The Best Bible Translation

[Mystic]

The title of this thread is deliberately ambiguous and provocative to stimulate discussion. The reader rightly asks, "Best in what sense and for what purpose?" One answer might be "the best in terms of fidelity to the original Greek and Hebrew text." Another answer might be "the best in terms of appealing modern English diction and usage." It seems inappropriate to make this a technical academic thread beyond the training of readers. Chiefly, I want to hear about your reasoning for using one or more versions and not others. How do you feel about versions that are really modern paraphrases rather than translations?

I freely admit one bias: use any translation but the KJV or the NKJV! This admonition is not primarily based on the archaic language of the old KJV (a problem addressed by the NKJV); it is based on the corrupt nature of the text in the original languages used for the KJ version. To theological conservatives, I ask, "If you have a high view of Scripture, why would you want to use a distorted version of God's Word?" The inferiority of the KJV and NKJC is almost universally accepted by conservative and liberal Bible scholars alike because of the gains achieved through the modern science of text criticism. For just some of the reasons for rejecting the KJV, please read this article:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html

 

[Jaebius]

I freely admit one bias: use any translation but the KJV or the NKJV! This admonition is not primarily based on the archaic language of the old KJV (a problem addressed by the NKJV); it is based on the corrupt nature of the text in the original languages used for the KJ version. To theological conservatives, I ask, "If you have a high view of Scripture, why would you want to use a distorted version of God's Word?" The inferiority of the KJV and NKJC is almost universally accepted by conservative and liberal Bible scholars alike because of the gains achieved through the modern science of text criticism. For just some of the reasons for rejecting the KJV, please read this article:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html

I agree with you here Mystic - and indeed - we have been warned in seminary not to go with the KJV for the reasons you suggest. Personally - I do read the KJV from time-to-time. I like the sound of the text. It particularly gives a familiar and traditional rendition of the nativity story.

All-told, I'd say the best English translation right now is the NRSV. Why? It's written for a higher level of readership than are some of the others - it's highly ecumenical - and it's an excellent translation of reliable ancient texts.

However, it isn't the only version that I use.

I enjoy the artistry of versions such as MSG and VOICE.

To prepare to preach, I like to look at a "word-for-word" version, a "thought-for-thought" version, and a paraphrase. So - ESV, NIV, and GNT

In preparing to teach my kids in Children's Ministry, I use the NIrV and the NLT.

 

[Mendalla]

The NRSV is the one I've heard recommended many times as well and is likely what I'd buy if I was going to get a new Bible for my shelf. My own personal Bible (dating back to my confirmation in the UCCan) is the old RSV and we have an NIV kicking around as well that I pull out sometimes. And, I think, Mrs. M actually has a Chinese Bible on our shelf but given that I can't read the titles on her Chinese books, I'm not 100% sure of that. I'm also not sure if it is translated directly from the original languages or is a Chinese translation of the KJV or some other English translation.

The KJV is one of the most resonant Bibles from the standpoint of the English used, but it has the same problem as its rough contemporary Shakespeare: English has changed so much that people find it a chore to read and people these days just don't seem to like to put effort into reading. Add that to the out of date source texts and it's well past its prime. I'm one of the ones who does enjoy reading Shakespeare and other literature of that time so the KJV, in its finer passages, is music to my ears. I'll still read passages from it at times just to savour the language, but I'd hardly make it my only, or even primary, Bible.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is Shakespeare as poetic as any poetry can be satirical? Then some prefer the KJV because of its poetics which satirically few can understand!

Is that stranger than fiction?

Does make for a good story as the myth hidden there can not be trusted by the people of the lie ... they don't believe even the depth of par Ables ... Tue bleu in the collision as an incident in the imagination coming true? Thus deep blue and indigo as Q'ed in tight forms ... fabrication of the other kind? ... he sweating out in a T shir'd ...

 

[GordW]

I was taught in seminary to use the NRSV as a preferred translation. I also have a NJPS version of the TANAKH that I refer to from time to time for Jewish Scripture passages.

That said there are some passages that my mind just wants to hear in the KJV language/rhythm

 

[revjohn]

I'm not that quiet about my dislike of the KJV as a translation. It had its day though if I'm going with any translation made near 1600 I'm going with the Genevan Bible.

Folk like it because they have a hard time imagining God speaking without Thee, Thou, Thine and not ending verbs with "th." I blame Cecil B. DeMille for that.

NRSV and NIV tend to be my primary translations. Though I do like to run through several just to see if there is a different emphasis within the text and why that might be the important element or not.

For practical purposes the best translation is the one that folk actually read. It doesn't matter the caliber of scholarship that went into it if all it does is collect dust on the coffee table.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is that dust like heavenly dirt if you find the couples in ABBA'd state abed with one another in unusual conditions of thought (missing)? That's near metaphor for rapture ...

 

[airclean33]

The Best Bible Translation--Is GODS HOLY SPIRIT. You choice of text.

 

[revjohn]

Is that dust like heavenly dirt if you find the couples in ABBA'd state abed with one another in unusual conditions of thought (missing)? That's near metaphor for rapture ...

Ummmmm. On the coffee table? Not my thing.

 

[Luce NDs]

Ummmmm. On the coffee table? Not my thing.

Some need stimulus to open and read (lectur) ... but still understanding may be beyond them as they didn't have that much love of devilish words expressed in satyr ...

Then if ordinary people were told by authority to be silent and suffer naivete ... how would they exchange alien intellectual material? Gotta be a myth built about this ... you know ... beyondstuff! Something to ruminate upon?

 

[Mystic]

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE OLDER NIV TO THE NRSV:

For what I consider a damning indictment of the integrity of the final editors of the New Revised Standard Version, read:

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

There are other significant political mistranslations in the NRSV that I will discuss in future posts. But the main problem with the NRSV is its defiance of the wishes of the scholars on its editorial board by insisting on a comprehensive switch to inclusive language that violates the original languages. The Bible was written in a patriarchal culture and any new translation that purports to be literally accurate needs to recognize this fact, as does the NIV. For example, my point in my Gender of God thread about 4 OT texts that deny God's male gender is whitewashed by inclusive language in the NRSV.

btw, I appreciate the photo of the late Bruce Metzger in the article because he was the Princeton professor I most revered. No NT scholar of the late 20th century had more expertise on text criticism (the science of ensuring the accuracy of the original biblical text).

 

[Mendalla]

Hmmm. Never heard that before. The Bible is not a gender inclusive document in the original languages and should not be so in translation. Translation should be about accuracy even if that means the language used is not "inclusive". Inclusiveness is the problem and responsibility of those reading and interpreting the Bible, not the translators. They are there to render it in English (or whatever), not change the meaning though some interpretation and loss of nuance is inevitable in translation.

All that said, I cannot say whether this problem really exists in the NRSV without reading the NRSV for myself which isn't happening imminently.

 

[Mystic]

Hmmm. Never heard that before...All that said, I cannot say whether this problem really exists in the NRSV without reading the NRSV for myself which isn't happening imminently.

The totally comprehensive inclusive language of the NRSV (over the protests of its scholarly board) is not debated; it is part of the NRSV's selling point for congregations that insist on inclusive language. The NIV also goes out of its way to include inclusive language when the original languages allow it--and that is its integrity advantage.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I absolutely adore the Jesuit translation, The Inclusive Bible. Even it has its problems, though.

You have to watch that bias doesn't get white-washed out to the extent that the punch of the story is lost. Good example, in the book of Ruth, Ruth is described to Naomi by the "women of Jerusalem" - the chorus, as being worth "7 children to you". In fact, the original text says 7 sons, so the "inclusive" translation diminishes the fact that a woman's worth in biblical Palestine was considerably less than a man's, so a woman worth 7 sons was indeed a pearl without price.

 

[Mystic]

MY GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Encourage Christians in general to consult not 1, but 2 Bible versions: the New Living Translation (NLT) and either the New International Version (NIV) or the English Standard Version (ESV). For congregations obsessed with PC, use the NRSV, but make it clear that the comprehensive inclusive language is often unfaithful to the original language.

2. For church school teachers or more serious Bible students who can't read Greek or Hebrew:
In addition to (1), either buy a Greek and Hebrew interlinear Bible or use the online interlinear below:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/

Interlinear Bibles give you the Hebrew or Greek with a literal translation under each word. Using this, you can be more alert to PC trnnslation agendas that distort the text or flat out mistranslate it for other reasons. Be aware, though, that even interlinears often give only one literal meaning, when others are possible. I'll illustrate the importance of this in another post. Online Greek or Hebrew dictionaries help with such nuances, but are no substitute for the standard huge scholarly Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Why the NLT? It is often more of a paraphrase than a strict translation. But its paraphrases are often upgrades over the NIV and NRSV. The NLT is an upgrade of the old Living Bible with greater fidelity to the original languages in mind. But it often captures hard to translate nuances in the original languages that the NIV and NRSV lack. I will illustrate this in a future post.

When I conduct Bible studies, I encourage the members to bring the Bible they commonly use. Then, before we discuss a verse, I ask them to read it in their translation. We discuss any differences in meaning or nuance. Then I ask them which translation they prefer after hearing these readings. Almost invariably the New Living Translation wins because it is far more lucid to modern ears than the other more literal translations. I then give a literal translation of the text read and ask whether the would derive than meaning from their own translation. For those with a KJV or NKJV, I point out any differences that are based on the corrupt text used by the KJV or NKJV and not by the translation itself. The net effect is that members go out and buy a NLT Bible, at least, for purposes of comparison.

 

[Jaebius]

2. For church school teachers or more serious Bible students who can't read Greek or Hebrew: In addition to (1), either buy a Greek and Hebrew interlinear Bible or use the online interlinear below:

Right. I'll bring the Greek or Hebrew text to Primary and see how my Grade 2-3 do with it.

 

[Neo]

The Best Bible Translation--Is GODS HOLY SPIRIT. You choice of text.

So what does this mean AC, trust in your intuition?

 

[Mystic]

Right. I'll bring the Greek or Hebrew text to Primary and see how my Grade 2-3 do with it.

Where do you find me applying this to the Sunday school classroom or Grades 2-3? What's going on here? Do you resent being reminded of your failure to live up to your status as a Tyndale seminarian? As you know very well, church schools typically have classes for students ranging up to high school and adult classes. Even apart from that, anyone who presumes to teach others, youth or adult, should try to know what they are talking about, don't you think? Kids deserve better than teachers who say, "Well, they're young; so they won't know any better if I snow them." I pity the students, adult or children, who have teachers who don't do their homework. And as you know very well, I never suggested bringing the interlinear to the classroom. But interlinears can be a guide to the right Bible translation for a given text, as well for what teachers should claim or not claim.

 

[Jaebius]

Where do you find me applying this to the Sunday school classroom or Grades 2-3?

You recommended the Greek or Hebrew text for Church school teachers and serious Bible students.

What's going on here? Do you resent being reminded of your failure to live up to your status as a Tyndale seminarian?

I was neither aware that I was so failing nor that you were saying I was so failing. Care to clarify just what you mean by that Mystic?

Kids deserve better than teachers who say, "Well, they're young; so they won't know any better if I snow them." I pity the students, adult or children, who have teachers who don't do their homework. And as you know very well, I never suggested bringing the interlinear to the classroom. But interlinears can be a guide to the right Bible translation for a given text, as well for what teachers should claim or not claim.

Okay.

 

[Mystic]

You recommended the Greek or Hebrew text for Church school teachers and serious Bible students.

This reply is dishonest. I repeat, "Where do you find me saying the Greek or Hebrew text should be brought into the classroom of 2nd or 3rd graders, or of adults for that matter? You know very well that I'm addressing the best Bible resources for research.