amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (01/10/84)
Pat Wilson asks: >> Many people have advised me (and others) to "read the >> Bible". Which Bible (or version thereof) do they mean? >> Are some better than others? My own preference is for the >> King James version - the beauty of the language in it >> is powerful. What do you out in net-land think? The King James Version (known as KJV or AV, for Authorized Version) is, without a doubt, one of the glories of English literature. One of my old professors, who I would feel competent to judge on such matters, once told me that the KJV version of the 23rd Psalm was better poetry than the Hebrew original. It is also a fairly literal translation of the original languages. However, the English language has changed since 1611, and also Biblical scholarship has advanced considerably since the seventeenth century, so that the KJV is somewhat outmoded. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is largely an updating of the KJV, written in modern English and incorporating some modern scholarship. It is well written (I once heard someone reciting the RSV story of King David hearing about the death of his son Absolom, and was moved to tears) and the newer editions are acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics. It is the one that I would recommend. Today's English Version (TEV) is a very readable translation written in a very simple style and language--quite intentionally. You may have come across the TEV NT as Good News For Modern Man. Not bad, but I'm not sure if I would give it a whole-hearted recommendation. The New English Bible (NEB) is an interesting modern translation by a group of scholars from England (J. R. R. Tolkien was one of them). Not bad, on the whole, with pretty decent footnotes. The NT is better done than the OT, and the NEB tends towards paraphrase, especially in the OT. The New American Bible (NAB) is a Catholic version that is pretty good, but it, along with most Catholic versions, depends too heavily on St. Jerome's Vulgate, a Latin translation of the fourth century (admittedly, one of the great Bible translations of all time). The notes and introductions are very good, although, not surprisingly, written from a Catholic perspective. The Living Bible is a paraphrase that some people swear by, others swear at. If you were only to get one Bible, this would not be the one to get. The theological viewpoint is evangelical Christian. The Amplified Bible is an attempt to offer several alternative readings. It tends to have sentences like "Let us (go up to, arise to) the (House of the Lord, temple)." (This is a made up example, just to give you (the flavor of, a feeling for) this version.) I tried to read it once, and found it annoying. The Jerusalem Bible is another Catholic version. It is an English translation of a French translation. It is, nevertheless, very well done, quite readable, based on the Greek and Hebrew, not on the Vulgate, with good notes and introductions. The Anchor Bible is a set of translations by scholars for scholars. It is not for the average reader (and doesn't pretend to be), and is still incomplete. If you are interested in a scholarly translation, by some of the top people in the field, it is worth looking at. Not recommended for fundamentalists. The New International Version and New American Standard are Christian evangelical translations, very popular with many fundamentalists. I know very little about either. There is a Jehovah's Witnesses version, whose name I forget, of interest only to them. There is a translation of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text of the OT, by a Jewish Bible society in Philadelphia that I have heard well of. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
russ@dadla-a.UUCP (01/11/84)
One of the main problems with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is that it made the erroneous assumption that the oldest manuscript was the most correct. But the result of that assumption is the doubt that is placed on many of the passages in the New Testament. Some of the later version have still followed the lead of the Revised Standard Version but have relied on more scholarship that has shown that assumption to be too simplistic. I don't think that any Bible translations have replaced the King James Version. Russell Anderson dadla-a!russ
lynnef@teklabs.UUCP (Lynne Fitzsimmons ) (01/12/84)
The Jewish Bible society in Philadelphia that produces the Old Testament
translated from the Masoretic text is the Jewish Publication Society (I
think). My parents always referred to that translation as the JPS Bible.
--
Lynne Fitzsimmons
UUCP: {cbosg, decvax, harpo, ihnp4!tektronix, ihnss, orstcs, pur-ee,
ssc-vax, ucbvax, unc, zehntel, ogcvax, reed} !teklabs!lynnef
CSNet: lynnef@tek ARPAnet: lynnef.tek@rand-relayscc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (01/13/84)
I use the New International Version. I feel this is an excellent translation. In the conselors copy I have it explained how the bible was translated. It was very impressive. While looking for a Bible for a friend, I talked to several Chistian stores clerks. They mentioned that the NIV was becoming extremely popular with bible study groups. It is amazing the differance between the different translations. During Bible study often the Pastor refers to different translations to compare specific words. You can buy a couple of soft covered Bibles for around $7.00 each. This way you can see which one you feel more confortable with.