|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:07 pm
 |
|
|
|
oiu251 i heard the esv and king james versions are reliable but not sure what's the best bible question i never planned on getting a bible because i thought it'd be more convenient to read online translations but i noticed my head hurts when i'm always on my laptop......
Best?
I wouldn't say there is a "best" version. They all have their pros/cons. Some are more "word-for-word" translations, others take a more "thought-for-thought" approach, some are a balance of both. The NIV, for example, is a balance of both. Versions like the NASB, ESV and KJV lean more towards "word-for-word". There's a continuum here listed on this website: http://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide. The most accurate "word-for-word" translation would be an interlinear bible. An example of what the interlinear looks like: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm (not the smoothest reading, but a great study tool). Note: Hebrew reads from right-to-left, not left-to-right, so you'll have to start reading the English at the right-hand side).
KJV issue
My biggest pet peeve with the KJV is that it doesn't directly translate from the Hebrew and Greek consistently; the manuscript they translated from (the Textus Receptus) contains back translations from the Latin. As a result, you have random Latin words left untranslated in some places. This becomes problematic with passages like Isaiah 14:12. It's precisely because of this inconsistent translating from Latin into English (and leaving things in Latin) that Christian culture has adopted the word “lucifer” as a personal name for the devil (from the prophecy against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14), even though the same word "lucifer" is used of Jesus in 2nd Peter 1:19 in the Latin Vulgate—a glaring indicator that the word "lucifer" is not anyone's personal name; so, we cannot use "lucifer" to exclusively refer to the devil or as a name.
I'll post screenshots below in a spoiler tag to illustrate what I mean (if you see a police emoticon, click it).
As you can see, instead of translating "lucifer" as “day star” in Isaiah 14:12, the KJV left the Latin word untranslated as “lucifer”. But they didn't just leave it untranslated, they capitalized it too, to make it seem like a name. This becomes an issue when people notice that the word “lucifer” even gets applied to Jesus in the Latin Vulgate in 2 Peter 1:19. (And maybe that's why I have run into people thinking that Jesus and the devil are one in the same? Sigh). All "lucifer" means is “day star / morning star”. It's a descriptive title used of someone in power that was given glory and splendor (e.g. the King of Babylon and Jesus). Side note: the word "morning star" itself is even used of the angels in Job 38:7 (though the Latin of this verse doesn't use the word "lucifer" here, but the phrase "astra matutina"). Clearly though, "lucifer" cannot be a personal name for the devil if Peter is writing that the "lucifer" should arise in our hearts. Jesus should arise in our hearts, not the devil—and yet it's the same word. Ergo, again, "lucifer" is not a name and I wish people would stop using it as such burning_eyes . Not only did I fall into the erroneous usage, but atheists can call you out on it and make you look ignorant as a result.
My Recommendation
That said, I'd go with an NIV, ESV, or NASB (or another word-for-word translation that consistently translates from Hebrew → English and Greek → English). They're particularly useful when studying the difference between Hades (the realm of the dead), Gehenna (the lake of fire), and Tartarus (the dark, gloomy dungeon where angels are imprisoned), three different places which the KJV translators decided to all translate as "hell", as if they were all the same place (even though one you have to be alive, and thus brought back into a body, in order to experience...and one no humans enter, it's just where the imprisoned angels are). The KJV has no footnotes alerting you of the differing Greek terminology; thus creating confusion (or leaving you in confusion) about (1) where the unrighteous go upon death and (2) what happens at the resurrection once we come out of the realm of the dead, thus no longer dead. Reading the KJV, you'd be left with the impression that the same "hell" people go to upon death (both the righteous and the wicked) is the same "hell" as the lake of fire, but it's not. If you're interested in reading more about that, I'll link you to this thread where I made a reply pointing out where those different terms appear, along with their Old Testament equivalents: [Just a question.]). I don't think I mentioned Tartarus here though. The verse mentioning "Tartarus" is 2 Peter 2:4. The NIV has a helpful footnote. Whereas, for Gehenna, the NASB is the one with the helpful footnote: [Matthew 5:29]. As you can see, the modern translations are more helpful than the KJV concerning this topic.
So, for accuracy, I'd go with a modern "word-for-word" translation. One more time: the link to the helpful continuum of bible translations ordered from most "word-for-word" to most "thought-for-thought" (Bible Translation Guide).
edited |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
