Same job, different uniform.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Holly Bibble?

Your preferred translation.

And why.

Please weigh in in the comments.


SHARE THIS: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati

12 Comments:

Blogger Lois E. Lane said...




I've always liked New King James because it's close to the original English translation but without all the fancy language. I did just buy a little pamphlet, however, that goes over some of the differences between the translations. I'll let you know what I come up with :)

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger H. C. said...




sorry, Ms. Lane, you've jumped on a nerve here..."original English translation"?
John Wyclif's? (1380)
Tyndale's (1535)
Coverdale's (1535)
The Great Bible (1539
The Geneva Bible (1560)
The Bishop's Bible (1568)
Douai-Rheims (1582)
...not to mention the Old English versions I didn't bother to list

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger girlfriday said...




I'm not sure I follow. What year did the New King James come out--or the King James, if it's that translation you're comparing to the others? Are you saying there were older translations?

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger H. C. said...




yeah, The Authorized Version (aka the King James) is from 1611--and it took about 50 years or so for it to actually be used more than the Geneva Bible.


you'd have known this stuff if you'd shown up to my class last fall ;-)

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger girlfriday said...




I'm most interested in the translation our readers prefer and why. Do you use the New Geneva?

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger Lois E. Lane said...




Sure didn't mean to hit a nerve. I will yield to the more learned commentors.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger Lois E. Lane said...




Quit blogging, start driving, girlfriday! I'm still holding out hope for a brief Saturday meeting :)

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger H. C. said...




wasn't trying to chase anyone away...just calling the 13th or so translation the original is like calling James T. Kirk the first Enterprise Captain.

(this is what happens when I comment sans coffee)

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger H. C. said...




I bought a New Geneva when it first came out--wanted a NKJV, and was just becoming Reformed, so it was a good deal. But I don't use Study Bibles anymore, and don't encourage their use as a primary Bible. They can be helpful, but too often, the notes are read with as much authority as the text. Good to have one or two decent ones around for reference, but one's primary Bible should be note free (other than any scribbles one might make on their own, if they're the scribbling type).

I lean towards the word-for-word translations. Those that try to interpret idioms, etc. take too many liberties, and become paraphrases. Still, the NIV (NOT the TNIV!!!) is decent enough. My Hebrew prof says that the new Holman Christian Standard does a better job at that than the NIV does. The New Living, New Century, etc. ought to be avoided at all costs.

From personal research and what my professor's tell me, the American Standard Version is probably the best word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English...but it's 105 years old, and some of the language is antiquated--and it's comparatively hard to find. The Authorized Version/King James--many words have changed their meaning in the almost 400 years since it was published, it just gets some verses wrong, but hard to go wrong with it. The New American Standard (1995 update) and English Standard Versions are probably the best around now using the Critical Texts. New King James is of comparable quality, but uses the same textual basis as the AV--like the NKJV, used it as a primary Bible longer than I've used anything else.

What do I use? ummmmm....complicated answer :)

My BibleWorks window (where I do 70% of my Bible Reading) displays the ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, 2 Greek and 1 Hebrew texts. For papers for school I reference the NASB, for church work I use NKJV (the majority of our members use it as their primary version), for pulpit supply I use whatever the congregation I visit uses (generally the ESV), for family stuff and private stuff I use the ESV (pretty much as accurate as the NASB, but grammar's easier for my kids to deal with, all of us who can read have one--and the others will get theirs once they start).

For my money, can't get a better quick look at the translations/translations issues than James White's Bible Versions: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly. Part One and Part Two.

A lot of that isn't what you're asking for, but since when have I limited myself to that :):):):):):):)

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 
Blogger kletois said...




I prefer the LXX and NA27, but considering my greek is woeful, I use the NASB.

Friday, June 16, 2006

 
Blogger travelin' said...




I'd like to have a Geneva ESV, because listening to the way it reads vs. the way mine reads: NKJV, the first is much better.
In addition, I'm a little biased as I'd like to stay away from the KJV's altogether knowing how horribly they've been used in Evangelical circles.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

 
Blogger Julie said...




I've heard a lot of good said about NASB.

I have no knowledge of why that might be. Sadly.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home