What Other Bible Translations Do You Find Helpful And Why?

[Bob Crockett]

As Dr. Barlow pointed out in his book, citing a brief article from The Expository Times, the NIV suffers from a less than discriminating translation when it comes to the divinity of Christ. When the NIV has the opportunity to translate questionable passages in favor of the divinity of Christ it does so. As well, it includes the spurious Johannine Comma, which is the single most significant passage in favor of the Trinitarian formula.

However, the LDS version of the Bible is no longer the King James Version. It dropped the marginal readings which are part and parcel of the translation. For instance, in Isaiah where God said that He is God and there is none other beside Him, the marginal reading actually softened that position.

[Robert F. Smith]

As Dr. Barlow pointed out in his book, citing a brief article from The Expository Times, the NIV suffers from a less than discriminating translation when it comes to the divinity of Christ. When the NIV has the opportunity to translate questionable passages in favor of the divinity of Christ it does so. As well, it includes the spurious Johannine Comma, which is the single most significant passage in favor of the Trinitarian formula.

However, the LDS version of the Bible is no longer the King James Version. It dropped the marginal readings which are part and parcel of the translation. For instance, in Isaiah where God said that He is God and there is none other beside Him, the marginal reading actually softened that position.

I gave you a rep point for being wonderfully droll, Bob.  Some of the best irony I have read.

[Five Solas]

This illustrates that more modern translations are prone to the influence of sectarian and political priorities and agenda that might make them problematic for use in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

For the above and perhaps other reasons, I don't see the Church shifting away from its official use of the King James Version any time soon, if ever. I can't think of a compelling reason why it should.

No, it merely illustrated a particular concern with that revision of the NIV.  It does not serve to indict modern translations as a whole or justify the retention of the KJV for LDS (or anyone else who thinks 1611 was somehow the zenith of Biblical scholarship and objectivity in English translation).  It's a happy thing you included the clause--"and perhaps other reasons"--because you're gonna need it, Scott

;0)

 

For those with a little knowledge of history, translation controversy is not exactly unique to modern times: "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread"--from the Catholic Rheims Bible, 1582.  Of course, Protestant Geneva Bibles had their moments and the Anglican KJV has no shortage of difficulties--which set most concerns about modern translations in the shade. 

 

Feel free to start unpacking those "other reasons" for us...

 

--Erik

[Ron Beron]

I have been using the NET Bible which has excellent study and translations notes.  As mentioned previously, I also read the New Jerusalem Bible.  Additionally, I like the New Interpreters Study Bible.  The list is almost endless.

[sheilauk]

I think I've only ever read in detail the KJV (LDS and otherwise) and the Good News Bible.  I really like the KJV, but I also read Shakespeare for fun!  However, I think I'm going to have to check out some of these though it might be difficult to pick just a couple to start with.  Its always worth getting a slightly different perspective.

[MiserereNobis]

I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, as revised by Bishop Challoner (here's the exact edition I have:  http://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=2#tab=tab-1)

 

It is older than the KJV and is Catholic, unlike the KJV, which is protestant.

 

I appreciate the archaic language, but then again, I am a word-nerd

 

Since I attend the Latin Mass, every Sunday I hear the readings from the Latin Vulgate.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, it merely illustrated a particular concern with that revision of the NIV.  It does not serve to indict modern translations as a whole ...

If one modern Bible translation can be over-influenced by political and sectarian trends, other modern translations -- which presumably are subject to further revision at any time -- theoretically could be as well. I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ wants to bind itself to the shifting winds of sectarian thought.

 

... or justify the retention of the KJV for LDS (or anyone else who thinks 1611 was somehow the zenith of Biblical scholarship and objectivity in English translation).

 

Straw man alert! No one here has made that claim.

 

It's a happy thing you included the clause--"and perhaps other reasons"--because you're gonna need it, Scott

 

 

 I included that qualifier because I am not an official spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Church may have other reasons that I am not acquainted with or privy to.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mudcat]

I am Evangelical. The KJV had been my carry bible for quite some time. The wording is difficult for non Christians and new Christians.

 

I currently use the NASB. It's a bit stiff, but understandable to most folks and supposedly it's one of the most accurate translations available. 

[flameburns623]

We have created a culture that has an allegiance to the KJV.  While we certainly can't have people using various translations in Sunday School, we have almost created a culture that sees the KJV as God's version and others as less than. Begininning to being more open to other translations I was curious what translations you like the best and why?   Also I listen to a lot of audio, MP3, podcasts ect. So I have lately been listening to NIV Dramatic translation audio. One example is found herehttp://www.houseandhome.org/niv-bible-download Also if we care to discuss why the KJV needs to be the standard as it truly is superior in some way, please feel free to make your point.

Puzzled.

Evangelical churches use multiple translations all the time. Some pastors use numerous translations in a single sermon.

Pasotors and Sunday School teachers often familiarize themselves with some rudimentary understanding of the original languages and pointedly elaborate therefrom

The reference is the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and translations are seen simple as the vehicle for understanding the original, among listeners who may have limited exposure to those original languages.

In my own tradition of course, there is understood to be an infallible Tradition informing Christians of the correct interpretation of doctrinal passages. Hence my preference for the Douay-Rheims, which is based upon the Latin Vulgate and informed by Sacred Tradition.

But for folks operating largely within an Evangelical paradigm--why do you deem it needful that the LDS use one translation ONLY? (Yes, I realize you are NOT Evangelicals, but your worship and devotional styles are informed by conservative Evangelicalism: your chapel services and Sunday Schools are indistinguishable from similar counterparts in a Baptist or Presbyterian church, except for your really-fat Scriptures).

[Robert F. Smith]

Puzzled.

Evangelical churches use multiple translations all the time. Some pastors use numerous translations in a single sermon.

I frequently encounter Mormon use of alternative translations in class simply as an aid and adjunct to the KJV. No one seems bothered by it.

 

Pasotors and Sunday School teachers often familiarize themselves with some rudimentary understanding of the original languages and pointedly elaborate therefrom

The reference is the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and translations are seen simple as the vehicle for understanding the original, among listeners who may have limited exposure to those original languages.

While it is true that some traditions (Evangelical and otherwise) actually have some pastors trained in Greek, very few of them have any exposure to Hebrew and Aramaic.  And this is even less likely among Sunday School teachers.

 

In my own tradition of course, there is understood to be an infallible Tradition informing Christians of the correct interpretation of doctrinal passages. Hence my preference for the Douay-Rheims, which is based upon the Latin Vulgate and informed by Sacred Tradition.

But for folks operating largely within an Evangelical paradigm--why do you deem it needful that the LDS use one translation ONLY? (Yes, I realize you are NOT Evangelicals, but your worship and devotional styles are informed by conservative Evangelicalism: your chapel services and Sunday Schools are indistinguishable from similar counterparts in a Baptist or Presbyterian church, except for your really-fat Scriptures).

This comparison is illusory and late.  Evangelicalism is a recent phenomenon, and both Mormonism and Evangelicalism are informed by early 19th century styles of worship and Sunday School.  The closest comparison would be the Methodist Sunday School which had a Sunday School Superintendent (same as the Mormons, but now called Sunday School President).  Methodists also had an annual Conference.  Moreover, unlike the Presbyterians, who had a ;whole range of different church & theological terminology, the Mormons adopted a notion of free will and opposition to predestination also favored by Methodists.

 

Mormon meetinghouses are indeed Spartan, and the outward appearance seems very similar to some of the churches you mention.  However, the actual "worship and devotional styles" of Mormons are a world apart -- with a focus on high church symbolism and complex dramatic ritual in an ancient temple setting -- as part of the Restoration of all things.

[Scott Lloyd]

I frequently encounter Mormon use of alternative translations in class simply as an aid and adjunct to the KJV. No one seems bothered by it.

 

While it is true that some traditions (Evangelical and otherwise) actually have some pastors trained in Greek, very few of them have any exposure to Hebrew and Aramaic.  And this is even less likely among Sunday School teachers.

 

This comparison is illusory and late.  Evangelicalism is a recent phenomenon, and both Mormonism and Evangelicalism are informed by early 19th century styles of worship and Sunday School.  The closest comparison would be the Methodist Sunday School which had a Sunday School Superintendent (same as the Mormons, but now called Sunday School President).  Methodists also had an annual Conference.  Moreover, unlike the Presbyterians, who had a ;whole range of different church & theological terminology, the Mormons adopted a notion of free will and opposition to predestination also favored by Methodists.

 

Mormon meetinghouses are indeed Spartan, and the outward appearance seems very similar to some of the churches you mention.  However, the actual "worship and devotional styles" of Mormons are a world apart -- with a focus on high church symbolism and complex dramatic ritual in an ancient temple setting -- as part of the Restoration of all things.

If I recall correctly, Richard Ballantyne, who introduced the concept of Sunday School into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in pioneer-era Utah, brought the tradition from his own background as a convert in England.

 

Edited to add:

 

I just checked. Ballantyne was actually from Scotland, where he had been a Sunday school teacher in a Presbyterian church.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, as revised by Bishop Challoner (here's the exact edition I have:  http://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=2#tab=tab-1)

 

It is older than the KJV and is Catholic, unlike the KJV, which is protestant.

 

I appreciate the archaic language, but then again, I am a word-nerd

 

Since I attend the Latin Mass, every Sunday I hear the readings from the Latin Vulgate.

 

I just bought the Ignatius Bible and I love it!

 

[Five Solas]

If one modern Bible translation can be over-influenced by political and sectarian trends, other modern translations -- which presumably are subject to further revision at any time -- theoretically could be as well. I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ wants to bind itself to the shifting winds of sectarian thought.

 

...

I'll give you this, Scott, you stay on-message no matter what.  Pretty sure there's a fallacy in here somewhere.  Where's urroner when we need him...

;0)

 

--Erik

[Five Solas]

Just don't use the ESV Study Bible for accurate theology. It has great historiography but that's it.

Have a few study Bibles, but not this one.  Appreciate the heads-up, Valentinus.  Anything from the guy who's done more than anyone to publicize Mars Hill Church on the board--is worthwhile in my book...

:0)

 

--Erik

[Damien the Leper]

Apologies. I shouldn't paint my opinion of Mars Hill based on my opinion of Mark Driscoll. That is wrong of me. The Bible I showed above smells of the stench of Westminster Reformed heresy. That is why I suggested against it. Scottish Reformed is much better.

[BCSpace]

I like the NEB for showing more clearly the plurality of Gods in this verse:

"When the Most High [EL] parceled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the LORD's [Yahweh's] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NEB

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll give you this, Scott, you stay on-message no matter what.  Pretty sure there's a fallacy in here somewhere.  Where's urroner when we need him...

;0)

 

--Erik

If I've committed a fallacy, feel free to identify it, if you can.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Spammer]

For the Old Testament, I use an English translation of the Greek Septuagint (there are several). I stick to the KJV for the New Testament.

[MiserereNobis]

If I've committed a fallacy, feel free to identify it, if you can.

 

Just make sure you use its Latin term.

[Jude2]

I like William Barclay's New Testament.

[savedbygrace]

I just bought the Ignatius Bible and I love it!

 

Hi Valentinus, is this just the NT, with commentary by Scott Hahn?

[Damien the Leper]

Hi Valentinus, is this just the NT, with commentary by Scott Hahn?

 

No.