Bible translation / version

[awkward-yet-sweet]

Which version or translation of the Bible do you use personally?  Is this the same as your faith community, or different?  What led you to your selection?  Do you believe one version is better or more accurate than another, and if so, why?

 

In the Bible Belt where I live, there are a large number of King-James-Only folks.  I prefer the NKJV myself, and my faith community leans strongly towards KJV/NKJV preferred.  I use it because that's what my family uses, although my husband has a bunch of different versions on the shelf for comparison.  

[VickySGV]

I personally have a collection of about 18 Bibles and the Jewish Tanakh.  One Bible from 50 years ago has four side by side versions in in.  I have an RSV Bible with the first time the word Homosexual was actually used in a Bible in 1946.  The translators who compiled the RSV were quickly shown their Translation error. The New Revised Standard Version Bible which is preferred in the Episcopal Church for Sunday readings does not have the word Homosexual in it.  As a lay minister of the Word, I actually could (and have) read other versions on occasions with my priests permission.  For Bible Study any version is fine, and the library of my parish has over 20 versions that we can table up during Bible Study.  More fun that way.   The version of NRSV that we use has the books of the Apocrypha in them and we actually read them.

[Ivy]

Maybe I shouldn't be here, since I no longer consider myself as a christian.  But I did for a large part of my life.  So…

 

Growing up (Lutheran) we used the KJV, but this was in the 50's.  It kinda was The Bible.  Later, I acquired a collection of different versions.  I also had one of those parallel NT with 4 versions together.  Some were considered paraphrases instead of direct translations.

My personal carry bible was NKJ.  I actually wore that one out and rebound it myself.  (Bookbinding is interesting)

 

But like I said, my spiritual life has taken a turn, and although I still have a number of bibles around, I seldom crack one.  I suppose after all these years, I have a weird relationship with christianity.

[Marcie Jensen]

I've got a number of Bibles (no surprise given I'm ordained) that I've used through the years in different translations. These include The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)--computer version since I don't have room for all 120 odd books, A couple of KJV, a NKJV, several NIV, a Holcomb Standard Bible, a NOAB, an NIV Reformation study Bible (RSB), a NRSV and a couple of obscure versions, as well as a Greek New Testament and a Hebrew Torah.

 

I use them for different purposes. For example, I use the NJB for serious theological study and research, the RSB for daily study and reformation studies as it has a number of other things in it such as the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort, the KJV for the psalms and Luke 2 (I like the poetry), a pocket NIV that is in my glove compartment in the car, the NRSV for my nightly reading, etc. I find each is beautiful in itsfar too many people  own right, and all have value.

 

There are a couple of things to keep in mind when reading them and interpreting them that far too many people forget.

 

First, as my professor of Old Testament Theology used to say, "Never take a single verse in isolation. Always exegete the entire passage." For example, my late mother's favorite verse was Micah 6:8: He has shown you, O man what is good, and what doe the Lord require of thee save to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy Lord." A great rule to live by, right? BUT, when the entire passage is examined, it turns out that this particular verse is the conclusion of a rebuke of Israel for turning away from God. Viewed in this light, there is a wholly different context to the verse.

 

Second, it's a good idea to read the commentaries available as well as different translations. For example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's work on Genesis changed my view of both sin and the fallen nature of the world. Similarly, his seminal work "The Cost of Discipleship" changed my view on what it means to be a Christian. Dramatically.

 

A final thought for this post--don't be afraid to engage in a respectful and open manner with other faiths. It only will affirm yours.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@Marcie Jensen As always, I find your comments interesting, especially in relation to faith.  Since you mention the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Torah, have you studied the Biblical languages?  If so, how literal do you find translations such as KJV/NKJV to the original texts?  What do you think makes a version a "paraphrase?"  My husband firmly believes in literal texts, and actually describes NIV as being more like a paraphrase...

 

As for the languages, my husband has some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew from his college days, and has copies of the New and Old Testaments in original language, as well as "interlinear books."  Even though I grew up in a Greek family, my ability to read is extremely limited.  And from what I can tell, Koine Greek is to modern Greek as Shakespearean English is to our current language. 

 

I'll admit, I've tried to read some sections of commentary and that stuff makes only minimal sense to me.  I'm not a theologian, or even an intellectual sort.  I enjoy trying to learn, but I'm not very good at this stuff. 

[Marcie Jensen]

@awkward-yet-sweet Greek and Hebrew are denominational requirements for ordination. I learned Biblical (ancient/Koine) Greek in seminary and actually had to translate a New Testament passage from Greek to English as part of my ordination exams, and then develop a sermon outline from my translation. So, yes, I would have say that I've studied Biblical language. I've also read the Qu'ran in Arabic, but that was a very long time ago and I doubt I could do it again easily. An odd side effect of the Arabic is I understand a lot of Aramaic when I hear it--I discovered this when I watched Mel Gibson's "The Passion."

 

As far as the literal translations of any version version, one has to keep in mind the time frame of the translation and the linguistic nuances and idioms used. For example, English was a bit different in the early 17th century than it is now. For example, in the Lord's Prayer, the KJV uses the phrase "...forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," which later translations changed to, "forgive us our trespasses..." Both are solid translations; for the time period in which they are written. IMHO, the best translation available at present is the New Jerusalem Bible due to a number of factors including scholarship, idiomatic phrasing from the original texts, and many others. It also comes with in depth commentaries for each book which I find useful for both study and research. To express it a bit better, if I'm reading from the pulpit, say Psalms, the Nativity or Christ's Passion, I prefer the KJV, but for my dissertation research, I'm using the New Jerusalem Bible (as well as for sermon prep.)

 

As to paraphrasing the Bible, well, I've never come across one. Different translations yes, but when the content is examined side by side the meaning of the text itself is virtually identical. I'm afraid your husband and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree about the NIV, et al. The majesty of the language in the KJV is beautiful, but for most people it's impractical for daily use due to the evolution of English between 1603 (when the KJV was translated) and 2023. 

 

Frankly, the only translation that has made me cringe is the Cotton Patch Bible, which takes the Gospels of Matthew and John and re-frames them to happen in modern day Georgia. I was once challenged to read it by a colleague and didn't make it all the way through. It made my skin crawl.

 

And, I agree with you about your comparison between Konie and modern Greek. I think the same comparison can be made between the KJV and any other more recent translation.

 

Hope this answers your questions.

[Ivy]

Out of curiosity, do you base your faith/theology solely on the Bible, or do you consider other sources like tradition?   What are your thoughts on writings that were contemporary to the New Testament, but not included in the canon?

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@Marcie Jensen  I don't find KJV to be unusable, as we still read Shakespeare in school with little difficulty.   Of course, people's English language skills vary, and I can definitely see it being an issue for recent immigrants who are not English-fluent.  NKJV seems to remove all the difficulties of the original KJV language.  Do you find that version to be accurate? 

 

As for basing faith solely on the Bible - that is a definite YES.  Some contemporary writings such as the books of the Apocrypha provide some cultural and historical context, but aren't regarded in my community as being divinely inspired.  I grew up Orthodox, and the books of the Apocrypha were included in the Orthodox Bible, but in my current faith community they are kept in a separate volume.  And things such as the "Gnostic Gospels" are entirely rejected, with some people seeing them as being misleading. 

 

My community tries to use the Bible very literally.  For example, qualifications for the ministry from 1 Timothy 3.  Some denominations accept women to the ministry, my community does not and has very rigid standards for elected spiritual elders.   But there's also flexibility for personal belief.  Most marriages among us look fairly modern.  But some women choose to be very conservative, wearing dresses instead of pants and choosing to stay home rather than work at a job.  It is an interesting balance. 

 

[Marcie Jensen]

2 hours ago, Ivy said:

Out of curiosity, do you base your faith/theology solely on the Bible, or do you consider other sources like tradition?   What are your thoughts on writings that were contemporary to the New Testament, but not included in the canon?

I'm a Calvinist, so i am an adherent of Sole Scriptorum--Scripture alone. As for non-canonical writings, well, that a lot more complex. I regard the Apocrypha as useful, but not canon and not Scripture. Other writings, such as the so called Gnostic gospels as utter bunk. I mean no offense to anyone by this, but there are too many issues with them for any credible Christian theologian to accept them; it starts with their name. In Konie Greek, Gnosis means "secret" which is where the term Gnostic derives from. The is, and never has been, anything secret about Christ's teachings. Additionally, other major issues arise with them that discredit them. For example, the so called Gospel of Judas contradicts all the canonical Gospels; bit of a problem there... Another major issue is in the so called Gospel of Mary where the apostles are sitting around getting secret knowledge from Jesus and Mary is present. Peter raises an objection saying words to the effect of "Master, Mary needs to leave because she's a woman, and women can't have this knowledge and get into heaven." Jesus responds to this by saying, "It's okay, Peter. I will make her a man and then she can receive this knowledge." All sorts of problems there... This is a Readers Digest version, and doesn't fully explain things. That is something for an in depth discussion its own right. Oh lest I forget, most of the Gnostic writings were written around 300 AD and a literary practice of the time was to use the name of a more famous person to gain credibility (aka: the Gospel of Peter).

 

As far as "tradition" goes, the first thing I think of is Tevye in Fiddler on the roof. But, you deserve a more serious reply despite my warped sense of humor. By tradition, I'm assuming you're talking about Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism. My response to that is that while I respect their beliefs, I don't subscribe to them. In fact, and again I mean no offense to anyone, I regard some practices of theirs, such as praying to saints, as skirting the edge of idolatry. I hope that clarifies things.

 

And, @awkward-yet-sweet, my apologies. I didn't men to say or imply that YOU have trouble with the KJV or NKJV. Rather, it was a generalization based on scholastic research by a number of clergy, lay people and theologians. Your point on women as clergy is interesting, and one I've not only heard before, but debated. I happen to subscribe to the view that in terms of Scripture, women have been ordained since the earliest of times. Without (literally) going into chapter and vers, here are a few example from both testaments. I would argue that Sarah, Miriam, Rebecca, Rachael, Rahab, and Esther were ordained as were Mary (Jesus' mother), Mary Clopas, Mary Salome, Mary Magdalene, Martha and Joanna. It's also important to remember that Jesus chose to reveal Himself after he was risen to these women. This detail carries considerable weight, as in Jesus' time, women were regarded as being so unreliable that they weren't allowed to testify in court, own property and a whole host of other things under Jewish law.  

 

As for whether or not I regard the KJV or NKJV as "accurate," I believe I've already addressed that and I'm not going to get into the debate on inerrancy v. infallibility v. literal interpretation etc. Sorry, but that's one minefield that I won't step into as there isn't an acceptable position among too many folks. 

[Marcie Jensen]

1 hour ago, Hannah Renee said:

Somewhere I have a Bible ty the Anglichat is 100 years older than I am. KJV. The one I've used for the last 20+ years is the New Living Translation. 

I'm not surprised, Hannah. There have been multiple translations of the Bible that predate the KJV. What the KJV did was establish an "official" version in English for the nascent protestant denominations in what is now the UK. Before he was James I of England he was James VI of Scotland. An intriguing piece of trivia surrounding the KJV was that it was originally known as "the authorized version" and was intended to replace the "Bishops' Bible" then in use by the Church of England. (That or the Geneva Bible may have been the version you read.)

 

I've also got a copy of the NLT, which I really like. It was a gift, and one I've used to preach with.

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

 it was originally known as "the authorized version"

Some think that still applies to it.  I mean, it says so, in the book itself!

 

Another book James was responsible for was "Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogue, Divided into three Books: By the High and Mighty Prince, James &c" which some credit with being instrumental in the witch hunts in Europe, and later New England.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

5 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I'm not surprised, Hannah. There have been multiple translations of the Bible that predate the KJV. What the KJV did was establish an "official" version in English for the nascent protestant denominations in what is now the UK.

 

As I recall, the KJV was also intended to replace the Geneva Bible, and relied on it somewhat.  Not a ton of difference between the two, but apparently the king did not enjoy the comments printed in the margins which tended to be anti-monarchist.  The Geneva Bible was the version used by the early American colonists. 

 

My community doesn't use the word "Protestant" but the feel of our Scripture lessons and preaching tends to be a combination of Lutheran and Pentecostal, with a touch of LDS influence

 

I suppose we could have a whole new thread on the ministry, its qualifications, etc...  Like all things about faith, the discussion tree can end up with a lot of branches. 

 

Biblical inerrency/infallibility could be topic of its own.  I don't quite understand the difference between those two words, even when my husband explains it to me.  I'm kind of simple, and big words aren't my thing.  I brought it up at dinner this evening, and he said that the Bible is "absolutely and unquestionably inerrent, infallible, complete, pure, and beautiful."  He says that logically, if the Bible wasn't those things, then 2 Timothy 3:15-17 couldn't be true:

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

Makes sense to me, but I'm still learning.  I feel a bit silly when I don't always understand this stuff.  My husband talks about these things with his young kids and has them memorize scripture and explanations about certain topics.  My parents didn't do that with me, and I think our Orthodox beliefs were more culture and tradition than anything. 

 

 

 

 

[Marcie Jensen]

12 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

As I recall, the KJV was also intended to replace the Geneva Bible, and relied on it somewhat.  Not a ton of difference between the two, but apparently the king did not enjoy the comments printed in the margins which tended to be anti-monarchist.  The Geneva Bible was the version used by the early American colonists. 

 

My community doesn't use the word "Protestant" but the feel of our Scripture lessons and preaching tends to be a combination of Lutheran and Pentecostal, with a touch of LDS influence

The KJV has a lengthy history that is rich, diverse and convoluted. It met with resistance from the Puritans, the Scots (both Presbyterian and Church of Scotland--Anglicans in kilts) and the Church of England. And I can state categorically that it was used by the colonists. The Episcopal church I attended in MD when I was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Ground has a mis-printed KJV known as the "Vinegar Bible" due to a misspelling in the parable of the vineyard. This particular copy dates to the late 1600s and is kept in a sealed vault. It's huge and is only used in services at Easter. When I was stationed there in the early 1990s it was appraised at I believe about $3.2 million as an historical artifact.

 

Sorry about the use of protestant; I didn't mean to insult anyone's particular community of faith. Rather, when I use the term "protestant" it's in in its historical context, meaning those denominations that broke from Rome beginning with the Lutherans and followed by Calvinsts/Presbyterians/Dutch Reformed, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Congregationalists, Anglicans and so forth. If anyone has a more accurate term for the denominations that aren't Roman Catholic or Orthodox, please let me know.

 

I'm also happy to discuss things like inerrancy v. infallibility and ordination requirements individually by PM, but not in an open thread as these are still controversial within the church body and we don't need the dissension they often cause. The same holds true for the various LDS groups. During my time in the military, I had the honor of serving with a number of LDS soldiers and they have a diverse series of viewpoints--for some reason they are drawn to military intelligence. And they're good at it.

[VickySGV]

@Marcie Jensen  Anglicans actually fit better with the Roman and Orthodox Churches.  The source of Anglicanism was King Henry Viii who cut political ties with the Bishop of Rome.  Henry as his father's second son was educated as a priest / theologian during his prince days.  Prince Henry rebutted Martin Luther's Theses and earned the title Defender Of The Faith, (which British kings still retain,) from the Pope of that time.  It was a successor Pope that King Henry broke with.

 

The Protestant Episcopal Church Of The United States Of America (TEC) which is a member of The World Wide Anglican Communion uses "Protestant" in its title as an adjective to signify that it is NOT governed by The Roman Catholic Church.    The fine tuning of the word Episcopal there to designate that TEC follows the tradition of Bishops in Apostolic Succession* along with sacramental and liturgical uses.  The Bishop Of Rome aka Pope is regarded as a single patriarch to be listened to, but who does not rule church doctrine or management.  The Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as equal to the Bishop Of Rome, but also does not rule church doctrine of TEC.    TEC's doctrines and canons are derived from Scripture, Tradition, and Prayerfully Discerned Human Reason by laity and clergy at triennial General Conventions.

 

*Apostolic Succession is another element that causes controversy in church structure as well.

 

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, VickySGV said:

Henry as his father's second son was educated as a priest / theologian during his prince days.  Prince Henry rebutted Martin Luther's Theses and earned the title Defender Of The Faith

I knew he had rebutted Luther, but didn't know about his education… interesting.

[Marcie Jensen]

1 hour ago, VickySGV said:

@Marcie Jensen  Anglicans actually fit better with the Roman and Orthodox Churches.  The source of Anglicanism was King Henry Viii who cut political ties with the Bishop of Rome.  Henry as his father's second son was educated as a priest / theologian during his prince days.  Prince Henry rebutted Martin Luther's Theses and earned the title Defender Of The Faith, (which British kings still retain,) from the Pope of that time.  It was a successor Pope that King Henry broke with.

 

The Protestant Episcopal Church Of The United States Of America (TEC) which is a member of The World Wide Anglican Communion uses "Protestant" in its title as an adjective to signify that it is NOT governed by The Roman Catholic Church.    The fine tuning of the word Episcopal there to designate that TEC follows the tradition of Bishops in Apostolic Succession* along with sacramental and liturgical uses.  The Bishop Of Rome aka Pope is regarded as a single patriarch to be listened to, but who does not rule church doctrine or management.  The Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as equal to the Bishop Of Rome, but also does not rule church doctrine of TEC.    TEC's doctrines and canons are derived from Scripture, Tradition, and Prayerfully Discerned Human Reason by laity and clergy at triennial General Conventions.

 

*Apostolic Succession is another element that causes controversy in church structure as well.

 

Absolutely they do! I had a parish priest who jokingly referred to Anglicanism as "Catholic lite." I'm just not always sure just how much Reformation History to include without going off into the proverbial weeds. (My second bachelor's degree is in Reformation History as the period has always fascinated me.)  And, yes, the term "protestant" does only signify that a particular denomination is not governed by Rome and the pope. There are a number of episcopacies among Protestantism in general. In addition to the Anglican communion, Methodists and Lutherans also have bishops. Theirs are elected. I say this keeping in mind that all episcopacy means is "governed by bishops." This in contrast to Presbyterianism, which means "governed by presbyteries." (Humorous side note on presbyteries--Congress uses operating rules derived for the early Presbyterian church in the USA. We all have seen just how well that works.)

 

The TEC's governance and doctrine works well for its members, and speaking personally, I always enjoy an Episcopal service. I just happen to differ theologically with a number of TEC precepts in several areas that are only relevant in terms of scholarly theological debate. And, yes, Apostolic Succession is a controversial topic that crosses many denominational lines as well as within denominations themselves. It's one of those dividing elements that IMHO, causes more harm than good. I shan't get on my soapbox about how the church needs to quit concentrating on the things we differ on and start talking about how we are one body in Christ and how much the denominations have in common.

 

Vicky, your comments are always thoughtful, well reasoned and well worth reading. Thank you.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

14 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Sorry about the use of protestant; I didn't mean to insult anyone's particular community of faith. Rather, when I use the term "protestant" it's in in its historical context, meaning those denominations that broke from Rome beginning with the Lutherans and followed by Calvinsts/Presbyterians/Dutch Reformed, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Congregationalists, Anglicans and so forth. If anyone has a more accurate term for the denominations that aren't Roman Catholic or Orthodox, please let me know.

 

I'm also happy to discuss things like inerrancy v. infallibility and ordination requirements individually by PM, but not in an open thread as these are still controversial within the church body and we don't need the dissension they often cause. The same holds true for the various LDS groups. During my time in the military, I had the honor of serving with a number of LDS soldiers and they have a diverse series of viewpoints--for some reason they are drawn to military intelligence. And they're good at it.

 

I don't think there's really another term available for "not Catholic."  Although I think some groups prefer not to use the word Protestant for different reasons.  I guess for some, it has a Calvinist association.  For others, perhaps they see themselves as the "real" church and thus not "protesting" anything.  Words are so tricky! 

 

I hadn't thought about inerrancy/infallibility/ministry as a point of major contention.  But if it wasn't, then people wouldn't say things like "don't talk about religion or politics at a family dinner or on a date."  😆 

 

For a lot of things in life, not just the Bible, I simply don't have much experience.  My husband is the head of the house, and he also has several degrees and qualifications.  I've mostly let him teach me the last few years, as he has a way of explaining things in a way that I get.  It is interesting to hear other viewpoints to compare, though. 

 

Has anybody tried reading a chronological Bible?  I just picked one up (NKJV), and I'm hoping to read through the whole thing....I've never figured out quite where to start with a normal Bible except at the beginning, and things stop making sense about midway through Leviticus 🙄 

[Ivy]

7 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

things stop making sense about midway through Leviticus

I understand

[Marcie Jensen]

8 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

I don't think there's really another term available for "not Catholic."  Although I think some groups prefer not to use the word Protestant for different reasons.  I guess for some, it has a Calvinist association.  For others, perhaps they see themselves as the "real" church and thus not "protesting" anything.  Words are so tricky! 

 

I hadn't thought about inerrancy/infallibility/ministry as a point of major contention.  But if it wasn't, then people wouldn't say things like "don't talk about religion or politics at a family dinner or on a date."  😆 

 

For a lot of things in life, not just the Bible, I simply don't have much experience.  My husband is the head of the house, and he also has several degrees and qualifications.  I've mostly let him teach me the last few years, as he has a way of explaining things in a way that I get.  It is interesting to hear other viewpoints to compare, though. 

 

Has anybody tried reading a chronological Bible?  I just picked one up (NKJV), and I'm hoping to read through the whole thing....I've never figured out quite where to start with a normal Bible except at the beginning, and things stop making sense about midway through Leviticus 🙄 

Protestant actually derives from Martin Luther's 95 theses, which predate Calvin and his Institutes of the Christian Religion. In a piece of Calvin trivia, John Calvin (Jean Cauvin in French) was trained as a Catholic canon lawyer and wrote the Institutes for King Henry of France. For this, he was forced to flee to Switzerland, where he was free to preach and write. 

 

Frankly, I don't recommend a chronological Bible for a number of reasons. To begin, the Bible isn't arranged in specific chronological order. It's arranged categorically. The Old Testament is divided as follows: The first 5 books are Torah--written by Moses and are considered in Judaism as "The Law." Then come the Histories, followed by the major prophets, the books of wisdom and finally by the minor prophets. The New Testament begins with the Gospels ("Good News" in Greek) followed by the Epistles (Mostly Pauline works) and finally Revelation. Note: NOT "Revelations" as it's commonly known. The Apocrypha are the books of the Catholic Bible that Protestant theologians regard as "extra canonical," mostly because they were written in Greek rather than Hebrew and there is some debate as to when they were written.

 

If I were to recommend any particular order in which to begin "reading the Bible," I would suggest starting with The Gospel of John, using a good study Bible with cross references to Old Testament works. I would also use various commentaries as I read specific books for better insight. For example, Matthew Henry's commentaries are a pretty good source for most, although things such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings on Genesis and Original Sin are still considered definitive after nearly 100 years. I would also suggest that getting into a Bible study group is important. As is finding theologians who are well respected and reading what they have to say; even if you don't happen to agree with them.

 

For example, I'm not a real big fan of Justo Gonzalez; a Cuban priest and theologian who somehow managed to graft, imho, the worst aspects of communism onto Catholic teaching. He is important, though, because it can be reasonably argued he is one of the founders of the social justice movement within the church. Therefore, his work has had significant impact on Christianity and is important.

 

It's stuff like the above that makes getting an MDIV a three year process on average and requires 90 hours or so of post graduate work. It's also enough to cause many a night of headaches, lol.