Proper English translation

Which modern English language Bible should I read if I'm orthodox lutheran? Bible app has lots of different English translations. No, English is not my first language, and no, I don't really have time to study differences between translations myself as interesting as it is, and no, I'm not going to read KJV for same reason I don't read ye olde translations in my own language. I'll tell for anyone interested that if you ever need to select Finnish Bible, both 1938 and 1992 are considered good translations. Steer clear of so-called "new world translation" which is heretical JW translation.

Attached: 1545265847150.png (899x1284, 320.17K)

Other urls found in this thread:

biblehub.com/greek/2127.htm
biblehub.com/greek/3106.htm
firstthings.com/article/2006/01/more-on-bible-babel
modernliteralversion.org)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

NRSV

Attached: bible translation argument.png (661x716, 247.75K)

You know what, Im not even going to argue with those trips.
[/thread]

checked and downloaded for offline use

okay then, NKJV

NABRE

NASB, ESV

Luterhan? Funnily, coming from an Orthodox, I actually admire the the "Evangelical Heritage Version" done by conservative Lutherans. It's only the NT, but the OT is out by summer, I think.

The KJV is early modern English

I primarily use the RSV2CE, which is a beautiful translation for Catholics. For you, I'd recommend the ESV (the NRSV panders to feminists and Jews).

Attached: 2434543.jpg (820x873, 344.12K)

lol.. As if I didn't have enough reasons to not like the "Message".

The ESV panders to evangelicals and mistranslates verses by doing so. The NRSV is a faithful and accurate translation, it doesn't "pander" to anyone

The ESV is the best Evangelical translation I've found, and that includes the KJV. What are your complaints about it?
It uses gender inclusive language, cucks out with Isaiah 7:14, Romans 9:5, etc.. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

That's because the KJV isn't evangelical :P

I don't see how it'd be better though. The KJV holds up the same textual tradition that's been taught across the whole church (be it Protestant, Latin, or Eastern) and lines up with Patristic readings accurately. For that alone, I prefer it and hate the assumption that everything was somehow wrong until the the late 19th century. The whole premise behind this notion of the "progress of scripture" is retarded. I can deal with modern bibles, but would never say they're better for this alone.

The KJV isn't a bad translation, however it does lean towards Protestantism, has its fair share of translation errors, and (while the book itself isn't to blame for this one) a number of its blind followers either misinterpret or otherwise cannot understand much of it thanks to its archaic language.

I think it leads less towards Protestantism than even the translations Catholics, for example, champion now. RSV is good, but it was created by the worst liberal Protestants in it's day (and the Catholic Edition, admittedly, fixes some of these things.. but not all).

The KJV came at a time when even the Protestants of those days were more traditionally minded than Catholics even (just compare it to the NAB, for example). And the only thing that's explicitly Protestant may be the greeting of Gabriel to Mary, where it says, "Hail, highly favored one!"

That's pretty minor though. And the translation is accurate in one sense. It could either be "favored one" or "full of grace". The word for "favor" is actually the one usually translated as grace, but it's past tense. A more accurate reading would probably be "Hail, graced one" (or highly graced one).

In John, where it says Jesus is "full of grace and truth", it's a similar statement in Greek, except it's not present tense. Here, Jesus is the actual vessel of grace and not the "graced" one as in Mary's case. I like the "full of grace" translation for Mary, but it can also be misleading for some people.. who mistake it in the same way it's meant for Jesus. She's not the vessel of grace.

Sorry to make that long, but honestly, that's the only thing I can think of that you can tell their Protestant biases showed. Otherwise, it's a pretty literal and traditional translation.

I agree. Most of the translations today are a disgrace and should not be used by the Church. Lay Catholics themselves aren't as fond of those translations.
The RSV is mediocre imo, and vastly improved (but not anywhere near perfect) with the 2CE. The NRSV doubled down on the stupidity, while the ESV (like the RSV2CE) fixed many of the mistakes made with the originals.
It is, but much of its language leaves room for misinterpretation (e.g. the verses on divorce), which does not go over well with the average Christian when they pick a KJV up and try interpreting it for themselves. Today, it's better to have a translation that is accurate and easy for a lay reader to understand, which I believe the ESV does well enough. I'll give the KJV credit for not omitting verses such as Matthew 19:9, John 3:13, Romans 13:9, etc.. That's my main complaint about the ESV and versions of the RSV (including the 2CE). Hopefully we'll see them further improved in our lifetimes.

Gender inclusive language is necessary in English, it's how we speak. The NRSV isn't a translation of the Septuagint: it accurately translates "almah" as "young woman" and has a footnote for the LXX reading. There is also a footnote at Romans 9:5 about the other possible translations - the NASB (an evangelical translation) translates "over all, God blessed forever" and Ehrman translates "God over all, blessed forever", so this isn't a good litmus test for liberalism.

It isn't accurate though. Jews have been playing that trick since Jerome's day, thinking all Christians were stupid goy. And he responded with the proper translation, and why the LXX was translated as it was.

Almah means a hidden young woman (and contains the root of the word "hidden"). And it's only used a few times. If a common phrase as "young woman" was the right one, you'd think it'd be more prevalent than than a small number. That's because it IS prevalent, but by another word: "Naarah". Almah is a girl hidden, as in kept close to her parents, hidden from presentation (for marriage prospects). The LXX simply used virgin because it's the closest equivalent. Most languages don't have an exact word for "Almah". But many cultures at least used to understand the concept. Like even a hundred years ago, in Victorian England or America, girls were kept hidden in their maiden state, until they were finally presented and shown off at public affairs and such.

Even, say, modern Mexican cultures somewhat have this. At least with the brothers. You ever try getting close to the prized daughter of a Mexican family? You'll be kissing all of their butts to even get a chance. And even them, their brothers will punk you out and beat you up if they don't like you.

In Israelite culture, it was slightly different, since they had prearranged marriages.. but once that deal was made, the girl would be be presented until her teens.

What Isaiah is essentially saying is NOT only is this girl a virgin, she's a virgin kept close under watch.. it's like a "virgin +". That is there NO WAY she is out of her parents' sight.

Oh, I meant to quote Jerome. He essentially said the same I did in less words:

"I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a Virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly
called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men."

So why is "almah" used in Proverbs 30 to refer to an adulteress?

Does anyone have that image of a meter of how literal Bible translations are?

Say what? What verse?

Verse 30:20, talks about an adulterous woman (two words: "menaphet issah")

And verse 23 talks about an "odious woman" (nuah.. to be frank.. it's equivalent to "b*tch") and her handmaid (shiphcah.. a maidservant or servant specific word.. nothing to do with maidens or anything).

Not sure what else you're referring to.

Verse 19, verse 20 refers to it

Almah is used in 3 special occassions: To Rebecca, the mother of Israel, when Isaac's servant sees her coming with a bucket of water. To Myriam, Moses' sister. And to the child bearing woman of Isaiah. The rest is a few instances of maidens who surrounded courtly women and such.


I just pointed out what verse 20 is. It's two words (just like English):

מְנָ֫אָ֥פֶת
Adulterous

אִשָּׁ֗ה
Woman

OH, you mean verse 19.

More Rabbinic corruption (which the KJV spotted thankfully).

Septuagint is: "Ways of a young man in youth"

Not "Ways of a man with a maid", as the pozzed Jew version states.

Helpful for low IQ Bible readers, maybe. Necessary, no… everyone got by just fine before translations influenced by feminism came along.
An accurate translation maybe, but whether it's a truthful one is up for debate. I have more confidence in how the verse was interpreted by Jews pre-Christ to mean "a virgin" than post-Christ Jews who would butcher the Word in a vain attempt to deny Christ as the Messiah. Just do a Google search of Isaiah 7:14 and note the overwhelming majority of Talmudists who claim it means young woman.
I wouldn't expect anything less from a modernist Bible translation and an atheist scholar.

Oh wait, the KJV got that wrong too. It's only in the Septuagint, sadly.

Most denominations say KJV is ok for the most part. RSV is also ok. Anyone sperging about translations is usually doing so from a denominational shitflinging point of view

Douay-Rheims.

I'm gonna have to thank you for pointing this out. I thought I caught most of the corruption in the Masoretic, but they surprise me yet again. I could see the Jews doing this, for the express purpose of confusing people what "almah" means by associating it with a passage of fornication.

The Septuagint is thus:

"ἴχνη ἀετοῦ πετομένου καὶ ὁδοὺς ὄφεως ἐπὶ πέτρας καὶ τρίβους νηὸς ποντοπορούσης καὶ ὁδοὺς ἀνδρὸς ἐν νεότητι"

"the track of a flying eagle; and the ways of a serpent on a rock; and the paths of a ship passing through the sea; and the ways of a man in youth."

No almah, but a man in youth.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Dead Sea Scrolls have a fully extant Proverbs to check the oldest Hebrew form. But by it's track record so far, it's supported the Septuagint's readings in messianic related passages every time (EVERY TIME) over the Masoretic. So I'm going to guess to Hebrew behind the LXX was different than the Masoretic too.

Based Jerome strikes again. He even caught this issue about "almah", when the KJV didn't.

"viam aquilae in caelo viam colubri super petram viam navis in medio mari et viam viri in adulescentula"

"The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth."


So only the Vulgate and LXX (and their subtranslations).. per usual.

YES YES YES

There is no end to this, is there? Okay, which English Bible translation version Orthodox use in anglosphere (that isn't KJV)? When in doubt, do as Orthodox do. Too many protestant denominations to make any sense out of this. Even in Finland we have protestant sects who think 1992 is teh devil and 1938 is the way to go while some sects go even further and say mere act of new 1938 translation caused Soviets to attack Finland because devil should have sticked to 1776 translation.

Douay Rheims if you're a Catholic.
Douay Rheims if you're a protestant.
Douay Rheims if you're a pagan

You're probably right about this reading (in Proverbs 30) after I looked into it more. But regardless, do you think the LXX reading should always be preferred?


Hi Esdras
OP specifically asked for a translation without archaic language. Everyone "got by just fine" with the KJV too, but the NRSV's choice of gender-neutral language is more clear for modern English speakers.
It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with clarity. Look up 1 Timothy 2 in the NRSV and you won't see anything different.
I think you're missing my point.

You have the assumption that everything was wrong until 500-600 AD.

English Orthodox use the Orthodox Study Bible often (because of the Septuagint based OT… the NT is NKJV. I wish it had it's own, but not far). Otherwise they use the KJV with Apocrypha or NRSV (at least Greeks might).


No, there's still much right long after 500 AD. I'm just saying KJV is the best the Engish speaking Evangelical world has (but now seeing that even Prov 30:19 is pozzed, even the Douay tops it). Big difference.

I think Protestants including mainline Lutherans lean toward the ESV, while Catholics to the RSV which I believe looks to be slightly more accurate.

Some confessional Lutherans adhere to the textual traditionalism rhetoric (maybe in an effort to appeal to conservative evangelicals?)

Aside from an old Luther bible, the other renown translation I know of that was translated by a Lutheran during the early modern era is the Spanish Reina-Valera.

This board made me get the ESV

Posted this rendering in the King James Version or Bust thread which 404ed.

And the messenger having come in toward her said, Rejoice, graced one: the Lord with thee: thou hast been eulogized among women.

That was probably us who conversed there, funnily. I didn't realize the thread was gone.

I would still keep "blessed among women" though. Why eulogized? I mean, I understand it, but in English, most would associate it with death rather than memorial. And she is not dead.. for our God is a God of the living.

On a sidenote, funnily, I've been going to dental appointments recently, and they had Gideon ESV Bibles there… adapted to the Textus Receptus. That's actually pretty cool. Too bad I don't see anyone else publishing them.

Yeah it's true but I was just going for a literalist perspective, me being an enthusiast of such. I can see that due to its common association some might find it irksome.
It is derived from the same word used in the Greek.
'Blessed' on the other hand is used to translate at least two different words in the Greek.

biblehub.com/greek/2127.htm
biblehub.com/greek/3106.htm

It makes sense that one might want to say their prayers before being set on the chair.

Ah you're right. Good reminder. I understand the literal perspective, and admit it's far more important. I just can't help but think of receptor language qualities too.


Hah.. Well, I definitely did do that. Glad it's all over. It was an ordeal.

NABRE, since you’re orthodox Lutheran you’re closer to the Catholic church and that’s the bible aproved by the church. The comentaries are fantastic.

If you want the most accurate word for word, go for the NASB

(I’m also high Lutheran btw)

...

Those commentaries don't even represent Catholicism though. I'm Orthodox, and shouldn't speak for them, but allow me to defend them a bit and say I know they're much better than that. It relies too much on historical-critical theories (JEPD, Q theories, questioning authorship all around, lack of belief in inspiration, and absolutely zero reference to canons or church fathers in it's commentary). Sadly, it seems when Catholics were urged to embrace historical-critical theories (within bounds), they got entrapped in it instead. The predator becomes the prey! And since they had no moderate "historical critical" tradition of their own to rely upon, they relied upon the work of liberal, often atheistic scholarship from the mainline Protestant world instead. It's the only instance in history when Catholics have done anything with the help of outright apostates.

It's a decent translation on it's own (without the commentaries), but still fails in it's pedestrian tone compared to what a literal translation can do. I think this Catholic review below (from a priest who has to use homilies from it unfortunately) of the NAB is one of the most apt.. because it also applies to many modern translations in general. Bible translations that get too far away from literal readings break with the richness of history that we've come to know about the Bible. Familiar lines suddenly become jarring. This does no good to anyone (you recommended the NASB, but that's actually one of the better ones that doesn't fall in this trap).

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/more-on-bible-babel

I personally use NASB. It's the most accurate Word For Word. I use the 1971 version as the 1998 version is a little weird in it's New Testament updates. Any version of it is good overall though. If not I'd recommend a NKJV or ESV. I grew up with NKJV and KJV so I am pretty fond of them in my heart.

Obviously not. It says that Methuselah outlived the flood in Genesis 5:26.

Why do you say this? The NASB adds the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3. This completely changes the meaning.

>NASB: Your adornment must not be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

That word "merely" is not present in the Greek text, and so all other translations don't include it. You can see that by adding that word "merely", the meaning of the command is changed.

It's also the only translation that removes the words "that believe in me" from Mark 9:42. I really question why anyone says it is a "word for word" translation. People should use a rigorous, literal and equivalent translation like the KJV. It's so accurate that English dictionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries used it as a source of word definitions. Not only that but it adheres the correct original language sources, it represents the words of God that were preserved by God to every generation.

I've seen the modern literal version (modernliteralversion.org) suggested. What do you guys think?

It sounds like it has admiral goals, and I applaud the non-commercial nature, but it tries too hard to strip all eccelesiastical language than I prefer (like replacing "baptism" with "immersion", simply because "baptism" sounds too Catholic. Wut).

And if it really was literal, it would do a better job than this:

"Now there was a man from the Pharisees, his name was Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 3:2 This one came to him by night and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for* no one is able to do these signs which you are doing, if God is not with him.

"Jesus answered and said to him, Assuredly, assuredly, I am saying to you, If someone has not been born anew, he is not able to see the kingdom of God."

Jesus doesn't say "assuredly" (or "verily" or "truly", for that matter). He says "Amen, amen, I am saying to you". It's not merely a declaration of fact, but the Gospel writers specifically put these "Amen" sayings in the Gospels to convey Jesus' Aramaic to Greek readers. No one that we know of spoke like Jesus. And Greek readers got to be a little more immersed in the scene when his real words came out like this. Just like when the Gospel writers put his Aramaic at the crucifixion (lama lama sabachthani). I always find it a little unfortunate when Bibles overtranslate and put all of this stuff in English too. If the Gospel writers simply wanted to convey "assuredly", they would have put it all in Greek.. but they made a point of not translating it.

Not to single out this translation. Most English translations don't do this right.. but this one claims to be more literal than usual.

I agree with you on 'amen' but I would still prefer to render baptism with immersion/submersion. I gonna sound frank saying this but to me it comes off as an infantile desire to prefer a mystified and exclusive vocabulary over more rationalistic interpretations in light of the attested usages of words in the original languages.

How some other biblical terms could be rendered.
gospel - good message
church - convocation
synagogue - congregation

I also like how the Wycliffe Bible was the only one to render "with child" as "having in womb". It's a very literalistic rendering of the Latin which inadvertently also renders what the Greek said more accurately.


You can find more translations that are less popular today including that one at this site.
studybible.info

I also find that ᾰναιρέω (anairéō), conventionally translated as "to kill", is better serviced by 'make away with' or 'do away with'.
ἐνθυμέομαι (enthumeomai) which doesn't occur much has been translated with simply 'thought'. Contemplate is better. Speaking of temples, ἱερόν (hieron) would be more literally rendered with 'sanctuary' while ναός (naos) with 'shrine'.

Douay-Rheims, duh.

Same user here, ID changed. It's not that I prefer mystified language so much that I see it as specifically anti-Church. I've seen this trend before from Messianics especially, in their attempt to neutralize language. I agree that the words have mundane meanings behind them, but the Church itself has appropriated most of them. It's a culture with a language in itself, that God has seen fit to work in for 2000 years. I think it's fair to acknowledge all of it. And I have nothing against Messianics per se. In private, they may use the same terms.. but they're afraid of what it all sounds like to their non-believing Jewish brethren think. Like it's a bad witness.

I will agree more in some instances though.

You can't condemn every such endeavor just because some group which can be considered questionable is also observed doing it.

The traditions would be relevant to each pertinent language. For me rendering words literally is useful because it seems like the best way to study the scriptures and the mindset of the people writing them.

It's not just one group. I just mean I've seen it from them especially. And I just wish to uphold the Church's "tone" so to speak. I understand there's more mundane, clearer English, but removing language like that has ramifications. Not that one translation is capable of it, but a larger movement like this would have a damaging effect. Maybe it works for this, since it claims to be the modern "literal" version.

Funnily though, one of the few Bible translations that does get the "Amen" sayings right is the Tree of Life version, a Messianic version (along with the Douay, NAB, and the Evangelical Heritage version.. something up the OP's alley..since it was made by Lutherans).

Aside from 'amen', I also don't believe there is any other way to render the terms God, Lord, spirit, and sin without altering the context and meaning.

Alternatively there have also been omissions of mystical references or terminology in some translations, like the magi and the Python spirit (πνεῦμα Πύθωνα), Acts 16:16, and still not much in the way of Gehenna and Tartaros being mentioned.

Yeah this idea falls apart because the meaning of that word is dependant on the context. You can't just redefine English words as you please… the fact is it means verily in the places where it's used in that way. Sorry if this idea goes against the inclination to change God's word to your convenience.

Like says, there are actually very serious changes floating around that need to be addressed. But all these people turning God's word into their personal play-doh and recommending multiple, conflicting bible versions don't really care about them.

It's not "changing" God's word. "Amen" is the exact word used in the original. How do you change something that's already there?

And I don't know what you mean by redefining English words. I haven't discussed any English afaik. As for Amen, it's a Hebrew and Aramaic word. That's the whole point. That even though the Gospels were in Greek, this was one of the few cases where the evangelists decided to bring in the Aramaic in a transliterated form, rather than translate it (sort of like they didn't "translate" Marantha. They "transliterated" it directly instead). If they wanted to simply say "verily" or "truly", they would have used something like aleqoß (alethos). Instead they skipped the obvious and used "Amen".

And the context is always the same and it's said by Jesus as a predicate to his declarative statements. Sure, it can mean "verily", but my whole point is the Gospel writers still thought it right to not just depend on meaning but directly give the Aramaic. They wanted to keep the transliteration. Not simply the meaning. Why? I don't know, but I think we should keep it in translation. Simply because they saw fit to NOT translate it themselves.

Since you used "verily", I'm going to assume you're motivated by your love of the KJV. I love the KJV too and I've been defending it here. Doesn't mean you have to jump on everything that differs from it.

Odd how classical translations like Syriac and Latin transcribed it but the Reformation era ones did not.

Lol actually in Syriac it would have been a cognate word, silly me.

Recommending the "Tree of Life" version, the DRB, NAB and Evangelical Heritage version is changing God's word though. That's what the post did.
All I meant there was taking the established meaning of a word and expanding it. It's really not something that should compel you to use corrupted versions like the "Tree of Life" version or whatever else. But according to that post, what he cares about is this and all the other major changes between these versions he couldn't care less about. And not only that, but he would even come onto a board and recommend others use these versions.
All I'm asking is for people to apply a similar level of reasoning to the whole scripture and realize that all the modern changes that are out there go far beyond such cases as this. There are major instances of deleted and changed words that affect major doctrine to be considered. To recommend four different, conflicting versions then is a case of great irresponsibility.

For instance, the "TLV" and others delete the words "but after the Spirit" from Romans 8:1. They delete the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. They delete the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22. Some of them change the words "I must work" to "We must work" in John 9:4. These are of great significance and it's just the tip of the iceberg of changes. How can you recommend multiple bibles at once when they don't even say the same things in these places.

user didn't recommend it as much as suggest the irony or such of it having the 'amen'. The rest were mentioned for including it and the Lutheran one was recommended to OP.

Your deliberate exclusion of the reasons for this is the real omission.

Attached: spurgeoncigarad.gif (434x267, 64.85K)

So are we splitting hairs over this, but meanwhile ignoring all the massive faults in differences between the versions? He recommended it in that he failed to mention these glaring faults and only spoke positively about it. He only spoke positively about these translations, as if they all agreed.

Again, he only spoke positively about them and gave the impression that they all said the same thing, to the point that they could be listed together.

But the reality is each of them is vastly different from each other and each has many more significant departures than this. Why is that undeniable fact so loosely regarded?


The reasons for what? What is this vague insinuation? Why are you being so ambiguous, is it because you have absolutely no idea what you're saying?

In case you didn't know better, each of the "versions" mentioned handles all four passages differently. The "TLV" and "NAB" remove more from Romans 8:1 than what I mentioned. They remove "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The DRB only removes "but after the Spirit" but includes the rest. So which is it?

Only some of them remove Mark 10:24, but the DRB only removes Matthew 5:22, so which is it? The EHV meanwhile keeps both Matthew 5:22 and Mark 10:24, yet it removes all of the parts from Romans 8:1. So which variation is it in each of these places, and why would you include them all in the same list when none agree, even on these few (very important) places? And moreover, why would you act like these differences don't exist and allow the possibility that someone would use the wrong Scripture? And beyond that, why would you make ambiguous objections to someone who was trying to correct this situation and ambiguously oppose them without being able to say anything?

Oh user, there's no need to be so forthright all the time, what joy is life then? Such stringency is best reserved for more solemn events.

Attached: images.jpeg (284x177, 6.52K)