21 Feb 17
Originally posted by MarshallPriceMarshall, Well you just opened up a can of worms. Obviously, speaking for myself I have many versions. The KJV which some people these days abhor, is probably the most robust and one of the higher on the reading scale than most of the newer modern day translations which in my opinion are dumbed down. Some folks, even some here in this forum view the KJV as antiquaited, I do not hold that view. I also like to use an online tool called scripture for all www.scripture4all.org in which you can use an interlinear bible to compare words in the bible of your choice for commonality, etc.
I'm aware many people here are Christians, and I'm just curious as to what translation of The Bible you personally read and why.
The KJV is translated in what is called word for word as well as the interlinear. Some of the more modern versions, i.e. NIV, TNIV, NLT start sliding towards a thought for thought in their translations. I like the word for word better than the other because that is just me, but I do have many of the others translations as I indicated.. Right now, KJV is my weapon of choice.
There are many dissenting voices with regards to the 'proper' translation, and as you research on the internet and elsewhere it can become confusing. IMO, start with the KJV and go from there.
I prefer the New world translation of the Holy scriptures as its been independently verified as the most accurate English translation.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
21 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile Jason BeDuhn has positive things to say about the NWT, he also has some scathing criticisms of the translation, as mentioned at the same Wikipedia link as you gave. Do you accept that criticism by Jason BeDuhn?
I prefer the New world translation of the Holy scriptures as its been independently verified as the most accurate English translation.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the ...[text shortened]... ive translation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGood grief, you're not still hawking this flannel around are you. This BeDuhn guy's claims have been comprehensively debunked under your note in here on more than one occasion,
I prefer the New world translation of the Holy scriptures as its been independently verified as the most accurate English translation.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the ...[text shortened]... ive translation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Feb 17
8 edits
Originally posted by MarshallPriceI became a follower of Jesus in earnest in the early seventies.
I'm aware many people here are Christians, and I'm just curious as to what translation of The Bible you personally read and why.
The first New Testaments I read were paraphrases - J. B. Phillips and Good News For Modern Man.
I went on to read most of the Bible in the Revised Standard Version and King James .
Since those early days I have read J N Darby's New Translation, The 1901 American Standard and the Recovery Version . These three are probably my favorite. But I have also read lot of Weymouth's New Translation of the New Testament.
I have delved into The New American Standard and the original Rothram's Emphasized Bible. And I have read some of The New King James.
There are many good English translations.
I would recommend to people The Recovery Version for its translation and spiritually rich and nourishing footnotes and cross references.
http://www.recoveryversion.bible/
(I do not care for the popular NIV. And the NWT of the Jehovah's witnesses I would not give a moment's notice of serious attention. The sight of it sickens me.) Having said that I would not hesitate to use the old Bible they USED to publish from Brooklyn NY. - 1901 American Standard. They should have stuck with it.
22 Feb 17
Originally posted by leunammiI'm in this exact same boat. I use the KJV exclusively. I also feel that some of the newer versions seem 'dumbed-down'.
Marshall, Well you just opened up a can of worms. Obviously, speaking for myself I have many versions. The KJV which some people these days abhor, is probably the most robust and one of the higher on the reading scale than most of the newer modern day translations which in my opinion are dumbed down. Some folks, even some here in this forum view the KJV ...[text shortened]... the internet and elsewhere it can become confusing. IMO, start with the KJV and go from there.
For online use, I use Blue Letter Bible. It lets you set any of 20 translations as default. And it also has cross-referencing and interlinear use as well as commentaries.
http://www.blueletterbible.org
Originally posted by FMFActually no I reject it. What he claims concerning the restoration of divine name is that its "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy" No one is claiming that it is. Its not an act of translation its an act of restoration. Regardless of what he thinks of our restoration of the divine name the New World translation of the Holy scriptures remains the most accurate English translation available. 😏
While Jason BeDuhn has positive things to say about the NWT, he also has some scathing criticisms of the translation, as mentioned at the same Wikipedia link as you gave. Do you accept that criticism by Jason BeDuhn?
Originally posted by sonshipInteresting, we have an independent recognised linguistic expert, an associate professor who has surveyed the most popular English translations of the Bible and made a comparative study for bias in translation stating that the New world translation is the most accurate and you say and I quote,' I would not give a moment's notice of serious attention'.
I became a follower of Jesus in earnest in the early seventies.
The first New Testaments I read were paraphrases - [b]J. B. Phillips and Good News For Modern Man.
I went on to read most of the Bible in the Revised Standard Version and King James .
Since those early days I have read J N Darby's New Translation, Th ...[text shortened]... to publish from Brooklyn NY. - [b]1901 American Standard. They should have stuck with it.[/b]
We are left to wondering why that should be the case and the conclusion of the matter must be that you simply prefer translations which confirm your own bias. Reading the Bible for you is not an exercise in understanding but an echo chamber cookie cutter for your preconceptions and religious dogma. How else are we to account for it? It cannot be because you value accuracy. As for making you sick, one is reminded of Pauls words to the Corinthinas,
For to God we are a sweet fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the latter ones an odor of death leading to death, to the former ones a fragrance of life leading to life. -" 2 Corinthinas 2:16
22 Feb 17
Originally posted by SuzianneNice site, I am going to add it to my tool bag. I think the dumbing down of modern translations is only a part of it, there also is omissions as compared to the KJV, and I think they are important. Take 1 John 5:7-9 for instance..
I'm in this exact same boat. I use the KJV exclusively. I also feel that some of the newer versions seem 'dumbed-down'.
For online use, I use Blue Letter Bible. It lets you set any of 20 translations as default. And it also has cross-referencing and interlinear use as well as commentaries.
http://www.blueletterbible.org
1 John 5:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 John 5:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
A big part of verse seven is missing from the NIV compared to KJV. There are many others obviously, but it is a reason I prefer KJV.
Originally posted by leunammiapocryphal texts, interpolations, tampering with tenses, ouch.
Nice site, I am going to add it to my tool bag. I think the dumbing down of modern translations is only a part of it, there also is omissions as compared to the KJV, and I think they are important. Take 1 John 5:7-9 for instance..
1 John 5:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, a ...[text shortened]... from the NIV compared to KJV. There are many others obviously, but it is a reason I prefer KJV.