/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

2011 NIV isn't low tier. I've come to appreciate parts of it. It's very similar to 1984, and isn't even as "gender-neutral" as the NRSV, which you placed higher. And certainly more traditional than the NRSV, which had nothing but mainline scholars working on it.

>>827308

Same goes for the Catholic NAB, which you mentioned. Those are the post pozzed footnotes ever, and I don't know any self-respecting Catholic who likes them either. Strangely, they even took out "virgin" from Isaiah 7:14. Something you wouldn't expect from Catholics, but V2 has rotted their brains.

>>827308

>>827309

NRSV and NAB both have a niche. 2011 NIV is just in a useless middle ground. NRSV is the academic world's preferred choice, NAB (& NABRE) is the mainstream roman catholic choice.

Just my opinion of course. I don't use either.

>>827311

I don't care if it's their preferred choice. They're all iconoclasts and feminists, with a readership of faggot boomers and fedora tippers. It's not a niche anyone in the Church should help (but alas… that's where we are now).

NABRE 4 LYFE

New Jerusalem bible is pretty awesome. It doesn’t use “LORD” but actually lets you see the divine name based on how it’s used in each time period. The Tree of Life is similar to that too and uses the old OT order.

I enjoyed the RSV as well. The NASB was interesting but a little too void of the emotion and poetic majesty of others.

Not a huge King James fan - it’s cool for its historical legend but there’s a lot of biased/reckless or just plain wrong translations that set a bad precedent (e.g. “God creates evil” “Jehovah” “witches”)

I liked the NLT better than the NIV but don’t hate them. They have their purpose.

Ultimately I prefer Septuagint translations now that we know the Septuagint is actually older than the Masoronic.

The ASV was important also as it was the basis for the RSV from where the ESV and the NRSV are derived and also for the NASB and WEB. The American KJV is more faithful to the original KJ. Some other translations that haven't been mentioned that are interesting for their own particular interpretative takes are the Darby Bible, Murdock's Pes—ta NT, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Young's Literal Translation, and the Wycliffe Bible.

>>827333

>Pes—ta

Lol, should try to do something about that filter.

>>827307

Looks accurate to me.

>>827316

The NASB I my view has a more emphasized rendering compared to the RSV and ESV; which would probably be a reason why it's often taken as being "literal".

The NASB is great overall, but I won't own one for one thing. The infamous "monogenes theos" of John 1:18. It's adherence to literalism, coupled with dogged devotion to Alexandrian readings, lends to the same reading as the Jehovah's Witness bible.

>"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

>

The traditional text is "only begotten Son". Even the earliest witnesses, from the 100s-200s, like Irenaeus and Clement and Tertullian read it as "son" here. Not to mention the overwhelming number of later church fathers from Jerome, Chrysostom, etc… It's a good example of why I dislike textual criticism when it's so focused on manuscripts by themselves. As if commentaries are less valuable. That's rooted in anti-Church bias, where they treat the text in some vacuum, removed from any actual tradition or people who were stewards of the text.

"Only begotten God" isn't even consistent with John's own Father/Son language he uses throughout his gospel. It stands out like a sore thumb and this phrase shows up nowhere else.

I don't mind this in a footnote or some interesting medium of the two readings, but on it's own, it sets me off for some reason.

>>827341

>"Only begotten God" isn't even consistent with John's own Father/Son language he uses throughout his gospel.

μονογενὴς Θεὸς could also be rendered as "the unique God" or, I would venture to guess, "the unique Child of God."

μονο = singular, one

γενὴς = offspring/kind/type

So even with this reading, I don't see how it causes a problem except in how many modern translations are rendering it. What I personally dislike is the traditional emphasis on the word begotten. People just don't talk like that anymore. It doesn't communicate.

>Even the earliest witnesses

I'd like to know which manuscripts you're referring to so I can look at them.

>>827341

That's not true, "only-begotten God" is also used by Irenaeus, Clement, and Eusebius and is present in Papyrus Bodmer II/P66 and some texts of largely otherwise majority readings. For all that is known, the "only-begotten Son" reading could just as well lend itself to an Arianist interpretation.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/6/should-john-118-read-the-only-begotten-god

>>827352

Well, I'm more confused now. But I'm relying on Schaff's English translation with Irenaeus:

>"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."

>-Against Heresies, 3:11:6

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

>>827316

>New Jerusalem bible is pretty awesome.

Didn't Tolkien help with the translations or editing on that?

>>827357

He helped with the original Jerusalem Bible, on the book of Jonah, but I think he was consulted for style in a general sense too.

>>827355

Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 11

>>827360

I see. It appears he was already dealing with two variations in his own day (some scholars suspect it was originally just bad copying.. since Son/heios and God/theos look similar at a glance in Greek). Either that, or Irenaeus' later copyists were dealing with multiple sources.

I heard the NASB may not even use this in their newest revision (apparently coming up this year or so).

>>827367

>since Son/heios and God/theos look similar at a glance in Greek

Seems unlikely.

υἱός

θεός

ΥΙΟΣ

ΘΕΟΣ

I'm really not seeing how they look similar.

>>827370

They look similar enough that a tired scribe already working for hours could slip up for a moment and get confused.

I prefer the NRSV and use it when citing verses here. I also have an ESV Gideon bible. I'd probably rank the KJV higher than a mere honorable mention since it's the source of almost all bible memes.

Also, I've heard multiple people endorse the NASB, claiming it's both readable and close to the Septuagint. Is that why you're calling it top tier?

>>827307

What that chart fails to show though is that the new bibles are based off of different manuscripts than the KJV

>>827307

I own three translations myself: KJV, CEB, and NRSV.

I prefer KJV, NKJV, and NLT.

KJV is the best.

Only the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims bear the Bishop's imprimatur, so this is easy.

I don't see the Knox Bible in there.

Is there a material difference in the teachings you get out of all these different Bibles?

If not, why bother?

if so, then which ones are not inspired and which ones are inspired?

>>833716

Accurate translations represent the inspired word of God, while those based on corrupted manuscripts or sources should be avoided.

>>833735

How do I know the correct from the corrupt? The same reason I know the Bible is correct to begin with.

But you might ask what reasons there might be to know what is a later corruption. That's easy enough to answer because modern versions weren't around until the mid to late 19th century, yet God said in the same Scripture that his words shall never pass away. So any version that was left buried for 1000 or more years with nobody knowing it has to be corrupt, or else God would have preserved it. I have only ever believed there was one truth, and it hasn't changed through the ages.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Rsvce is good.

>>827307

Few questions:

What makes the NASB more literal than the ESV?

What do the dotted lines represent? Influence from an older Bible translation? Is that good or bad?

Are the different source texts better than each other? If so, wouldn't translations based solely on the "Greek Text" be the best?

>>833746

>Are the different source texts better than each other? If so, wouldn't translations based solely on the "Greek Text" be the best?

Yes.

>Influence from an older Bible translation? Is that good or bad?

It's neutral because back in those days the language was in a state of being defined, for instance Tyndale coined hundreds of new words such as "passover." The fact this influenced how later translations chose to translate into English is considered neutral.

The chart isn't even accurate though. It doesn't even take into account the fact that Stephanus' more accurate Greek text that corrected a few mistakes in Erasmus was used for the Geneva Bible of 1560. Stephanus and Beza were two scholars who did a much better job compiling the manuscripts than Erasmus did. Erasmus in 1516 was in a hurry to publish before the Complutensian Polyglot and who was mainly concerned about getting his version of the Latin published, while the Greek column was not the main focus for him. In fact, Tyndale's translation wasn't even based on Erasmus' 1516 Greek text but primarily on his 1523 edition. Stephanus and Beza's work was not reliant upon, and actually corrected several things that Erasmus had missed. The chart fails to show any of that.

In fact the chart needs a complete rework. Tyndale actually translated the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch in his 2nd edition of his Bible in 1534. What Coverdale did was translate the rest of the Old Testament from the Latin and German into English, so his contribution did not have any more influence on the KJV than Tyndale himself did. Furthermore, the Matthew Bible was the first to contain in it Tyndale's unpublished translations of Joshua thru 2 Chronicles, and that did influence the KJV, but only as far as the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles were influenced. Meanwhile, the Great Bible was based on the Coverdale Bible but it had some additions from the Vulgate added because it was the state-approved version of the time, while the Bishops' Bible was much closer and extremely close to the received text. The Geneva and Bishops' Bibles were based primarily on Stephanus Greek New Testament of 1550/1551, with the 1551 edition containing the verse divisions, while they took translational precedent from Tyndale/Matthew Bible and in the case of Bishops' Bible also from Great Bible. The KJV was based textually not only on Stephanus 1550 but also Theodore Beza's 1598 Greek text, as well as Elias Hutter's 1599 "Nuremburg Polyglot" while taking a common translation from Geneva and Bishops' Bibles.

NKJV uses an eclectic text and is not actually based on the KJV except superficially. It is based on Rudolf Kittel's 1906 Biblia Hebraica in the Old Testament and an eclectic form of the Greek New Testament.

The so-called Greek Text that the modern versions use, includes a small number of corrupt manuscripts that have changed the readings in thousands of places and removed dozens of entire verses and sentences.

>What makes the NASB more literal than the ESV?

I dunno. Some guy is just trying to subtly tell you that its acceptable to use any translation in the chart depending on your taste.

>>833748

So if I am reading your posts correctly, you are saying that the bibles based on the "Greek Text" are less (or not) reliable since the Greek Text has corruptions?

>>833751

Not at all. I'm just saying that where that chart says "greek text" in the upper part where it says "based on over 5,500 MSS" it is actually including things there that were lost until the mid 1800s. Those extra sources are the things that are corrupt. I'm saying the chart is misleading. The chart tries to act like these extra added texts are legitimate by calling them under one name and merely increasing the number of manuscripts. That's not the character of what actually happened.

The actual Greek text that we have always had is best. For example, Vetus Latina and Wessex Gospels are some translations we have from before the year 1000, that were translated from the same sources back then. Those translations are based on same source (the Greek Text) that the KJV and other Bible translations use.

The point then is, people should not add in later corruptions and pretend like they have expanded into a superior library which is what the chart does. The extra stuff they added in the year 1880, to make those "modern versions" at the top is not preserved or received according to prophecy that God will preserve his word. See these passages:

Matthew 24:35

>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 16:17

>And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

>>833760

>Those translations are based on same source (the Greek Text) that the KJV and other Bible translations use.

Stop being a poser. You don't even read Latin or Greek. If you did, you wouldn't say something like this.

You guys are worse than amateurs. You're prideful amateurs. You speak completely out of turn, and do nothing but slander others who've actually devoted their service, time and work to God into this subject.