NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your favorite Bible Translation? I feel like getting a collection of different ones so any advice would be appreciated.

Personally, I like the NRSV, though the NAB, and the Jersusalem are also favorites.

P.S. Please forgive me if you think my poll options are crap, I can only post the ones I know...

I've only got the King James but I've read a little from Good News. King James is better.

I've only got the King James but I've read a little from Good News. King James is better.

There are a couple of Good News passages I like, but most of it is pretty bad.

Why do I get the feeling the King James is gonna be the most popular?

There are a couple of Good News passages I like, but most of it is pretty bad.

Why do I get the feeling the King James is gonna be the most popular?
In this order...

NRSV
NIV
NASB

Of course I'm just gussing, I'm thinking the really hard core KJ people don't go to many forums :)

Woo!!! Go God!!! Yeah!!! :D

In this order...

NRSV
NIV
NASB

Of course I'm just gussing, I'm thinking the really hard core KJ people don't go to many forums :)

Go the NRSV!

The NIV is pretty good as well

What is the NASB?

Woo!!! Go God!!! Yeah!!! :D

Well, his heart is in the right place, if nothing else... :rolleyes:

I prefer the NASB (New American Standard Bible) or the NLT (New Living Translation).

Go the NRSV!

The NIV is pretty good as well

What is the NASB?

NASB (new american standard bible) (more or less catholic than the NAB, I forget which) I'll change that to the NAB since you didn't list the NASB, I saw the word American and assumed I knew which one you were listing. My bust.

New International.

NASB (new american standard bible) (more or less catholic than the NAB, I forget which) I'll change that to the NAB since you didn't list the NASB, I saw the word American and assumed I knew which one you were listing. My bust.

So it's a relation of the NAB?

New International.

The NIV is a good translation and all, but what really gives me the shits about it is, though it claims to inter-denomiational, it takes pride in the fact that there were no Catholics on its board of translators. :mad:

The NIV is a good translation and all, but what really gives me the shits about it is, though it claims to inter-denomiational, it takes pride in the fact that there were no Catholics on its board of translators. :mad:


What the NASB says about itself:

Since its completion in 1971, the New American Standard Bible has been widely acclaimed as “the most literally accurate translation” from the original languages. Millions of people, students, scholars, pastors, missionaries, and laypersons alike, have trusted the NASB, learning from it and applying it to the challenges of their daily lives. With the NASB, anyone can discover what the original text really says, word for word, because it is considered the most literal translation of the Bible in the English language, consistently following the oldest and best manuscripts.

Instead of telling the reader what to think, the updated NASB provides the most precise translation with which to conduct a personal journey through the Word of God.



For fun, some samples:


1 Peter 2: 1-4
NRSV
Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. 2Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, …

1 Peter 2: 1-4
NIV
1Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
The Living Stone and a Chosen People
4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—

1 Peter 2: 1-4
NASB
1Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
2like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
3if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
As Living Stones
4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, …

1 Peter 2: 1-4
KJ
1Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, …

What the NASB says about itself:

Since its completion in 1971, the New American Standard Bible has been widely acclaimed as “the most literally accurate translation” from the original languages. Millions of people, students, scholars, pastors, missionaries, and laypersons alike, have trusted the NASB, learning from it and applying it to the challenges of their daily lives. With the NASB, anyone can discover what the original text really says, word for word, because it is considered the most literal translation of the Bible in the English language, consistently following the oldest and best manuscripts.



I trust the NRSV's claim to that throne, and I think it has held it pretty firmly since it was first published in 1989.

King James -- even though I'm nominally Catholic.

The language of the KJV is so much more beautiful than more modern translations.

I use the Oxford Annotated Bible, because it has the Apocrypha and it's not paraphrased so that something is lost in translation.

I like the King James (old style) for study, and The Message for an alternative to help me see new light in too-familiar passages.

If you are looking for a collection, may I suggest one of those 26-versions-in-one deals? Mine cost me 70 US dollars, but definately cheaper than buying each one seperately, and I bet you could get one used for a fraction of that. ISBN: 0-935491-00-7

I personally like the King James...I'm very non-religious, so I didn't read it for that...I read it because I'm an English major and got sick of missing allusions.

However, I found that King James version not only provides an accurate translation (not like some older versions that gave Moses horns instead of rays of light), but is also amazingly lyrical and beautifully written/translated

Woo!!! Go God!!! Yeah!!! :D

Yes, woo...

I don't like any of the Christian translations of the Bible.

They generally distort the original Hebrew.

This link details much of my reasoning:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq043.html

I like the New Jerusalem because its the only good english translation I could find that preserves the tetragrammaton (actually, it translates it as Yahweh), instead of changing it to 'the LORD'.

I also like the NIV. The NIRV is very good for children, and is the one I use when preparing lessons for kids.

I do not read Tanakh in English. I will occasionally make reference to the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation for those who don't understand Hebrew, but I read it and teach it to my children in its language.

Qur'an, however, well ... I'm still learning Arabic. :)

As much as I disagree with a lot of the translation practices it does sound poetical (king james)

I do not read Tanakh in English. I will occasionally make reference to the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation for those who don't understand Hebrew, but I read it and teach it to my children in its language.

Qur'an, however, well ... I'm still learning Arabic. :)


Well, I don't think you are taking into account the fact that:

i) Jesus was English,

ii) The KJV was divinely inspired, and approved, by God directly through the irrefutable doctorine of apostolic succession.

it's a fact ;)

The KJV version is by far the most lyrical and attractive text.

You COULD argue that it is less 'accurate' than some of the later translations, but they all rely on the conventions set up for this translation anyway, so you might as well read the 'nicest' one.

The KJV version is by far the most lyrical and attractive text.

You COULD argue that it is less 'accurate' than some of the later translations, but they all rely on the conventions set up for this translation anyway, so you might as well read the 'nicest' one.
Lol we even have the same opinion on choice of bibles :fluffle:

Lol we even have the same opinion on choice of bibles :fluffle:

:fluffle:

No surprise there. :D

I think they're all bunk. I don't trust translations. At all.
I feel I will never truly know the Word of God until I can read and comprehend ancient hebrew, aramaic, greek, and others.
It really kind of amuses me how Protestants (in general) abhor Catholicism (in general) and yet the scholars in King James' employ were working off the texts that had already been edited by the scholars in Constantine's employ. Yeah they threw out a few books that seemed, well, "catholic" but really, they were working off of texts that had been deemed worthy of inclusion. What about all the texts that had been thrown away before that point?
Rarely does anyone ever question if the translators got stuff wrong over the last 2000+ years.
Where's Grave N Idle when you need him? A wonderful source for biblical semantics!

I think they're all bunk. I don't trust translations. At all.
I feel I will never truly know the Word of God until I can read and comprehend ancient hebrew, aramaic, greek, and others.
It really kind of amuses me how Protestants (in general) abhor Catholicism (in general) and yet the scholars in King James' employ were working off the texts that had already been edited by the scholars in Constantine's employ. Yeah they threw out a few books that seemed, well, "catholic" but really, they were working off of texts that had been deemed worthy of inclusion. What about all the texts that had been thrown away before that point?
Rarely does anyone ever question if the translators got stuff wrong over the last 2000+ years.
Where's Grave N Idle when you need him? A wonderful source for biblical semantics!

Because it is irrelevant. Christian scripture is not a book, it is the mission of the apostles.

Well, I don't think you are taking into account the fact that:

i) Jesus was English,

ii) The KJV was divinely inspired, and approved, by God directly through the irrefutable doctorine of apostolic succession.

it's a fact ;)

rofl!

I thought Jesus was Welsh, actually, or maybe Cornish.

New Living Translation is nice if you want an easy read. NIV and NRSV are better for study.

The KJV version is by far the most lyrical and attractive text
Ahh! I should have read the thread through before posting. Good to know you're still about here!

How could it not be the most "lyrical" though (KJV)? Having been written by contemporaries of Spenser, Donne, Milton and Jonson?

I just read the Cliff notes and then watched the movie.

-snippage-

or maybe Cornish.

Thus making him english, obviously. ;)

Face it, his feet indeed, walked this ancient land &c.

Because it is irrelevant. Christian scripture is not a book, it is the mission of the apostles.

Yeah but even the apostles' message may have been screwed up. How do we get from the greatest commandment being "love thy neighbor" to "join THIS church or you will burn in Hell?"
My guess is that the message has been rightly skewered.

Thus making him english, obviously. ;)

Face it, his feet indeed, walked this ancient land &c.

Hey that's ok ... according to the Mormons, he was Native American, too. :D

I'm just wondering if he really drank that much whiskey.

Edit: I am not trying to offend. I can understand the idea of the living Jesus as being all things, I am just trying to put a humorous spin on things.

Hey that's ok ... according to the Mormons, he was Native American, too. :D

I'm just wondering if he really drank that much whiskey.

Edit: I am not trying to offend. I can understand the idea of the living Jesus as being all things, I am just trying to put a humorous spin on things.

Well given that the word whiskey is a corruption of the old tongue, and means "water of life" I would imagine that he did. A lot.

I just wish people would remember that they had their own tradtions before Billy Graham got on TV.

I am sure you understand.

I just wish people would remember that they had their own tradtions before Billy Graham got on TV.


Nuh uh! Billy Graham is the perfect Christian! So there! :p

hehehehe

Yeah but even the apostles' message may have been screwed up. How do we get from the greatest commandment being "love thy neighbor" to "join THIS church or you will burn in Hell?"
My guess is that the message has been rightly skewered.

That's why we need a unified effort to designate one language as God's language, then print the Bible in it and be done with it. Muslims have their Holy language, the Jews have theirs.. it's time we got ours! The NT is too open to interpretation, while the other religions get off easy by just saying that the book literally came from God's mouth, cutting out the middleman. I say God speaks English, or maybe Spanish, German or Tagalog. I can get by in any of those, so I'd be good with 'em. :)

AS I am studying to be a Pastor, with my eye eventually on a Docterate in Theology, I am required to learn Classical Hebrew, Aramiac and Coptic Greek. I have already taken Aramiac and Hebrew (at the same time-Aramiac is basically ebonics for Hebrew) and am starting Coptic Greek in the fall. I am also planning to study Latin and Classical Greek so that I can read the Church Fathers. Then, maybe German so that I can read the Reformers. I know, I kind of started with the hardest and am heading for the easier ones, but whatever.
So, though I started on KJV, and then went to NIV, then NKJV, then NLT, then NRSV, but right now, I am very much into old RSV and Luther's Vernacular.

But, for pure understanding of the text as written, it is all about the original languages.

WWJD
Amen.

Yeah but even the apostles' message may have been screwed up. How do we get from the greatest commandment being "love thy neighbor" to "join THIS church or you will burn in Hell?"
My guess is that the message has been rightly skewered.

Name me a church claims apostolic sucession that says "join this church and you will burn in hell" and we can talk.

None of them do however.

That's why we need a unified effort to designate one language as God's language, then print the Bible in it and be done with it. Muslims have their Holy language, the Jews have theirs.. it's time we got ours! The NT is too open to interpretation, while the other religions get off easy by just saying that the book literally came from God's mouth, cutting out the middleman. I say God speaks English, or maybe Spanish, German or Tagalog. I can get by in any of those, so I'd be good with 'em. :)
Ok sweet. Agreed. My thing is that we need to go way back. Undo all the translations to get at the root of the matter. I seriously doubt God speaks English, it's a rather infantile, ever-changing language. Oddly enogh, I feel that KJV would be nice, only because it rolls off the tongue so nicely. But honestly, if we're expending so much effort to make it sound good, isn't it possible that the actual message is being sacrificed for poetics? What's with that? What's more important? The message or the medium? (McLuhan afficianados need not apply).

AS I am studying to be a Pastor, with my eye eventually on a Docterate in Theology

Well ... hint:

Go to www.ulc.net

Get ordained, buy any religious degree you want.

They're just as valid in the US as any other.

Yeah, that's right. An online ordinaion/doctorate in religious things is 100% as valid in the US as anyting else you can do.

Have fun!

AS I am studying to be a Pastor, with my eye eventually on a Docterate in Theology, I am required to learn Classical Hebrew, Aramiac and Coptic Greek. I have already taken Aramiac and Hebrew (at the same time-Aramiac is basically ebonics for Hebrew) and am starting Coptic Greek in the fall. I am also planning to study Latin and Classical Greek so that I can read the Church Fathers. Then, maybe German so that I can read the Reformers. I know, I kind of started with the hardest and am heading for the easier ones, but whatever.
So, though I started on KJV, and then went to NIV, then NKJV, then NLT, then NRSV, but right now, I am very much into old RSV and Luther's Vernacular.

But, for pure understanding of the text as written, it is all about the original languages.

WWJD
Amen.

You could even try christianity, while you are trying all that.

snippage-addendum
Case in point.
I recently had an argumentaitve discussion with someone about the topic of "mesmerism." She had a very broad-based, rather fundamentalist Christian idea of mesmerism. I argued that The Bible-Paul, or whomever it was-couldn't possibly have anything to say about the topic of mesmerism because the concept hadn't even been thought of until the late 17th/early 18th centrury. It was named after Friedrich Mesmer (1733-1815). So how could early Christianity have anything to say about an idea that hadn't been concieved for centuries after the fact? She told me that it was in her Bible and that it came from God. What is that? Perhaps what had been recently translated as "mesmerism" had 1900 years ago had an entirely differnet meaning. Thus the message not being what you think it is, but something else entirely? Why is that such a diffucult concept to grasp?

Name me a church claims apostolic sucession that says "join this church and you will burn in hell" and we can talk.

None of them do however.
My [now deceased] sister belonged to a Baptist church that claimed just that. They didn't claim any kind of apostolic succession that I know of. But they basically told (and still tell) their newly converted that if they leave the flock they are ripe for picking by the Devil.

I just read the Cliff notes and then watched the movie.
Just caught that.
Cute.
:)

My [now deceased] sister belonged to a Baptist church that claimed just that. They didn't claim any kind of apostolic succession that I know of. But they basically told (and still tell) their newly converted that if they leave the flock they are ripe for picking by the Devil.

Okay, well if you don't have apostolic succession, you are not a Christian.

You see, Christ lives through the church, &c. Every legit church can trace its authority back to Jesus.

(at the same time-Aramiac is basically ebonics for Hebrew)
LOL. Good to know!

Fave phrase= a Mekonia is God! :)

Okay, well if you don't have apostolic succession, you are not a Christian.

You see, Christ lives through the church, &c. Every legit church can trace its authority back to Jesus.

In a weird way, you just proved her point.

Okay, well if you don't have apostolic succession, you are not a Christian.

You see, Christ lives through the church, &c. Every legit church can trace its authority back to Jesus.
This is a new concept for me. (grew up Catholic-took everything for granted). Enlighten me please!?
How does one trace a church's roots back to the Twelve? I suppose everyone can go back to Catholocism, thus to Peter. But really? Explain.

In a weird way, you just proved her point.

Not really, because all the churches that can claim apostolic succession, don't claim that they are the only way to heaven.

It's all ecumenincal and shit.

I would say that different translations are better for different bits. That's why if I have trouble connecting with a passage in one version, I'll read it in another. King James, for example, is great on the psalms because it was translated by people who actually knew about rhythm and metre and were therefore more able to translate the Jewish poetic tradition into English. NRSV is great on the gospels because it presents everything clearly without feeling the need to embelish phrases to make them more understandable.
NIV is great on the epistles because it has a bit more of a chatty kind of style.

The translations I can't abide are the ones that try and make the Bible 'cool.' The Message might be ok for some broad study but it just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. There's also the problem that it's all in American English.
The Street Bible scares the life out of me. It leaves out huge chunks of the Bible and is translated in a way that some very geeky, trying to be cool, middle-aged Christian might translate it. It's meant to be for teens but I wouldn't suggest anyone read it ever.

This is a new concept for me. (grew up Catholic-took everything for granted). Enlighten me please!?
How does one trace a church's roots back to the Twelve? I suppose everyone can go back to Catholocism, thus to Peter. But really? Explain.

C.S.Lewis talks about the whole of Christianity being linked through past and present to the original Christians through our sharing of bread and wine.

You see, Christ lives through the church
I would have thought that Christ lives on through the message of love and compassion. I never knew that there was some kind of genealogical heirarchy to it all. Sucks for those who aren't born into that kind of priveledge, huh?

I would have thought that Christ lives on through the message of love and compassion. I never knew that there was some kind of genealogical heirarchy to it all. Sucks for those who aren't born into that kind of priveledge, huh?

By becoming a Christian you enter the Church by default. It's not about being born into anything.

We are all part of one holy catholic (small c) and apostolic church. The Church is the body, we are all part of that body.

Though we are many we are one body because we all share in one bread etc.

I listed other just because I wanted to put in a plug for The Message, a modern interpretation of the Bible straight from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

And it even has an endorsement from Bono! Woo!

Seriously, though, it is a very interesting read. I don't like it quite as much as the King James, because the poetic parts had to be stretched to make it fit the modern theme, but the translator really did capture the original feel of the languages pretty well.

P.S. Fritz, I agree with you about The Message in some ways, but despite the inadeqacies it's worth drawing in someone who might not otherwise wish to read the Bible.

You could even try christianity, while you are trying all that.

What does that even mean?
Is this some kind of, "I'm more Christian than you!" thing?
Whatever, can't be bothered.

WWJD
Amen.

I listed other just because I wanted to put in a plug for The Message, a modern interpretation of the Bible straight from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

And it even has an endorsement from Bono! Woo!

Seriously, though, it is a very interesting read. I don't like it quite as much as the King James, because the poetic parts had to be stretched to make it fit the modern theme, but the translator really did capture the original feel of the languages pretty well.

The Message sucks. It's just a load of vacuous nonsense. Capturing the original feel? That's not what it's about. It's about capturing the Word of God.
I just find the Message totally without power. I just can't take it seriously.

C.S.Lewis talks about the whole of Christianity being linked through past and present to the original Christians through our sharing of bread and wine.
OK you know what that says to me? It says that all of humanity is linked by our basic needs to receive nourishment and be hydrated. And that may be all one needs to receive His presenece. So where does the "my God is better than your God/my Church is better than your Church" fall into play?

You don't need The Message to introduce people to the Bible. You just give them the right passages and read them in a way that conveys their power.

What does that even mean?
Is this some kind of, "I'm more Christian than you!" thing?
Whatever, cam't be bothered.

WWJD
Amen.

Evidently, your Christian pedigree has not been verified to his satisfaction. Please submit your papers and a DNA sample to an independent testing facility.

OK you know what that says to me? It says that all of humanity is linked by our basic needs to receive nourishment and be hydrated. And that may be all one needs to receive His presenece. So where does the "my God is better than your God/my Church is better than your Church" fall into play?

I think you miss my point. Sharing bread and wine is a little more important than receiving bodily nourishment. It's what Jesus told us to do.

I would have thought that Christ lives on through the message of love and compassion. I never knew that there was some kind of genealogical heirarchy to it all. Sucks for those who aren't born into that kind of priveledge, huh?

Yes, and no.

You see, every Catholic Church can trace it's authority back to the original twelve. It was passed from the apostles to the Bishops to the Bishops &c.

So every Catholic Church has a direct line of authority back to Jesus, and it is from Jesus that they derive their authority.

Now why is this important? It is because in Christianity there are two sources of scripture: The eyewitness accounts of the apostles - of which there are none - and the scripture carried by the bishops due to apostolic succesion.

Thus, the Pope - or the Synod, depending on the flavor of catholicism - speaks for Jesus. And that's what makes Christianity different from every other religion; It is not what is written down, it is carried in the hearts of those who can trace their ordination back to the founder.

But it really isn't important that you know that.

I listed other just because I wanted to put in a plug for The Message, a modern interpretation of the Bible straight from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

And it even has an endorsement from Bono! Woo!

Seriously, though, it is a very interesting read. I don't like it quite as much as the King James, because the poetic parts had to be stretched to make it fit the modern theme, but the translator really did capture the original feel of the languages pretty well.

P.S. Fritz, I agree with you about The Message in some ways, but despite the inadeqacies it's worth drawing in someone who might not otherwise wish to read the Bible.

Yah, read The Message. In four days. Junk food for the soul. Massive translational difficulties. Theological impressionism put into the text. Someone who is semi-literate should probably start with this one, but the NLT is just as readable and though it shares all the above problems, they are far less in comparison.

And as for the above comment. Did I mention I was studying to be a LUTHERAN Pastor. Just sayin.

WWJD
Amen.

In communion, the act that hse been performed by Christians for generations, we remember why we're Christians and we join together in saying that we're all equal before God.

Yes, and no.

You see, every Catholic Church can trace it's authority back to the original twelve. It was passed from the apostles to the Bishops to the Bishops &c.

So every Catholic Church has a direct line of authority back to Jesus, and it is from Jesus that they derive their authority.

Now why is this important? It is because in Christianity there are two sources of scripture: The eyewitness accounts of the apostles - of which there are none - and the scripture carried by the bishops due to apostolic succesion.

Thus, the Pope - or the Synod, depending on the flavor of catholicism - speaks for Jesus. And that's what makes Christianity different from every other religion; It is not what is written down, it is carried in the hearts of those who can trace their ordination back to the founder.

But it really isn't important that you know that.

How is the line of authority any less direct to Anglicans or Methodists or whatever? We all get our authority from the Bible. We are all part of the same succession. It's not like the Anglicans got their influence from somewhere else than the Catholics.

In fact, a lot of denominations would claim that what they're doing is much closer to the authority of the early Christians.

We are all part of one holy catholic (small c) and apostolic church. The Church is the body, we are all part of that body.
Though we are many we are one body because we all share in one bread etc.

Okay, which brings me back to my not so eloquently stated point,
the fact that if one is simply a decent human and treats other humans decently, what is all this "My God is better than your God" crap? What is this "you have to be in THIS church or you will go to hell", "If you wear pants and you are a female you are living a sinful life?" What are all these extraneous qualifiers? They are mankind putting conditions on your relationship with God and in my book, that =-EVIL!

How is the line of authority any less direct to Anglicans or Methodists or whatever? We all get our authority from the Bible. We are all part of the same succession. It's not like the Anglicans got their influence from somewhere else than the Catholics.

Anglican = Catholic.

The episcopacy &c. So you see, the 70,000,000 English catholics that you brush off as Anglicans, do indeed trace their authority back to christ.

It is disestablished protestants that cause all the trouble. (i.e. no line)

In fact, a lot of denominations would claim that what they're doing is much closer to the authority of the early Christians.

It is just idle speculation though. Apostlic succession requires some intellecutal rigor at least.

Okay, which brings me back to my not so eloquently stated point,
the fact that if one is simply a decent human and treats other humans decently, what is all this "My God is better than your God" crap? What is this "you have to be in THIS church or you will go to hell", "If you wear pants and you are a female you are living a sinful life?" What are all these extraneous qualifiers? They are mankind putting conditions on your relationship with God and in my book, that =-EVIL!

And as I said, no church that can show apostolic sucession would say that.

Indeed, they all seem to imply that good people go to heaven - if there is one.

Okay, which brings me back to my not so eloquently stated point,
the fact that if one is simply a decent human and treats other humans decently, what is all this "My God is better than your God" crap? What is this "you have to be in THIS church or you will go to hell", "If you wear pants and you are a female you are living a sinful life?" What are all these extraneous qualifiers? They are mankind putting conditions on your relationship with God and in my book, that =-EVIL!
I would say that even your "treats other humans decently" argument is wrong. We're only going to get to heaven by the grace of God. This has nothing to do with what we do or which Church we go to. It's about a relationship with God. Different churches are merely different ways of having the same relationship with God. We're all going stand before the same cross as equals come the end.

I would say that even your "treats other humans decently" argument is wrong. We're only going to get to heaven by the grace of God. This has nothing to do with what we do or which Church we go to. It's about a relationship with God. Different churches are merely different ways of having the same relationship with God. We're all going stand before the same cross as equals come the end.


Okay, the bible !=scripture. It is doctorine, at best. So you can't go by the bible.

Anglican = Catholic.

The episcopacy &c. So you see, the 70,000,000 English catholics that you brush off as Anglicans, do indeed trace their authority back to christ.

It is disestablished protestants that cause all the trouble. (i.e. no line)

Anglicans are not Catholics. There are some quite fundamental differences. Hence there are catholics in England who are not part of the Anglican church.

As for disestablished protestants. They all disestablished themselves from the same Catholic church. There is always a line. Even if that line is from the Bible straight to you it's still a succession from the apostles.

Okay, the bible !=scripture. It is doctorine, at best. So you can't go by the bible.

??????

I don't understand what you're saying at all. :confused:

Anglicans are not Catholics. There are some quite fundamental differences. Hence there are catholics in England who are not part of the Anglican church.

As for disestablished protestants. They all disestablished themselves from the same Catholic church. There is always a line. Even if that line is from the Bible straight to you it's still a succession from the apostles.

Anglicans are part of the Established Catholic Church of England. I should know, I am one.

So yes, Anglican = catholic.

On a side note. Why are you named after the Spartan homeland?

Yes, and no.

You see, every Catholic Church can trace it's authority back to the original twelve. It was passed from the apostles to the Bishops to the Bishops &c.

So every Catholic Church has a direct line of authority back to Jesus, and it is from Jesus that they derive their authority.

Now why is this important? It is because in Christianity there are two sources of scripture: The eyewitness accounts of the apostles - of which there are none - and the scripture carried by the bishops due to apostolic succesion.

Thus, the Pope - or the Synod, depending on the flavor of catholicism - speaks for Jesus. And that's what makes Christianity different from every other religion; It is not what is written down, it is carried in the hearts of those who can trace their ordination back to the founder.

But it really isn't important that you know that.
Well, It's important to me that I know that, it might not be important to YOU that I know that. And in some kind of latent Catholic way, I always knew that. Of course then we must trust all the sucessors from now back until then. All the anti-Popes, all the Inqusitors, all the friars selling indulgences, all the Belgian Monks brewing insanely good beer (for which I am very thankful. Amen.)
I guess I'm a little confused. Because I don't know where your Christian roots lie. I'm assuming they are very Catholic, but I could be wrong. My problem is that I don't trust history (the winners write the books, remember). And once I learned about papal indulgences and the Inquisition, the credibility of the the Church pretty much sank for me. I cannot trust that the True Word lived on through all that.

Anglicans are part of the Established Catholic Church of England. I should know, I am one.

So yes, Anglican = catholic.

Are you getting mixed up between small c and big c catholic? Anglicans are not accountable to the Pope. Therefore not Catholic. They do however acknowledge their part in the body of the Church as a whole. Therefore they are catholic.

??????

I don't understand what you're saying at all. :confused:

Well it's obvious. The bible is just a book, nothing more, nothing less.

For the first three hundred years of Christianty, there wasn't even a bible. The Scripture is carried in the people who can trace their ordination back to the apostles; it's a living religion, not a piece of paper to argue over.

Are you getting mixed up between small c and big c catholic? Anglicans are not accountable to the Pope. Therefore not Catholic. They do however acknowledge their part in the body of the Church as a whole. Therefore they are catholic.

No, I am not getting mixed up at all. The Church of England is a big "C" Catholic, it is just not the Church of Rome.

Well it's obvious. The bible is just a book, nothing more, nothing less.

For the first three hundred years of Christianty, there wasn't even a bible. The Scripture is carried in the people who can trace their ordination back to the apostles; it's a living religion, not a piece of paper to argue over.

But the Catholic Church argues that revelation has stopped. Therefore Scripture is unchangeable. Therefore all we are doing is repeating what was said in the Bible, therefore the Bible is a record of the Scripture, unchanged.

No, I am not getting mixed up at all. The Church of England is a big "C" Catholic, it is just not the Church of Rome.

Ok, you're going to have to clarify that a bit for me. Define "Catholic"

Anglicans are not Catholics. There are some quite fundamental differences. Hence there are catholics in England who are not part of the Anglican church.

As for disestablished protestants. They all disestablished themselves from the same Catholic church. There is always a line. Even if that line is from the Bible straight to you it's still a succession from the apostles.
I don't know about that. As I said before, I grew up Catholic, school and all. I recently went to an Episcopalian (Anglican, no?) wedding and was quite amazed by it's semblance to the Catholic Mass. Remember, the Anglican church was founded by Henry the VIII, who could not be granted an annullment by the Pope (all because HIS sperm didn't carry many Y chromosomes). Interesting how some religions are founded, isn't it?

But the Catholic Church argues that revelation has stopped. Therefore Scripture is unchangeable. Therefore all we are doing is repeating what was said in the Bible, therefore the Bible is a record of the Scripture, unchanged.

The Catholic church never said that.

I don't know about that. As I said before, I grew up Catholic, school and all. I recently went to an Episcopalian (Anglican, no?) wedding and was quite amazed by it's semblance to the Catholic Mass. Remember, the Anglican church was founded by Henry the VIII, who could not be granted an annullment by the Pope (all because HIS sperm didn't carry many Y chromosomes). Interesting how some religions are founded, isn't it?

The Anglica Church is not a religion, it is a denomination. The reason why other people managed to persuade Henry VIII to create the Church of England is because of his need for an anullment, but the Church was founded by god-fearing people for important reasons. Although these were lost on Henry they were not lost on the first leaders of the new church.

Of course a wedding is going to be the same. We're all reading the same bible and worshipping the same God aren't we?

Well I just got ordained at www.ulc.net ... who wants to get married ?

Man this is awesome, I love a Jesus rant every now and then, especially one about the Bible because the Bible was written by man - and man is flawed - so essentially the Bible is a flawed creation of man - Oh yea did you guys know that Jesus and Mohammed are the same person ... ?

Yea it's funny ... nobody knows anything about Jesus' life before he was 30 and nobody knows of Mohammed's after he was 30. So Jesus was Mohammed, man it's great.
and Stevie Wonder is God becuase:
1. God is Love
2. Love is blind
3. Stevie Wonder is blind
4. Stevie Wonder is God

Oh yea before I go, Jesus commited suicide ... it's true. He didn't have to die on the cross, because if Jesus was God then he would have all the powers of God - so he could've lived - but he didn't - he chose to die ... thus commiting suicide

Well don't get angry at me ... I'm just trying to be a free-thinker ... sorry

One question that's always bugged me about Christianity is that if God is all-merciful AND all-knowing. Then this means that when you are created by God, God knows if you will go to heaven or hell. But how is that all-merciful is God creates you and you end up going to hell even though God knows that.

The Catholic church never said that.

Yes they did. My friend Myles who's the president of my Uni CathSoc said so.

The Scripture is carried in the people who can trace their ordination back to the apostles
Or at least the people who SAY they can trace it back to their uncle's cousin's great-grandfather who once went to Thrace and may or may not have actually heard Saul or Timothy preach something that they were pretty sure, although several times removed, Yeshua supposedly was to have said.
Are you getting my point yet?

Yes they did. My friend Myles who's the president of my Uni CathSoc said so.

Then he is wrong.

Then he is wrong.

LOL Ok I'm way out of my depth on telling people about what the catholic church does and doesn't say. All I know is what I've been told.

What is the basis for claims to authority etc.? If it's not the Bible (it's just a book therefore Peter could have been a vigment of people's imagination). All you're left with is to say that "We're descended from the apostles because we say so."

How do you know all these things?
Where's the basis?

Or at least the people who SAY they can trace it back to their uncle's cousin's great-grandfather who once went to Thrace and may or may not have actually heard Saul or Timothy preach something that they were pretty sure, although several times removed, Yeshua supposedly was to have said.
Are you getting my point yet?

Not really, because these things were very public and involved many people. I have no doubt that there were frauds over the years, but what does that matter, when then vast majority can claim a true line. (Especially when it requires more than one bishop to ordain a priest, nevermind elevation to a fellow bishop).

I mean you can't simply claim succession on the basis of succession.
Authority on authority.

I mean you can't simply claim succession on the basis of succession.
Authority on authority.

Why not? That is how royalty works.

The Anglica Church is not a religion, it is a denomination.
Point taken.
Of course a wedding is going to be the same. We're all reading the same bible and worshipping the same God aren't we?
Not necessarily. Here in America, things are different. Fundamentalist Christians, who have been quietly taking control of the government for the past 30 years, (but I suppose that's another thread entirely, isn't it?) tell me that deeds and actions mean nothing to God. It's quite simply the idea of trusting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior that gets us in to Heaven. Case: One can accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and then go out to the Mall and plow down 50 people with an AK-47 and still get into Heaven. But then a decent person who lives truly in the footsteps of Christ and is loving, tolerant and kind will go straight to Hell if they haven't been going to the proper Baptist church.
I'm not kidding. I wish I was.

Because royal succession is flawed. Therefore apostolic succession could be flawed. Technically the crown of England should belong to a guy in Australia.

Point taken.

Not necessarily. Here in America, things are different. Fundamentalist Christians, who have been quietly taking control of the government for the past 30 years, (but I suppose that's another thread entirely, isn't it?) tell me that deeds and actions mean nothing to God. It's quite simply the idea of trusting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior that gets us in to Heaven. Case: One can accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior and then go out to the Mall and plow down 50 people with an AK-47 and still get into Heaven. But then a decent person who lives truly in the footsteps of Christ and is loving, tolerant and kind will go straight to Hell if they haven't been going to the proper Baptist church.
I'm not kidding. I wish I was.

Well Americans are silly. Pooh to them and their silly relgious beliefs.

"Faith, Hope and Love" Mentions nothing about which church you go to.

Though I'm sure there are some English people just as silly.

Why not? That is how royalty works.
Yeah but "royalty" doesn't realy have a great track record on perpetuating the truth. Dynasties are good at passing along their own version of truth (see: "the winners write the history books" above). I'll tell you honestly, I have faith in God, but I have absolutely NO faith in the men who have deemed themselves the mediums of THE MESSAGE. It has been lost.

Yeah but "royalty" doesn't realy have a great track record on perpetuating the truth. Dynasties are good at passing along their own version of truth (see: "the winners write the history books" above). I'll tell you honestly, I have faith in God, but I have absolutely NO faith in the men who have deemed themselves the mediums of THE MESSAGE. It has been lost.

That's why the Bible is quite useful. It has the MESSAGE there in black an white for all to see. Of course there are going to be different interpretations of it but in then end it's as close to the MESSAGE as we're going to get.

Well Americans are silly. Pooh to them and their silly relgious beliefs.
As a life-long American, I would take great offense to this. That is, if I didn't whole-heartedly agree.
:eek:

As a life-long American, I would take great offense to this. That is, if I didn't whole-heartedly agree.
:eek:

Teeheehee.

American Christians suffer greatly from being in the majority. Here in England where we have much less influence. We're less likely to get too big for our boots and waltz around saying we're the only way.

That's why the Bible is quite useful. It has the MESSAGE there in black an white for all to see. Of course there are going to be different interpretations of it but in then end it's as close to the MESSAGE as we're going to get.
No, no, no, NO, NO!
Remember the start of this thread? The Scripture has been translated, interpreted, tossed away, buried, burned, translated again, re-interpreted, embellished upon, translated AGAIN and re-interpreted AGAIN so much so that I don't even trust what it says anymore!
Okay. I get it. It is as close as we're going to get. For now, I'll resign myself to that. But only for now.

No, no, no, NO, NO!
Remember the start of this thread? The Scripture has been translated, interpreted, tossed away, buried, burned, translated again, re-interpreted, embellished upon, translated AGAIN and re-interpreted AGAIN so much so that I don't even trust what it says anymore!
Okay. I get it. It is as close as we're going to get. For now, I'll resign myself to that. But only for now.

Cool, calm down. Peace.

We need to strive to get closer to the truth. I get your point. No need to jump on me.

Cool, calm down. Peace.

We need to strive to get closer to the truth. I get your point. No need to jump on me.
Not jumping, sorry. Truth, yes that is it. And while I may never know what that is, I'm pretty confident that I can weed out that which it is not!
Peace to you. Thanks for being a part of the first thread on this forum in a long time that hadn't been infiltrated by the profane and idiotic. But, I've realized it's time to wake up. And being the silly American that I am, i never bothered to go to sleep.
Ich must schlafen! Guten nacht! Adiedu! And anyway else I can corrupt your language. That is, assuming you are German. Or Austrian. Or Greek with very humorous parents!
Bon sejour if you are french.
But as we say in the USA,
Peace. Out!

I'd probably best go too actually. I have a meeting in 15mins that I haven't prepared for.

Yours
Grand Duke Fritz von Splurgenhof

Question - what's the Jerusalem/New Jerusalem bible?

(Yes, my nation name is rather similar)

It is really, really very, very, extremely sad that so many people use the KJV - objectively the worst translation out there.

Do you people seriously think that a translation of a translation of a translation requested by a king willing to behead a translator who included something he didn't like is going to be uncorrupted?

What is your favorite Bible Translation? I feel like getting a collection of different ones so any advice would be appreciated.

Personally, I like the NRSV, though the NAB, and the Jersusalem are also favorites.

P.S. Please forgive me if you think my poll options are crap, I can only post the ones I know...

I very much prefer the New King James Version. It holds much of the poetic feel of the KJV, but is in more modern english. My copy also contains notes on alternate translations for words and differences in Vulgate, Sinaticus, Septuigent, Masuretic texts and a few other source documents.

It is really, really very, very, extremely sad that so many people use the KJV - objectively the worst translation out there.

Do you people seriously think that a translation of a translation of a translation requested by a king willing to behead a translator who included something he didn't like is going to be uncorrupted?

Beats the heck out of "The Word", "The New Living Translation", "The Message Bible" and most of the other paraphrases. The NKJV is much better than the KJV IMO. The RSV, NRSV and NIV are all pretty good translations though. I have a comparitive Bible that puts the KJV, NRSV, NIV and the original language (Greek or Hebrew as the case may be) side by side.

I like my Interlinear Greek NT.

The Jefferson Bible, while not really a translation, is also good.

Beats the heck out of "The Word", "The New Living Translation", "The Message Bible" and most of the other paraphrases.

Are they paraphrases of the KJV? Yes, a paraphrase of an already flawed translation would be worse.

The problem with the KJV is that it is so incredibly far removed from the source material. It's like taking a book in Arabic, translating it into Japanes, translating it into Spanish, and then translating it into English. What you get in English won't be very close to the Arabic. Add to that the fact that verses on things like when it is ok to rise up against a king were either deleted or altered so that good old King James wouldn't execute the translators....

I go with the NRSV - translated directly to English from the oldest available texts and most questionable parts (that are debated or vary from text to text) annotated.

Here's a decent explanation:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:dmn2WAJxKskJ:www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm+lamsa+edition+bible&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8

I also prefer to have a translation as close to the Aramaic as possible. Although the King James reads beautifully.

Are they paraphrases of the KJV? Yes, a paraphrase of an already flawed translation would be worse.

The problem with the KJV is that it is so incredibly far removed from the source material. It's like taking a book in Arabic, translating it into Japanes, translating it into Spanish, and then translating it into English. What you get in English won't be very close to the Arabic. Add to that the fact that verses on things like when it is ok to rise up against a king were either deleted or altered so that good old King James wouldn't execute the translators....

I go with the NRSV - translated directly to English from the oldest available texts and most questionable parts (that are debated or vary from text to text) annotated.

No, they are paraphrases from the source texts, but they are not word based translations and much is lost in the translation, I'm afraid. The surface ideas are there, but they miss a lot of the nuances that were origionally contained...

I go with the NRSV - translated directly to English from the oldest available texts and most questionable parts (that are debated or vary from text to text) annotated.

Actually, the NKJV does those things as well...

Actually, the NKJV does those things as well...

Then they shouldn't call it the NKJV, as it has nothing at all to do with good ole' King James or the translation he asked for.

If this is true, they are apparently intentionally misleading people.

NIV and NASB (New American Standard Bible) are my favorites... written in language we can understand.

Then they shouldn't call it the NKJV, as it has nothing at all to do with good ole' King James or the translation he asked for.

If this is true, they are apparently intentionally misleading people.

Having read the Bible through in mutliple versions, I can say first hand that there are very few content related differences between the literal translations, particularly ones of theological significance. Even the KJV in its origional form with its errors, is very true in terms of content to the source texts, almost miraculously so... ;)

What is your favorite Bible Translation? I feel like getting a collection of different ones so any advice would be appreciated.

Personally, I like the NRSV, though the NAB, and the Jersusalem are also favorites.

P.S. Please forgive me if you think my poll options are crap, I can only post the ones I know...

Skeptic's Annotated Bible :p

Having read the Bible through in mutliple versions, I can say first hand that there are very few content related differences between the literal translations, particularly ones of theological significance. Even the KJV in its origional form with its errors, is very true in terms of content to the source texts, almost miraculously so... ;)

I would say that, for instance, a verse on corrupt government and when to rise up against it might be important. That one isn't in the King James version, or is very much altered, if I remember correctly.

I would say that, for instance, a verse on corrupt government and when to rise up against it might be important. That one isn't in the King James version, or is very much altered, if I remember correctly.

Not knowing what specific passage you are referring to, it is hard to comment... I don't know of anything like that being completely removed. Actually, there are a few places the KJV has more texts than some of the other versions, but again, very little difference in the content of the information presented.

Skeptic's Annotated Bible :p
LOL oh yeah - how can I forget that one! I bought the CD and installed it in my PDA!

(Along with the Skeptics annotated Quran and Book of Mormon...) :D

Isn't there a feminist bible or which changes everything to be "gender-equal"? Yeah. I like that one.

I think they're all bunk. I don't trust translations. At all.
I feel I will never truly know the Word of God until I can read and comprehend ancient hebrew, aramaic, greek, and others.
It really kind of amuses me how Protestants (in general) abhor Catholicism (in general) and yet the scholars in King James' employ were working off the texts that had already been edited by the scholars in Constantine's employ. Yeah they threw out a few books that seemed, well, "catholic" but really, they were working off of texts that had been deemed worthy of inclusion. What about all the texts that had been thrown away before that point?
Rarely does anyone ever question if the translators got stuff wrong over the last 2000+ years.
Where's Grave N Idle when you need him? A wonderful source for biblical semantics!

Yay! A brief moment of fame!!! (Thankyou).

I was playing nice. :) I was just saying which my favourite translation was... I don't think there's anyone who talks to me regularly who DOESN'T know how I feel about the reliance on those translations. :)

Ahh! I should have read the thread through before posting. Good to know you're still about here!

How could it not be the most "lyrical" though (KJV)? Having been written by contemporaries of Spenser, Donne, Milton and Jonson?

Not going anywhere! Just don't get on as often as I'd like. :)

It is indeed a beautiful text. It doesn't matter whether you are a believer or not, it is an example of a Golden Age in the English language.

I like the ESV (English Standard Version) for a really good, faithful translation, and The Message for readability...if you've not given it a go before I'd say it's definitely worth a look

Isn't there a feminist bible or which changes everything to be "gender-equal"? Yeah. I like that one.

Not that I know of.

However, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that it has become standard practice in theological writing to use gender-neutral language. Words like humankind are used instead of mankind, the male gender cannot be assumed for all pronouns, and even God cannot be assigned a gender.

My theology prof was a real stickler on stuff like that. At least a point off for every instance of non-gender-neutral language.

Not that I know of.

However, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that it has become standard practice in theological writing to use gender-neutral language. Words like humankind are used instead of mankind, the male gender cannot be assumed for all pronouns, and even God cannot be assigned a gender.

My theology prof was a real stickler on stuff like that. At least a point off for every instance of non-gender-neutral language.

That's a college you don't want to study at. Gender-neutral langauge is not a technical absolute, and forcing someone to take a lower grade for referring to God as a male presence is a violation of the rights of the majority of monotheistic religions.

That said, however, it is wrong to anthropomorphise God. The Bible says people were created in the image of God, not vice versa, so gender has less meaning. But since Jesus clearly called God his Father (Eli), it would be wrong to assign the opposite gender to a father just to please a vocal minority.

English Standard Version -- most accurate; translates word for word, rather than phrase for phrase like most translations. It's helpful to read multiple translations at times.

King James by a mile. The Message and the NASB are interesting too.

EDIT: My reasoning:
KJV: The language in the King James Version is much more apealing to me than the more modern translations. Some parts sound almost like poetry in it.

The Message: This translation sort of offers a fresh perspective. While it may not be as accurate as th eothers, sometimes it makes for an interesting read. Revelations is good in this translation.

NASB: I find that this translation tends to be translated in such a way that it allows the meaning of some of the more difficult passages to be found more easily. That said, I don't like the wording as much in terms of aesthetic appeal.

King James by a mile. The Message and the NASB are interesting too.

EDIT: My reasoning:
KJV: The language in the King James Version is much more apealing to me than the more modern translations. Some parts sound almost like poetry in it.

The Message: This translation sort of offers a fresh perspective. While it may not be as accurate as th eothers, sometimes it makes for an interesting read. Revelations is good in this translation.

NASB: I find that this translation tends to be translated in such a way that it allows the meaning of some of the more difficult passages to be found more easily. That said, I don't like the wording as much in terms of aesthetic appeal.

I cant see why people think that the "poetic" style of the King James makes it the Best Bible. I personally find the Jerusalem to be much more appealing if you want a lyrical translation, the Psalms especially are brilliant.

The star wars vs. star trek threads are pathetic but I think this one really takes the cake.

The star wars vs. star trek threads are pathetic but I think this one really takes the cake.

Atheist Phillistine

Atheist Phillistine

Phillistine! You listen to the Whitlams and you call me phillistine!

Phillistine! You listen to the Whitlams and you call me phillistine!

The Whitlams are good. 'nuff said.

Now can we please not turn this into a "abuse EBH" thread.

The Whitlams are good. 'nuff said.

Now can we please not turn this into a "abuse EBH" thread.

Fine I'll start my own thread.

The Whitlams are good. 'nuff said.

Now can we please not turn this into a "abuse EBH" thread.

Not as good as the White Stripes, my catholic fiend.

Not as good as the White Stripes, my catholic fiend.

*sighs* They're close.

That's a college you don't want to study at. Gender-neutral langauge is not a technical absolute, and forcing someone to take a lower grade for referring to God as a male presence is a violation of the rights of the majority of monotheistic religions.

Actually, it was one of the best classes I've ever taken, nor did I find any problem with not limiting God.

How exactly is it a violation of rights to not limit an omnipotent God?

I cant see why people think that the "poetic" style of the King James makes it the Best Bible. I personally find the Jerusalem to be much more appealing if you want a lyrical translation, the Psalms especially are brilliant.

Fairly straightforward, really...

People appreciate beauty, and the KJV is probably the most commonly accepted 'attractive' translation of the text.

For me - that is important, since I care little for any 'spiritual meaning' of scripture, since I believe it to be a mortal work. So - it is important that it is pretty.

For others, it might be a matter of being much easier to remember text that flows lyrically.

None of them do, or even can, come close to a native language version of the scripture - so you are basically choosing what 'flavour' of twist you want on your text.