Bible Versions,

losav

In todays Christianity, there are many attempts to translate the Bible into modern English which is defined as the form of English in use rapidly after 1800, especially after the reformation. Differences between these translations are the result of differing base texts, different theological emphasis, different style, different translation aims (e.g. readability vs literal).

Which of these translations is your choice and why?

---

AB-The Apostles' Bible
ACV-A Conservative Version
AKJV-American King James Version
ALT-Analytical-Literal Translation
ASV- American Standard Version
BBE -Bible in Basic English
BWE -Bible in Worldwide English
Brenton Brenton's English Translation of the Septuagint
CJB -Complete Jewish Bible
CEV -Contemporary English Version
Community Bible
Darby Darby Bible
ESV -English Standard Version
Fenton Ferrar Fenton Bible
Funk, Robert W. Scholars Version
Gaus, Andy Unvarnished New Testament
GodsWord GOD'S WORD Translation
HCSB -Holman Christian Standard Bible
ISV -International Standard Version
JB -Jerusalem Bible
JPS -Jewish Publication Society Old Testament
Jubilee2000 English Jubilee 2000 Bible
KJ21 -21st Century King James Version
Knox Ronald A. Knox' English Translation from the Vulgate
LITV -Green's Literal Translation
MKJV -Green's Modern King James Version
Murdock James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
NAB -New American Bible
NASB -New American Standard Bible
NCV -New Century Version
NEB -New English Bible
NET -New English Translation
NIV -New International Version
NIrV -New International Reader's Version
NIVBr -New International Version, Anglicized Edition
NJB -New Jerusalem Bible
NKJV -New King James Version
NLT -New Living Translation
NRSV -New Revised Standard Version
NWT -New World Translation
OrthJBC- The Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha
Orthodox Orthodox Study Bible
Phillips J B Phillips New Testament
RcV -Recovery Version of the New Testament
REB -Revised English Bible
RKJNT- Revised King James New Testament
RNKJV -Restored Name King James Version
RSV -Revised Standard Version
RSV-CE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
TEV -Todays English Version (Good News Bible) 1966 and 1976
TLB -The Living Bible
TMB -Third Millennium Bible
TNIV -Today's New International Version
TSB -The Story Bible
Twenty Twentieth Century New Testament
WEB -World English Bible
YLT -Young's Literal Translation

The Lamsa Translation is not included since it was considered to be loosely translated by a unscholarly individual whose scriptural credence is under question.

The translator was George Lamsa, a man who was into psychic phenomenon, this alone disqualify him from being a reputable source for the Scriptures. He denied the Trinity which is clearly expressed in his translation, which is why it is accepted by certain churches. This is why it is the most popular translation among the cults. He believed sin was error and he was a universalist believing all would be saved (not even the Iglesia ni Cristo church would accept this). He also believed the Holy Spirit was a influence or power. Like the Sadducee's he denies a belief in personal angels or demons. He also had a view of Christ as 2 persons in one body (Nestorian heresy condemned in 431 A.D., which some trace to his upbringing) not 2 natures in Christ the one person. Lamsa also claimed to be the sole competent interpreter of the scriptures. "Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the church of the east who knew no other language but Aramaic,..the author, through God's grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it, and his translation is now in pleasingly wide use" (G. Lamsa More light on the Gospel (NY 1968). Certainly Iglesia would not agree with Lamsa's position on salvation since they teach one MUST join their Church to be saved. So why use a man who they would discredit for these things as well? Because He's one of the few published authors they can find that can agree with their position.

Among the questionable (mis)translations are:

Bible= Gen.1:3 "Let there be light"
Lamsa's interpretation ="Let there be enlightenment

Bible=Gen.2:9 "Tree of life in the midst of the Garden"
Lamsa interpretation = Sex , posterity

Bible= Gen.5:24 God took Enoch (Heb.11:5 States expressly he did not see death)
Lamsa interpretation= He died painlessly, he had a heart attack

Bible=Gen.3:24 wrestling with the angel of the Lord
Lamsa interpretation = Being suspicious of a pious person

Bible=Ex.3:2 the burning bush not consumed
Lamsa interpretation = difficulties ahead difficulties will be overcome

Bible= Ex.3:5 Take off your shoes for you are on Holy ground.
Lamsa interpretation =Disregard pagan teachings, cleanse your heart

Bible= John 1 the word was God
Lamsa interpretation = the word is - a utterance, a command

Bible= John 1:18 the only begotten son
Lamsa interpretation= The first one who recognized the fatherhood of God. The only God-like man; hence, a spiritual son of God.

Bible= John 3:3 Born again
Lamsa interpretation= to become like a child, to start all over.

Bible=Jn.10:36 I and my father are one
Lamsa interpretation = the father and I agree.

Bible= 1 Thess. 4:17 to meet him in the air
Lamsa interpretation = to hasten to greet him

Bible= Rev.1:18 was dead and behold I am Alive forevermore.
Lamsa interpretation= I was unknown and now I am well and successful

Milliardo

I use the NAB, but I also have a copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was the version used by the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II.

losav

^Why NAB? Is there any particular reason why you chose NAB over the rest of the many translations?

Thanks and God bless.

Milliardo

losav wrote:

^Why NAB? Is there any particular reason why you chose NAB over the rest of the many translations?

Thanks and God bless.

It's Catholic. I have yet to get the Jerusalem Bible, another Catholic translation available here.

easter

I use the NIV Bible since it is used in most Evangelical churches and the language is great as well. NiRv is good for young readers.

losav

^What I know about the New American Bible (NAB) is that it was a an English translation from the original language (Hebrew, Greek, Latin and some Aramaic manuscripts) by theConfraternity of Christian Doctrine produced by the Cathlic Bible Association of America according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy.

The fourth and current version has some modifications with Psalms and the New Testament, modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the Roman Catholic liturgy. I believe this is the current text of the Lectionaires of the United States Roman Catholic Church (see http://www.usccb.org/nab/). The Holy See tolerated some use of inclusive language, such as where the speaker intended to address a mixed audience (ex "brothers and sisters"), but rejected the changes relating to God or Christ. Additionally, the Church rejected substituting inclusive language for the word "man" in cases where it carried theological and anthropological significance (Psalm 1:1, referring to Adam and Christ).

I hope your reasons are viewed also according to the above. God bless.

Milliardo

I am not sure what year that revised version of the NAB is, but mine was the one made before the inclusive language was used. I primarily use that one, as well as the Douay-Rheims, though the Douay-Rheims would be a little bit more of a challenge if you're not used to it.

Milliardo

As an addition, Catholic Answers recommend using the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. I am not sure if this is available here, but then it was reissued by Ignatius Press as the Ignatius Bible. More about the Bible Translation Guide here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

losav

easter wrote:

I use the NIV Bible since it is used in most Evangelical churches and the language is great as well. NiRv is good for young readers.

Yes, this version of the Bible is mostly used by Protestant Evangelical churches and the language is great maintaining those of Evangelical theology.

Among the features found at NIV is the bible study which is Wesleyan and the Life Application Bible Study... but minus the Deuterocanonical Books.

Milliardo

losav wrote:

Among the questionable (mis)translations are:

Bible= Gen.1:3 "Let there be light"
Lamsa's interpretation ="Let there be enlightenment

Bible=Gen.2:9 "Tree of life in the midst of the Garden"
Lamsa interpretation = Sex , posterity

Bible= Gen.5:24 God took Enoch (Heb.11:5 States expressly he did not see death)
Lamsa interpretation= He died painlessly, he had a heart attack

Bible=Gen.3:24 wrestling with the angel of the Lord
Lamsa interpretation = Being suspicious of a pious person

Bible=Ex.3:2 the burning bush not consumed
Lamsa interpretation = difficulties ahead difficulties will be overcome

Bible= Ex.3:5 Take off your shoes for you are on Holy ground.
Lamsa interpretation =Disregard pagan teachings, cleanse your heart

Bible= John 1 the word was God
Lamsa interpretation = the word is - a utterance, a command

Bible= John 1:18 the only begotten son
Lamsa interpretation= The first one who recognized the fatherhood of God. The only God-like man; hence, a spiritual son of God.

Bible= John 3:3 Born again
Lamsa interpretation= to become like a child, to start all over.

Bible=Jn.10:36 I and my father are one
Lamsa interpretation = the father and I agree.

Bible= 1 Thess. 4:17 to meet him in the air
Lamsa interpretation = to hasten to greet him

Bible= Rev.1:18 was dead and behold I am Alive forevermore.
Lamsa interpretation= I was unknown and now I am well and successful

Oh my--no wonder the INC is so hopelessly lost; they're using a translation that's so woefully mistranslated.

Manyakits

nag-aambisyon pa ang INK na sila lang yung church na nasa bible...yun pala...ni sariling version ng bible WALA ha ha ha!

ano ba yan!

hoy matauhan nga kayo mga nananaginip ng gising!

Sugo? ...

Silence means ....

losav

^That's why I wanted everyone to say what's their reason why they chose a certain version of the Bible.

rickym

i prefere king james version since it has references to the strongs dictionary, at least i know how it was translated

snob_and_ahalf

hehe..nice losav.

i dont have any preferations. besides, im not studying theology and im not in the position to quote or interpret something in the bible..

but..

for me, it remains "mahiwaga" and not easy to understand and to interpret.

rubbing the two cents i got from losav! peace man! *peace*

easter

losav wrote:

Yes, this version of the Bible is mostly used by Protestant Evangelical churches and the language is great maintaining those of Evangelical theology.

Among the features found at NIV is the bible study which is Wesleyan and the Life Application Bible Study... but minus the Deuterocanonical Books.

Because the Deuterocanonical Books are not recognized as the inspired Word of God.

joelb

easter wrote:

Because the Deuterocanonical Books are not recognized as the inspired Word of God.

Correction please.

Because the Deuterocanonical Books are not recognized by our brother and sister Protestants as the inspired Word of God.

We Catholics tend to abide by what Jesus Christ and His Apostles said and did.

losav

easter wrote:

Because the Deuterocanonical Books are not recognized as the inspired Word of God.

It's the protestants point of view...

But as joel said, we CAtholics uphold what was conjoined truth by the earlier coucils hundreds of years before the advent of Protestantism... we cannot change that.

Milliardo

easter wrote:

Because the Deuterocanonical Books are not recognized as the inspired Word of God.

Funny, Jesus Himself recognized it and even quoted from it...

roelallen

The best version of the Holy Bible can only be the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. I would like to make of notice here that I have created one thread here entitled "The Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible: Simply the best version of the Holy Bible ever from the original languages into another language".

As such, I do not hesitate to state that of all the versions available today around the world, in all the languages, be it in English or in Filipino or in any other language, the best version of all, the most faithful to the original languages, and the most inspired, is still the Auhtorized King James Version of the Holy Bible.

There is none other so beautiful, majestic, and true in its language, so faithful to the original, nor so holy and pure in its presentation of the truths and beauties of the eternal Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Milliardo

roelallen wrote:

The best version of the Holy Bible can only be the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. I would like to make of notice here that I have created one thread here entitled "The Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible: Simply the best version of the Holy Bible ever from the original languages into another language".

You're a KJV onlyist, right?

There is none other so beautiful, majestic, and true in its language, so faithful to the original, nor so holy and pure in its presentation of the truths and beauties of the eternal Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

With over 30,000 errors which necessitated the NKJV, why would you think this is faithful to the original? Also, the language has long been superceded by more up-to-date versions such as the NIV, NAB and others.

losav

roelallen wrote:

The best version of the Holy Bible can only be the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. I would like to make of notice here that I have created one thread here entitled "The Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible: Simply the best version of the Holy Bible ever from the original languages into another language".

As such, I do not hesitate to state that of all the versions available today around the world, in all the languages, be it in English or in Filipino or in any other language, the best version of all, the most faithful to the original languages, and the most inspired, is still the Auhtorized King James Version of the Holy Bible.

There is none other so beautiful, majestic, and true in its language, so faithful to the original, nor so holy and pure in its presentation of the truths and beauties of the eternal Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The King James Version (KJV) is the best-known English translation of the Bible for most in the Protestant circle. This English translation of the Bible was commissioned by King James I of England and published in the early seventeenth century. It is also known as the Authorized Version. In the late nineteenth century, the Revised Version was published in England.

This English translation of the Bible (KJV) was commissioned for the benefit of the Church of England at the authoritative command of King James I of England published in 1611 A.D. Famous writers were deeply inspired with this magnificent English translation from thence the RSV and the NIV of the Bible were revised based on its texts.

Although it was called the Authorised Version, but it was never officially authorized by the English monarchy or the clerical hierarchy of the Church of England. It is no longer in copyright in most parts of the world but is under perpetual Crown copyright in the United Kingdom. The King James Version, despite its age, is largely comprehensible to the average reader today. It is considered to be an instrumental founding block of early modern English, and remains one of the most widely-read literary works of all time.

WHY KING JAMES VERSION?

King James I's dissatisfaction with the Geneva Bible's puritanism led to the creation of the King James Bible.

Protestantism derived from Martin Luther the idea that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine ( sola scriptura) and as such should be translated into the local vernacular. The act of Bible translation into any vernacular was a political as well as a religious statement, and remained so whether the Bible translation was a private endeavour, or sponsored by a monarch and his government. The English translations made by John Wyclif's followers, and later by William Tyndale, were the opening salvos of the Protestant Reformation in England and Scotland.