which translation should I use?

[jainie marlena]

I was raised that the King James Version was the only bible that should be used among Christians. However, I have learned that it is not as protected as once thought. Many parts have been change and what others believed at the time affected how it was translated. the sad thing is that to find anything you have to do one of three things either study for yourself, trust that what you are being told is the truth or count it all as a bunch of trash and walk away. Not everyone wants to know God, but some do. Wading through the years of lies that have been added to God is a task by far. Some believe the lies and hate God for it. please give the credit to whom credit is do. Does God hate things? Yes, he hates anything that makes a lie. There are houndreds of bible in English. why pick one? looking at just 5 has change my mind and let me see that you can't change the truth if you don't know what it is. why give the verse if I want you to see for yourself? Chapters and verses were added later by man to help find there place in the bible, but what if it was divided in the wrong spots? chapter is a subject change, but what if you read as if it did not change? just a thought to add new meaning comes fro strange places.

[Shang]

Honestly, if I was fluent in Hebrew, I wouldn't choose a translation.  Words get mistranslated all of the time and the translated versions of the Bible are filled with mistranslations.  The current Bible is also missing huge chunks that the Church didn't want in the Bible for various reasons. 

I was raised to never read the King James version of the Bible (I was raised Catholic) and through my learnings, I wouldn't read any new version of the Bible if I had my way.  However, I fail with languages so I'm stuck searching for a better version of the Bible than what I keep stumbling across.

There is the possibility that various chapters in the Bible were mixed up or cut up in the wrong spots and that parts were left out and translate wrong.  Humans are fallible and are human.  They're going to make mistakes when it comes to translating anything.

[Osiris]

If you're looking for a book of undeniable truths then I think your search will never end. Everything in paper has gone through man, his interpretations are of course going to color the material. And everything that is read is open to interpretation for the reader.

My advice, don't look to a book for the ultimate truth for your religious beliefs. Interpret what you read, see and live then create your own truth.

[Shang]

Interpret what you read, see and live then create your own truth.

I'm glad you said that!  There's a saint who said something along those lines, and he even provided examples where a person needs to figure what's true and what isn't but only for them. (I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas, but I can't be certain.)

[tekla]

I'd always suggest the Tao Te Ching before the Bible as a more coherent work of spiritual development, if not the mind of 'god', but be that as it may, I'd go for the translations by Richard Lattimore one of the world's formost Greek language translators.  He writes it in the original narrative style and not the formal canonized version that most people are familier with that really started with KJ.  ie. its written in sentences and paragraphs, and not chapter/verse breakup that makes JK so poetic, but also so fragmented.  It reads as plain text, and that makes it pretty interesting all by itself.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Richmond-Lattimore/dp/0865475245

[Tammy Hope]

the first key is "translation" instead of "tranliteration"

Beyond that, when speaking of the bible, the NASB is probably the best marriage of the various methods of translation, but don't use just one. have that, or maybe the NIV, as a baseline but consult others about anything that is complex or confusing.

i was raised on the KJV - and would suggest the New KJV is worthy of being in the rotation, but the old KJV is pretty flawed.
it's great for poetic value - but no way would i recommend it for one's primary reference to Scripture.

[AmberM]

I was raised on both the King James and the New International Version (NIV). The King James I admire for its influence on literary tradition and the beautiful poetry (especially for 1 Corinthians 13 and the 23rd Pslam) yet I take issue with it because it reflects the conservative biases of King James and the Puritans. The New International Version (NIV) I commend for making the language more accessible but I take issue with it because it is biased to a evangelical theology.

While no one Biblical translation is perfect, my personal favorites are the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and its successor the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Both these translations I like because they are ecumenical, they honor the Jewish tradition, and its allows for freedom of conscience and interpretation.

[Crimbuki]

If you're looking for a book of undeniable truths then I think your search will never end. Everything in paper has gone through man, his interpretations are of course going to color the material. And everything that is read is open to interpretation for the reader.

My advice, don't look to a book for the ultimate truth for your religious beliefs. Interpret what you read, see and live then create your own truth.

I agree with this.

[tekla]

If you can create your own truth you have no need for any of this, as it sell itself as 'truth.'   

[justmeinoz]

Have you tried " The Living Bible", pub by Tyndale House Publishers. 
Also worth having as a reference  (if it is still available) is "Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible", 2 vols cover the Old and New, with lots of explanation of the archaeology, history, politics etc in a very readable form.

[kyril]

The best thing to do is to read your favourite translation of the Bible - the one whose style of prose you like the most - alongside relevant expositions by Biblical scholars.

The thing is that there exists no perfect translation, not just because English is so different from the original languages of Biblical works, but because our modern world and our way of perceiving and thinking about it is so dramatically different from 2000 years ago. So if you want to understand the words, you can't just read the words (even if you learn the original languages). You have to read about the words and the people who wrote them, through the writings of people who know about the context in which they were written. That's why seminaries exist - why people don't just study the Bible on their own to become clergymen in most mainstream churches - and why priests and pastors give sermons instead of just reading from the Bible.

I can't speak to whether you'll get to know God better this way; I'm not a Christian and not speaking as one, I'm only speaking as a lover of ancient languages and literature. But you will get to know the Bible better, and if you believe that it's God's word, then this approach is probably what you should be seeking - it's the approach used by most clergy, who I assume have the same goal you do.

[lilacwoman]

It's not the words - it's the thought that matters.   Any bible is good.

[Crimbuki]

If you can create your own truth you have no need for any of this, as it sell itself as 'truth.'

You either create your own or accept another created by someone else, there aren't exactly a lot of options.

[tekla]

why people don't just study the Bible on their own to become clergymen in most mainstream churches - and why priests and pastors give sermons instead of just reading from the Bible.

Isn't that kind of a major fail for a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all those other things.  So the all-powerful god wrote a book that people just can't pick up and understand, but the "_______ for Dummies" people can.  Hummmm.

[kyril]

why people don't just study the Bible on their own to become clergymen in most mainstream churches - and why priests and pastors give sermons instead of just reading from the Bible.

Isn't that kind of a major fail for a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all those other things.  So the all-powerful god wrote a book that people just can't pick up and understand, but the "_______ for Dummies" people can.  Hummmm.

Meh...like I said, I'm not a Christian. But within the Christian frame, I'd say that the modern view of the Bible is...historically inaccurate, at best. Most of the works included weren't exactly intended for mass consumption, much less to be read out-of-context thousands of years later. Even if you consider it all to be the inspired Word of God, you still have to take into account the fact that the people he inspired were human and they lived in a particular historical context and cultural milieu and that affected the way they wrote things. And the same factors, along with language gaps, affect every translator who's ever worked on it.

[tekla]

you still have to take into account the fact that the people he inspired were human and they lived in a particular historical context and cultural milieu and that affected the way they wrote things.

Well yes, I guess I have to, but the point is, if this is the world of god, you think he could have already taken that into account - being Omnipotent and all.  At the VERY LEAST.  That's the wheel that this massive fiction is broken on.

[Adabelle]

One of the smartest things I ever heard during my years as a conservative Christian was, "The Bible is a case book, not a code book." It's one of a few gems that I retain, though I'm not active today.

In college after taking many Biblical history classes I settled on the NRSV because I felt it was true to the text, but also reads well.

In my opinion going with "old" translations aren't necessarily automatically better, because new Biblical-era records and documents are found all the time that shed light on how to correctly convey what the original text meant. As Biblical scholars learn more about Biblical authors and the culture of that time, the text needs to evolve to encapsulate those updates.

In the end, i think with the right mindset one can gain much from just about any translation out there.

[Alyssa M.]

Isn't that kind of a major fail for a deity that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all those other things.  So the all-powerful god wrote a book that people just can't pick up and understand, but the "_______ for Dummies" people can.  Hummmm.

You think that's bad? Look what he did with the laws of nature. I get that "why is there something instead of nothing?" and "how does it come to pass that I am myself and not someone else?" would be toughies, but "why is the sky blue" -- that one ought to be put to rest long before Ch. 10 of Jackson. And what's with the screwy representation of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) as an approximate symmetry group of nature? Not intuitive at all, I tell you!

The thing is that there exists no perfect translation.

Period. This is a universal statement about human language.



To answer the original question, I like NRSV. But if you're looking for an ultimate translation that will let you access the unvarnished Truth directly and clearly, you're setting yourself up for failure. The early church used the Septuagint, which was basically an intentional mistranslation (at least in parts) of the Hebrew scripture Jesus and other Jews in Palestine had access to. So which is the "right" one?

[tekla]

The thing is that there exists no perfect translation.

Period. This is a universal statement about human language.

Well I guess my first thought is that is exactly what makes Art the most important thing humans can do because it needs no translation.

But I'm not even so sure about that NO PERFECT, and UNIVERSAL - whatever.  Try this.  "->-bleeped-<- you, fat bitch."  I'm betting that translates perfectly and exactly in every language.  There is no where you can translate that where it's not an insult.  Now, some cosmic slop metaphysical drivel - being what it is, fabulously vague - doesn't even come across the same in a common language, much less translated.  But the more precise the thought, the clearer the translation.

[Crimbuki]

The thing is that there exists no perfect translation.

Period. This is a universal statement about human language.

Well I guess my first thought is that is exactly what makes Art the most important thing humans can do because it needs no translation.

But I'm not even so sure about that NO PERFECT, and UNIVERSAL - whatever.  Try this.  "<not allowed> you, fat bitch."  I'm betting that translates perfectly and exactly in every language.  There is no where you can translate that where it's not an insult.  Now, some cosmic slop metaphysical drivel - being what it is, fabulously vague - doesn't even come across the same in a common language, much less translated.  But the more precise the thought, the clearer the translation.

1) Art is only art if it is interpreted or accepted to be "art". Art is hardly universal and importance is both relative subject to opinion.

2) Not every language may have a perfect translation for "bitch", and not every culture may view "fat" as something derogatory. As world culture interweaves and language is expanded this may one day become false, but again, the statement is subject to opinions and is always relative.

The one universal truth (that I can think of right now) is that everything perceived is the result of perspective, and perspective is skewed by the percipient.

"Percipient" is the word of the day.