G'day all.

Oh, great. Another Bible version thread. :-)

Nigel's response was excellent, but since I disagree with him in a couple of details, here's an alternative opinion.

First off, there are many fine English Bible translations around. What goes in to your choice for a translation is a lot of issues, including typographical issues (font size, page layout), convenience (what does my church/study group use?), availability of reference materials keyed to it (concordances, commentaries etc) and so on.

I don't mind you using any translation, really, so long as you understand and recognise the limitations of the translation that you are using, and don't use it in a way that was not intended. The NIV does not claim to be formal, the Good News Bible doesn't claim to be suitable for theological study, the KJV doesn't claim to be free from translation error. (Don't believe me on that last point? Why not read the preface to the 1611 edition written by the translators.) To help reduce the limitations, use more than one translation. In fact, choose different kinds of translation (eg one "formal" translation like the NRSV or NASB and one "dynamic" translation like the NIV or NJ).

(Nigel B. Mitchell) writes:
* Are you saying there are better mainstream Bibles around than KJV ?

How shall I put this.
YESS!
Absolutely.

Talking about language change first, let's see if you can guess what the following words mean, all from the KJV:

- chambering (Rom 13:13)
- churl (Isa 32:7)
- cockatrice (Isa 11:8)
- cotes (2 Chr 32:28)
- wot (Rom 11:2)
- wist (Acts 12:9)
- sackbut (Dan 3:5)
- brigadine (Jer 46:4)
- amerce (Deut 22:19)
- crookbackt (Lev 21:20)
- habergeon (Job 41:26)
- the scall (Lev 13:30)
- superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21)

(Examples from Dr Edward Palmer.)

Here's a more serious example, where the KJV wording means something the precise OPPOSITE of what was intended if read by a modern reader:

[2 Thess 2:7 KJV] ...he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

[2 Thess 2:7 NIV] ...the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way.

Some more examples (from Jack Lewis). What do these verses seem to say to a modern reader?

[Psalm 5:6 KJV] Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing.

[1 Kings 11:1 KJV] Solomon loved many strange women.

[Ezekiel 27:25 KJV] The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market.

Okay, enough of those. The point that I'm trying to make here is that studying Elizabethan English is akin to studying a language such as Tok Pisin. If you're willing to learn a whole new vocabulary to read your English translation, you're better off learning Greek or Hebrew.

* There are many excellent modern translations available today, and unless you have a good command of the original languages (or even if you do) it is wise not to restrict yourself to just one.

Correct. I'd pick at least two, one 'formal' translation (such as NRSV or NASB) and one 'dynamic' translation (such as NJ or NIV). * I have posted on this before, and it has turned into a major thread, which it may do again, but for the record:

* I prefer the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) as my 'translation of choice', as it represents the widest and most comprehensive scholarship.

Agreed. Besides, anything with Metzger's name in it can't possibly be wrong. :-)

* The only qualification I have against the NRSV is the use of inclusive language (for people, but not for God). I think this is pastorally appropriate, but in Bible study I have to constantly mentally translate the words back into the original to get the sense of the author's words. The NRSV is a fairly mechanical translation (ie one word in English for each word in Hebrew/Greek), so the language is not always beautiful but it is usually accurate.

One proviso here: There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation of the Bible into English. There are no English words which correspond to certain Greek or Hebrew terms, so you have to use multiple words, reorder words and so on. Also, certain grammatical constructions may require wordy explanation to get across the point. Example:

[1 Corinthians 12:29 RSV] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

This is an almost word-for-word translation. (More correctly, it's a _formal_ translation.) However, the NASB translation (which is also a formal translation) is much closer to the sense of the Greek:

[1 Corinthians 12:19 NASB] All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

I'd also make the point that the NRSV is not as 'readable' as some other translations, by which I mean that it's harder to just sit down and read the NRSV. I also think that it's harder to listen to the NRSV being read than a more dynamic translation like the NIV. Although I use the NRSV the most for personal study, I prefer the NIV for pew use and group study.

* For devotional reading and as alternative versions for use in worship I like the New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised English Bible (in that order of preference), both of which make much more poetic use of the language.

New Jerusalem is excellent, and I love the study notes in the study edition. Also, some people (such as myself) prefer the Jerusalem Bible layout to the 'traditional' Bible page design. Haven't checked out the REB. The NEB (the "word of Dodd") had some problems as I recall, but I can't remember what they were.

* To check the accuracy and nuance of a passage I also make use of the NIV (New International Version), which is very good, although sometimes its obvious protestant bias shows through in ways I find annoying.

Would you like to give an example?

* I discourage my students, parishioners and group members from using the following versions of the Bible, for the following reasons.
King James/ Authorised/ 1611 version.

Practically nobody uses the 1611 version. Those who think they do are almost invariably using Blayney's 1769 revision.

* I know of no other book where people would choose to use a translation nearly 400 years old when there was a more up- to- date one available.

The Book of Common Prayer? *duck*

* Good News Bible
This version was originally prepared for people for whom English was not their first language.

And it serves that purpose extremely well. Unfortunately there are still churches who use this in pews. This has always struck me as a strange decision.

It's also good for young children, although the reduced vocabulary NIV which has come out recently may make the TEV unnecessary even for this use.

* It is often simplistic in its presentation of Biblical material, because it has a very limited vocabulary, and most of the people with whom I work are capable of reading a more demanding version.

Once again, context is important when deciding which are the most suitable translations for you.

* NKJV (New King James Version)
This is really just an update of the 1611 version into slightly more modern English, but deliberately maintaining the same doctrinal stance and rendering the most conservative interpretation of all doubtful passages.

I think you're partly right. It's not "just an update of the 1611 version" at all. The KJV New Testament text was a later edition of Erasmus' text (usually referred to as the Textus Receptus). The NKJV uses the majority text, which is related but different in important ways. Also, it has what's probably the best set of textual footnotes that you'll find in any English translation. What's more, it's extremely readable.

I wouldn't use it as a 'most preferred' translation, or even a second choice.

* This is the Bible to use if your doctrine is based on the KJV and you want to keep it that way, but if you are interested in having your mind opened to the richness and possibilities of God's word, there is a whole world out there.

While I disagree with those who believe that the MT is the 'correct' Greek text to use, I understand the position and I do believe that it is consistent. (Though the argument for the TR is extremely weak IMO.) If you really do want 'your mind opened to the richness and possibilities of God's word', include this. If nothing else, it will give you an insight into the thought processes of scribes.

* Two final comments-

1. As I said at the beginning, whilst it is good to find a version that suits your doctrinal stance and preference for prose/ poetry style, every person would be wise to consult more than one version to get a feel for the range and nuances of meanings which can be drawn from the scriptures.

Wholeheartedly agree. The point I'm making is that this goes both ways.

* 2. I think that every Christian's Bible should contain the Apocrypha (which the original 1611 version of the KJV did, strangely enough).

Not quite sure if you meant this the way it appears.

I think that every Christian who takes Bible study seriously should have at least one good English translation of the Apocrypha and the deutero-canonical texts. However I'd fall short of suggesting every single Bible.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage