Does the Bible version you are using...

[Gail]

shape your theology?

I've heard it said that you cannot prove Adventist theolgoy with an NIV Bible. I have no idea if it is true or not.

But I wonder if studying using a New American Bible (for Catholics- says that right on the cover) would predispose you to seeing things in a Roman Catholic light, or whether an NIV would lean you towards an Evangelical view.

[Guest]

In my opinion the NIV should not be used for study. Maybe for some light reading, but nothing where you would need to be accurate.

I stick with King James versions. KJV, NKJV, and KJ2000. But the most accurate is the plain ol KJV.

[Musicman1228]

In my opinion the NIV should not be used for study. Maybe for some light reading, but nothing where you would need to be accurate.

I stick with King James versions. KJV, NKJV, and KJ2000. But the most accurate is the plain ol KJV.

I don't want to get into a big argument over this as we have done enough of that in other places. I will say that from a scholarly perspective (and in my opinion) the KJV is one of the least accurate translation available, and is right there with the NIV (the Non-Inspired Version). The NKJV is pretty good, as long as you read the footnotes on the translation.

The most accurate and readable version today (I believe) is the New American Standard Bible. However, if you are going to really study Scripture you MUST have at least 5 or 6 versions, and a Strong's for both Hebrew and Greek. These are easy enough to obtain through E-Sword online. (The NASB is not yet available for Macs, but is available for PC's for a donation of $20.)

[Guest]

I have more translations than that, and I use them when needed. But you are wrong about the KJV. Imagine that.

[Woody]

All the versions have their place. I mostly use the King James version just because that is what I grew up with and memorized. But I like the NIV and others. The King James is by no means the most accurate. But then we really don't need a contest.

[Guest]

John317 said this:

Quote:

Except for the New King James Version, all modern translations are basically translations of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That includes the New American Standard Version and the English Standard Version. The Critical Text is really just an updated edition of the WH Text.

Quote:

The King James Version was translated from Erasmus' Greek Text (1519). It's known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and is similar to the Majority Text. Both are based on the Byzantine text-type. His Greek Text was based on a collation of a handful of Greek manuscripts, none of which were dated to before the 12th century. But we know today that those manuscripts were representative of the the vast majority of Greek manuscripts being used in the Christian church.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type

The KJV2000 is based on the same texts as the KJV, since the editors of the KJV2000 didn't take manuscript evidence into account in their updating of the vocabulary.

[SivartM]

I think that some translations try to interpret too much rather than simply accurately translate the original thought. The HCSB and NLT do, anyway.

[Gail]

This weekend I finished a book on prayer. The author used the Message Bible and most of the verses had no resemblance whatsoever to the KJV that I usually use. How can that happen? How can a translation not only not be similar but way off different?

[Guest]

This weekend I finished a book on prayer. The author used the Message Bible and most of the verses had no resemblance whatsoever to the KJV that I usually use. How can that happen? How can a translation not only not be similar but way off different?

It sounds like the Message Bible is paraphrased, which is basically just someone's opinion.

[John317]

shape your theology?

Interesting question. We might ask if the fact that the early Adventists used the KJV had any affect on the development of SDA doctrines.

Quote:

I've heard it said that you cannot prove Adventist theolgoy with an NIV Bible. I have no idea if it is true or not.

If a person went just by the NIV, they might have a few problems with Adventist theology, but if they study the NIV along with the Greek and a few other good translations, they wouldn't have any problems. Some of the verses that I refer to are Hebrews 9: 8, 12, 25. The most accurate translation of these verses reads, "sanctuary," "holies," or "holy place." The best translations of these verses are given by the New American Bible (Catholic), RSV, NRSV, NASV, KJV, Christian Community Bible (Catholic); Confraternity (Catholic), Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

Quote:

But I wonder if studying using a New American Bible (for Catholics- says that right on the cover) would predispose you to seeing things in a Roman Catholic light, or whether an NIV would lean you towards an Evangelical view.

Actually, the New American Bible is one of the most accurate translations made, but of course it is translated from the Critical Text, a descendent of the Westcott and Hort Text. It is easy to study SDA doctrines from that translation. There's nothing wrong with it as a translation; it's the notes that are sometimes the problem.

I do think that if one only reads the NIV and nothing else, it might tend to lead a person in the direction of the Evangelical view.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gail

This weekend I finished a book on prayer. The author used the Message Bible and most of the verses had no resemblance whatsoever to the KJV that I usually use. How can that happen? How can a translation not only not be similar but way off different?

It sounds like the Message Bible is paraphrased, which is basically just someone's opinion.

Yeah, a paraphrase doesn't claim to be a translation. Paraphrases are more like commentaries. They have a place but shouldn't be used as study Bibles. I believe the author of the Message Bible even tells readers this in his Introduction.

[Gerr]

shape your theology?

I would hope not. Right now my primary study Bible is the ESV, but my Logos software has over a dozen translations, interlinear, Strong's, and other aids for knowing what the original languages meant.

Quote:

I've heard it said that you cannot prove Adventist theology with an NIV Bible. I have no idea if it is true or not.

My recollection of the NIV when I was using it as my primary study Bible was that there were too many mistranslations of the word for sanctuary in Hebrews so that, yes, our sanctuary doctrine would be difficult to prove using the NIV alone. The NIV has Jesus going to the Most Holy place right away, if I remember correctly.

[John317]

HEY ALL

SOME bible versions are paraphrase

THOSE we should not consider the JEHOVAH WITNESS

has their own bible the CATHOLICS VERSIONS

but we need to pray for GOD'S GUIDANCE as for

which bible is best for each of us

The JW's New World Translation is more "literal" than most and is often quite accurate. However, there are also places where it is inaccurately translated-- particularly, for instance, in those verses dealing with Christ's deity. The translators had no formal training in Hebrew, and only one translator had some training in NT Greek. Consequently, the NWT is among the worst as far as beauty of style is concerned. Their twenty-third Psalm, for example, says, " With oil You grease my head," etc.

As for Catholic versions, such as the New American Bible, it is one of the most accurate and faithful to the Greek Critical Text, the same text upon which the New American Standard is based. Catholic translators are generally among the best. Their problem is their study notes and the fact that they include the Deuterocanonical books. The NIV is based on an eclectic Greek text, meaning that they use a variety of printed Greek texts.

[Guest]

That's interesting John.

[John317]

SDA ministers usually train in the Critical Text.

I myself prefer the Majority Text, yet I use both.

If a person is accustomed to the KJV, they probably won't like the Catholic translations although not because they are not accurately translated but because they leave out quite a few phrases and words found in the KJV.

Despite those differences, though, you could teach from Catholic Bible's the doctrines that SDAs believe in.

And if the JW is willing to look closely at the Greek text and at some of older editions of the NWT, I could teach SDA doctrines to a JW from their own poor translation. It's all there. Even their attempts to change the teachings of the Bible haven't been able to erase the truth!!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I have reservations about the KJV translation due to the Comma Johanneum that Erasmus included on his own in his translation..

[Guest]

I like the NKJV.

[olger]

Double dittos.

gg

[John317]

I probably use it and the KJV more than any single translation, but runner ups for me are (get ready!) the NASB, the RSV, the NIV, and the New American Bible. I had a book-binder make a Bible for me that has the KJV, NRSV and the NASB.

By the way, there's a really good one called King James II, translated by Jay P. Green, Sr. It's virtually the same as the KJV, except that it updates the language. It's better than the NKJV.

Baker Books publishes a wonderful Interlinear by Jay P. Green, and it gives the Received Greek Text, the basis of the KJV, along with a literal translation and KJV.

The NKJV does have some problems, though. See Hebrews 9: 8, 12, 25. Just goes to show you there's no perfect translation under the sun. Always best to use several good ones.

[Twilight]

KJV here...

I have trouble remembering texts as it is, without reading 10 different variations of each text...

Mark

[phkrause]

I've read a few different one's. The KJ bible just irrates me to try and read. I've read the Word, the LT, now reading through the NLT. Have read the New English Bible, and have read parts of the NIV, which I really like reading. But I've been reading the Complete Tanach with commentary by Rashi (which is only the OT for us Christians) and have bought the Complete Jewish Bible by David H. Stern which is the O and N Testaments. Most Jews if not all do not except the Christian Bibles. So they recommend these last two Bible's because they are translated from the original Hebrew by Jews that know the Hebrew and not people that have learned Hebrew. I don't find that many difference's but there are difference's.

pk

[tall73]

If a person went just by the NIV, they might have a few problems with Adventist theology, but if they study the NIV along with the Greek and a few other good translations, they wouldn't have any problems. Some of the verses that I refer to are Hebrews 9: 8, 12, 25. The most accurate translation of these verses reads, "sanctuary," "holies," or "holy place." The best translations of these verses are given by the New American Bible (Catholic), RSV, NRSV, NASV, KJV, Christian Community Bible (Catholic); Confraternity (Catholic), Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

You note the KJV but even it renders TA hAGIWN as holiest of all.

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing

Ew, this forum doesn't seem to work well with unicode Greek text.

[tall73]

shape your theology?

My personal gripe with the NIV is that it smooths out too many idioms.

For instance:

KJV 1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1PE 1:13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

One would "gird up their loins" by tucking their robe in their belt to get ready to move. Moving in a robe is a pain!

But when you are reading wouldn't you rather see "gird up the loins of your mind" than "prepare your minds for action"?

The NIV is trying to get the point across but they miss an interesting illustration.

The NIV is a dynamic equivalent so sometimes it will actually get a better idea of the Greek by putting one literal word into multiple words, which is something the KJV etc. tries to avoid. Some Greek words don't translate well into one English word. And the NIV actually reads as good English. But for me I think the NIV goes too far in smoothing things out. I prefer more of the Greek word order to be retained and more of the nuances and idoms.

[phkrause]

Here's how the Complete Jewish Bible read's: "Therefore, get your minds ready for work, keep yourselves under control, and fix your hopes fully on the gift you will receive when Yeshua the Messiah is revealed."

pk