Ever heard of these?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_LaRock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris_LaRock

Guest
Complete Jewish Bible, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims, New American Bible, Tanakh (JPS), Die Heilige Schrift (Luther Bible), King James Version replica 1611, King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, Net Bible, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Picture Bible, The Message, The Word on the Street, English Standard Version, The Evidence Bible, The Living Bible, 3 Jehovah’s witness New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1950s,1961,current, and I have one published by a small church group too.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
Complete Jewish Bible, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims, New American Bible, Tanakh (JPS), Die Heilige Schrift (Luther Bible), King James Version replica 1611, King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, Net Bible, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Picture Bible, The Message, The Word on the Street, English Standard Version, The Evidence Bible, The Living Bible, 3 Jehovah’s witness New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1950s,1961,current, and I have one published by a small church group too.
Click to expand...
I have heard of but do not own: Complete Jewish Bible, Good New Translation (actually a paraphrase), Tanakh, Luther Bible (I don’t understand German), Contemporary English Version, Holman Christian Standard, The Living Bible (another paraphrase), Jehovah’s Witness New World. I own Douay Rheims, New American Bible, King James 1611, King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, American Standard Version (I have online only, not actual book), English Standard Version, Message (I ordered it but didn’t get it yet). I never heard of Net Bible, New Century Version, The Evidence Bible, or The Word on the Street.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
Complete Jewish Bible, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims, New American Bible, Tanakh (JPS), Die Heilige Schrift (Luther Bible), King James Version replica 1611, King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, Net Bible, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Picture Bible, The Message, The Word on the Street, English Standard Version, The Evidence Bible, The Living Bible, 3 Jehovah’s witness New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1950s,1961,current, and I have one published by a small church group too.
Click to expand...
What’s the point of this thread?
 
Chris_LaRock said:
one published by a small church group
Click to expand...
Yup, I have two copies of that one 😉 :whacky:

What is your point apart from the fact that there are a heck of a lot of Bible translations out there? Most of 'em only middling or worse.

Personally I have or have had the following translations: Good News, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, King James Bible and New King James Bible. Not to mention the Book of Mormon and the Quran too.

And I can think of a couple that you don’t appear to know of - the Revised Standard Version (and RSV Catholic Edition), the Amplified Bible and the Christian Community Bible for starters.
 
I have the Revised Standard Version for Catholic
I also have Douay-Rheims Bible online website which I am currently working on - it is almost done and anyone can come to use it and save their favorite passages to their account. 🙂 If no account created, they can still search and do few other things.
 
Father Corapi said he likes the New Revised Stadard Version Catholic Edition. I’ve seen the Protestant NRSV, but would like to acquire a Catholic one like Father Corapi uses. 👍

The Net bible is a translation that used to be available only online or in download form. They recently made it into book form. I ordered a leather bound first edition one with my name inscribed on it. It’s a real nice translation.

“In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.” Jn. 1:1 Net bible
 
Chris_LaRock said:
The Net bible is a translation that used to be available only online or in download form. They recently made it into book form. I ordered a leather bound first edition one with my name inscribed on it. It’s a real nice translation.

“In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.” Jn. 1:1 Net bible
Click to expand...
Is the Net Bible a formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence translation? Where would it be in terms of how literal it is compared to NASB, ESV, NIV?
 
I would say that it’s similar to a lot of the modern English Bibles, but is a more literal translation. They have free downloads of it at www.bible.org in case you’d like to see how well it’s done. The book version I have has many footnotes refering to the original languages, different renderings in different English Bibles, translator’s notes, and really neat satillite photo maps of the Holy Land in the back.

Has anyone tried updating the DRB the same way that the KJV has been updated in the form of the NKJV?
 
LilyM said:
Yup, I have two copies of that one 😉 :whacky:
Click to expand...
It’s called the ‘Recovery Bible’, and is apparently published by a non-Christian cult. A friend of mine got one free online, and I ordered one too.

Anyone ever heard of the “God’s Word” translation? It’s apparently a bible that Billy Grahm endorses. I picked up an inexpensive one recently.
 
lak611 said:
Is the Net Bible a formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence translation? Where would it be in terms of how literal it is compared to NASB, ESV, NIV?
Click to expand...
This is a dynamic equivalence translation and apparently not a very reliable one. A thorough review is found here: bible-researcher.com/net.html

Of particular interest is the discussion of this bible’s “tendency to translate the Old Testament without regard for the New Testament.” All but one of the twenty-some-odd translators and editors were either teachers or students at Dallas Theological Seminary.

For a very in-depth critique of how this bible translates Hosea 4:1–14 (a randomly-chosen sample) see: bible-researcher.com/net2.html
 
Chris_LaRock said:
Inaccuracies can be found in most Bible translations. Right?
Click to expand...

Inadequacies, yes - as for inaccuracies: that depends in part on the criteria by which the version is judged; as well as on those according to which it is translated; as well as on what text is adopted. Differences between versions & translations need not mean that there is an error where there is a difference. There may be - or not.​

Is a translation inaccurate if it does not print verse as verse ? Not necessarily - inadequate, in that it fails to render an aspect of the translated text, perhaps; but not rendering an aspect of the* form* of the text, is not the same as mistaking its sense.

Translation is difficult enough - the problem with the Biblical texts, is that they have so many functions. What might be suitable for the Liturgy, won’t necessarily make a text suitable for private study, or reflect some feature of the Biblical background, or be expressed in an an aesthetically pleasing manner, or be readily understood. Yet a translation of the Bible has to work in all these ways, & others, or people will complain.

They do anyway - they complain
  • that some favourite proof-text has been lost,
  • or that what they hear in church doesn’t sound memorable,
  • or that a text has been replaced by words which may be a probable reading of a defective text - but it is not what they are used to.
    And that’s quite apart from the ignorance & misunderstanding of what translation involves; not to mention the accusations of heresy or unbelief that translators so often find is their reward for their efforts. 😦 😦 😦 ##
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Inadequacies, yes - as for inaccuracies: that depends in part on the criteria by which the version is judged; as well as on those according to which it is translated; as well as on what text is adopted. Differences between versions & translations need not mean that there is an error where there is a difference. There may be - or not.​

Is a translation inaccurate if it does not print verse as verse ? Not necessarily - inadequate, in that it fails to render an aspect of the translated text, perhaps; but not rendering an aspect of the* form* of the text, is not the same as mistaking its sense.

Translation is difficult enough - the problem with the Biblical texts, is that they have so many functions. What might be suitable for the Liturgy, won’t necessarily make a text suitable for private study, or reflect some feature of the Biblical background, or be expressed in an an aesthetically pleasing manner, or be readily understood. Yet a translation of the Bible has to work in all these ways, & others, or people will complain.

They do anyway - they complain
  • that some favourite proof-text has been lost,
  • or that what they hear in church doesn’t sound memorable,
  • or that a text has been replaced by words which may be a probable reading of a defective text - but it is not what they are used to.
    And that’s quite apart from the ignorance & misunderstanding of what translation involves; not to mention the accusations of heresy or unbelief that translators so often find is their reward for their efforts. 😦 😦 😦 ##
Click to expand...
You display an admirable charity towards translators. The problems of the NET bible, however, go beyond the lack of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 for example. One illustration from the article I linked:The images and metaphors of the Hebrew verse [Psalm 8:5–6]—the man, his crown, his feet, and God’s hands—disappear through the use of more general and abstract words in the NET Bible translation. And although the translators probably feel that their prosaic rendering here adequately conveys the overall sense of the verse, it should be noticed that their rendering involves not only the loss of poetic imagery, but also a preclusion of the New Testament’s interpretation of the verse. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews depends upon a literal rendering of Psalm 8 when he uses it to teach something about a certain man, namely Christ (Heb. 2:7-8), to whom these statements are referred, because He is the only man for whom they are true in the fullest sense.
The flaws in the NET bible would seem to be more than aesthetic.
 
Similar renderings are found in the Living Bible. I strongly disagree with how they render John 8:58,

"Jesus:‘The absolute truth is that I was in existance before Abraham was ever born!’ ":mad:

The Greek ‘ego emie’ (sp?) means ‘I AM’, not ‘I existed’.
 
Cranch said:
This is a dynamic equivalence translation and apparently not a very reliable one. A thorough review is found here: bible-researcher.com/net.html

Of particular interest is the discussion of this bible’s “tendency to translate the Old Testament without regard for the New Testament.” All but one of the twenty-some-odd translators and editors were either teachers or students at Dallas Theological Seminary.

For a very in-depth critique of how this bible translates Hosea 4:1–14 (a randomly-chosen sample) see: bible-researcher.com/net2.html
Click to expand...
I have the **Net Bible **online through E-Sword. I will possibly purchase one once the Deuterocanonicals are available.
 
I’d like to see the NET Bible’s version of the Deuteros too. I like Tobit. Wisdom and Sirach are great also. I’m cross referencing them to the book of Proverbs in my ‘Apocrypha’ book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top