of that controversy.

Speaking about accords, I heard that was Jesus' car 'cause the Bible says they all arrived in one accord. ;)

Grizz

[Old Ironsights]

For "general reading" of the NT, I like Phillips. I also like "The Life and Morals of Jesus Christ" ... i.e. the "Jefferson NT"

If I'm studying, I'm usually using a Concordant NLT a NT in 4-version and my Interlinear Greek.

OT is a bit more tricky with not as many good interlinears available.

[Mokwaw]

I like the NIV...when I was a new Christian I tried the KJ version but found it hard to understand. My wife bought me an NIV Student Bible, I still carry that one today, after 21 years. It is very ragged,held together with duct tape binding, and a home made leather cover, has lots of hand written notes, and highlited scriptures. I have a newer bible but my "old friend" usually gets the nod when I when I read.

[AmBraCol]

OK. Here's some context for the list above. C. Cash outbid me on the Fulton shotgun for the Mozambique mission trip over in the classifieds section. He mentioned he was a "sucker for old Bibles and single shot shotguns" or something to that effect. So I mentioned my modest collection of translations to him, and to not further hijack the thread I posted the list of translations I currently have over here as OT. So that's the "why". Now the "what" is that I collect translations in languages I can read or at least muddle through. That'd be English, Spanish and Portuguese for reading and French and Italian for muddling through. Don't have any hard copies of French or Italian but have muddled around a bit in the digital versions I've got on the hard drive. Anyway, the reason for the collection is that I enjoy comparing the different ways folks translate the same text. The results can lead to interesting discoveries or to one scratching one's head and asking one's self "WHAT were they thinking?" The "New World Translation" of the JW's is one that often leaves me scratching my head and when folks ask as to the best translation available it NEVER gets the nod. It's better than nothing, but not by much. If you've ever heard of their translation method or source then you'll understand why it's so messed up. Anyway, I've managed to find a few Roman translations of the Bible down here (translated by adherents of the Roman church and endorsed by the bishops thereof) in Spanish. Some of them also come in the head scratching category until one realizes that they sometimes are "translated" with more help from dogma than from the original texts themselves.

The interesting thing is, even with the "New World Translation" I can take it and show the plan of salvation to someone in their own Bible. In other words, as bad as some translations may be, the Lord has managed to preserve the most important stuff in spite of men's efforts to promote their own ideas.

[C. Cash]

OK. Here's some context for the list above. C. Cash outbid me on the Fulton shotgun for the Mozambique mission trip over in the classifieds section. He mentioned he was a "sucker for old Bibles and single shot shotguns" or something to that effect.

My wife says I have a serious problem. I kind of feel like an Old Bible is like a person with a story to tell. When I find them I get an overpowering feeling to take them, fix them up and send them to a proper home. Same with old guns, only the home that they often find in this case is mine! We are so very blessed in this Country to have the opportunity to own a copy of God'sword. So much of the world cannot get at the Bible, for lack of resources or fear of possessing it.

[AmBraCol]

We are so very blessed in this Country to have the opportunity to own a copy of God'sword. So much of the world cannot get at the Bible, for lack of resources or fear of possessing it.

Yes, we take for granted the easy access to God's Word. In the US you can pick up a Bible for less than an hour's wage - at minimum wage no less. Most of the world does not have that luxury. We've been picking up Bibles through the Bible League for distribution to our people and others we meet. They cost about 3/4 of a DAY's minimum wage here. It's not bad in dollars, but when it comes to percentage of what people make, even a simple copy is a considerable investment. And a large print edition or study Bible can cost a week's wages.

The sad thing is, even as inexpensive as the written Bible is - most folks never take the time to read it, much less study it. Just like the rest of our freedoms, it is taken for granted and not appreciated for the blessing it is.

[sore shoulder]

One I did not see is the Peshitta text as translated by Lambsa.

[Grizz]

One I did not see is the Peshitta text as translated by Lambsa.

Frank, it's true. But I did mention such a text above:

I also have had a translation made from Aramaic, preserved by the Copts down through the ages in its own separate line of descent. It accords well with textus receptus, but not ever translated into latin so without any of that controversy

But I don't recall the translator nor the exact name of the manuscript basis.

There is a book called "Which Bible" that has some very good information in it about the various translations, where they came from, what political corruptions were incorporated in them, and what's good about them. Can't recall the author. It's very hard to find.

Paul's point is good: show me most any translation, not transliteration or pre-corrupted text and I can show you, beginning with the fathers and all the prophets, salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ.

"texts" with their own unique and un-Biblical basis do not count...

Grizz

[Charles]

What! No copy of Smith and Goodspeed's translation? No Jerusalem Bible? No Amplified Bible? No J.B. Phillips translation of the NT?

There is no single translation that covers all the bases. I have been using the RSV for fourty year, not because it is any better than the rest, but I have come to understand the places it is weak. There is something to be said for using one translation long enough to know it's strengths and weaknesses.

[AmBraCol]

What! No copy of Smith and Goodspeed's translation? No Jerusalem Bible? No Amplified Bible? No J.B. Phillips translation of the NT?

There is no single translation that covers all the bases. I have been using the RSV for fourty year, not because it is any better than the rest, but I have come to understand the places it is weak. There is something to be said for using one translation long enough to know it's strengths and weaknesses.

Not yet.

And you're right. There's a LOT to be said for one translation, which for me was NASB in English, João Ferreria de Alameda in Portuguese and Reina Valera 95 in Spanish. But with most folks here struggling to understand even modern spanish when they read it I gave up on the Reina Valera and have moved to the NVI - and folks finally understand what they read. Now I'm re-educamating myself and studying it out. Over all it's a good translation. The rest? They're for comparison and enjoyment and because I love to see how different folks translated the same passage.

[C. Cash]

I've nowhere near the amount of reading that you fellas have in the many variations of the Bible and don't consider myself anything but a layman in the study of it. But, there are areas of this translation stuff that get me excited. Here is an example for Ysabel of why I like the NIV, though most differences aren't as dramatic as this. As you fellas know, no serious scholar will dispute that this was written ca. 700 years before Christ(and we have copies of Isaiah in our possession which predate Jesus from the Dead Sea Scrolls). Crucifixion was not even thought of in Isaiah's time though they had lots of other ghastly methods of killing you. Anyway this is Isaiah 53(just a snippet, but that whole chapter, along with the last part of verses of 52 are sometimes referred to as "the finger print" of the Messiah). Again, old news for most of you fellas. It's undeniable who they are talking about.

KJV:

4-Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5-But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


NIV:

4-Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5-But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Both versions are correct, but that one word, pierced, when taken with the all of chapter 53 and the last part of 52, just blows me away, personally. None of the meaning is changed, wounded and pierced can be regarded as the same thing, but it does shout JESUS even louder. I believe this word reflects what we now know from our earliest reliable manuscripts, which predates the time of Christ on earth.


Sorry to ramble on and go a little OT...but just wanted to add that these different translations sometimes have more to offer than ease of language and style. The NIV has helped illuminate the text for me by comparing it to the NKJ as well as giving keywords which reflect the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. But as noted everyone has to find the version that speaks to them personally.

[CowboyTutt]

Paul, I've been reading some of your articles on the Sixshooter community website, and now this thread. You are an interesting individual, and very talented! I prefer the New American Standard myself (I don't read or write any other languages). I thought it split the difference between the poetry of the King James version and the "easy to understand" qualities of the NIV. It was through a former girlfriend that I became a Christian, and she encouraged me to go into the Christian book store and read the same passage in the various translations, and see which one "spoke" to me. For me, it was a New American Standard Life Application Study Bible. I'm still not very well read yet, but the concept of Faith under times of trial and duress I do understand very well, so that's the important part. Thanks for a good post!

-Tutt

[AmBraCol]

Thanks, Tutt.

The NASB still "sounds like a Bible" for those of us raised with King Jimmy as our main source of God's Word. The NIV takes some getting used to when one was raised with Thee and Thou and such phraseology. I also like Holman's version, what little I've read in it so far anyway. What I find a lot of fun is to get out several translations and compare how each one treats a given passage. Each one can shed different light on the same verse, bringing you a fuller understanding of the original intent of the author. No one translation is perfect as we're dealing with vastly different languages - and you simply can't say some things in some languages. I get a kick out of listening to dubbed videos in Spanish and trying to guess what the original said. Sometimes it sounds ridiculous in Spanish but in English it was hilarious. And sometimes they simply have to "punt" and insert something unrelated for fill. Fortunately in Bible translation they don't (usually) punt. What's REAL fun is looking at the same passage in different languages - it gives it even more depth. Naw, I don't get excited 'bout this kind of stuff at all...

[ole pizen slinger]

Ysabel,
Congratulations on your desire to read the Bible through. When I was at Columbia Bible College (1967-1971) the general consensus of the professors was that the American Standard Version was the most accurate translation available. The New American Standard Version was the most accurate and readable but at that time only the New Testament had been translated. I would encourage you to use the NASV as I think you will be satisfied with the way it reads. As for memory work, nothing beats the KJ as it was what I grew up with.

I would remind you that no translation is entirely accurate as it is impossible to make the shades of meaning cross over the translation boundary although one can come close. For studying the meanings of the words used in the originals, nothing beats the Amplified Bible. However, the ultimate is to know the original languages. I do not know any Hebrew or Aramaic but I can tell you that the Greek Language of New Testament times was a fantastic medium for communications. At the time, it was a 'world language'. The Greek of the New Testament was the language of the common people and was used in the marketplace, the home, the schools, etc.;everyone knew it. It was much more expressive than English. For instance, our English translations speak of 'stumblingblocks' and that one should not be a 'stumblingblock' to others. We naturally think of this as something one trips over causing one to fall. The Greek word for stumblingblock has the meaning of 'a trigger to a trap.' It is more like the little bait hook on a mousetrap. One is not to be the enticement that causes another to be caught in the trap. Another example is 'love'. The Greeks had 3 words for love. One was for 'erotic sexual love', another was for 'familial or brotherly love', and another was for 'self sacrificial love'. The authors of the NT chose the latter word when speaking of the undeserved, sacrificial love of God.

Lastly, all of it, the Bible, is spoken of as being inspired. Even the 'begats'. There are blessings to be had even from the duller parts of Scripture. There are three women mentioned in the 'begats' of the lineage of Jesus. Take a look at these women and you'll find a blessing.

I encourage you in your endeavor to read the Bible through. I wish you many blessing from your efforts.
ole pizen slinger

[Andrew]

I like the NIV, always have.

Ysabel, plan your work and work your plan. I have a reading schedule in the back of my Bible that gets you through in 365 days. So far I am on schedule and am not burned out on it like I was last year. I read only what I am supposed too, then I am eager to get back to it the next day. And accordingly, I wade steadily through the slow parts that aren't as captivating as one would like.

[Ysabel Kid]

Thanks guys! A plan is a must, I agree.

Is the NASV the same as the NAB?