Whats your opinion of these Translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosaryGirl_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RosaryGirl_777

Guest
I found a site that helps you to read the whole Bible in one year.
biblestudy.crosswalk.com/ But its mostly protestant translations, the site wants me to pick a translation. Which of these would be a good modern translation to pick. (I’m going to use my RSV-CE & NAB as my main Bibles:))

Whats your opinion of these Translations.
( When using the word apocrypha they mean the Catholic deuterocanonical books, in most cases)

English Standard Version

Good News Translation/Apocrypha

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard/Apocrypha

(the only protestants bibles I’ve really used are the NKJV & the KJV.)

Thanks
 
I found a site that helps you to read the whole Bible in one year.
biblestudy.crosswalk.com/ But its mostly protestant translations, the site wants me to pick a translation. Which of these would be a good modern translation to pick. (I’m going to use my RSV-CE & NAB as my main Bibles:))

Whats your opinion of these Translations.
( When using the word apocrypha they mean the Catholic deuterocanonical books, in most cases)

English Standard Version

Good News Translation/Apocrypha

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard/Apocrypha

(the only protestants bibles I’ve really used are the NKJV & the KJV.)

Thanks
As far as Protestant translations go, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the ESV are quite good, though not perfect, of course. And you must never overlook the venerable King James Version, either. Ignore ALL the others, especially the NIV and NRSV. The former sacrifices accuracy for “readability” (read, “it’s dumbed down”); the latter is so enamored of inclusive language it’s not worthy of its RSV heritage.
 
As far as Protestant translations go, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the ESV are quite good, though not perfect, of course. And you must never overlook the venerable King James Version, either. Ignore ALL the others, especially the NIV and NRSV. The former sacrifices accuracy for “readability” (read, “it’s dumbed down”); the latter is so enamored of inclusive language it’s not worthy of its RSV heritage.
Thanks
Heres the full list of transitions that I can pick from. If any one wants to check them out biblestudy.crosswalk.com/bibles/
 
Thanks
Heres the full list of transitions that I can pick from. If any one wants to check them out biblestudy.crosswalk.com/bibles/
RosaryGirl,

A similar site is studylight.org; both this and crosswalk.com offer a variety of translations, mostly Protestant, except for the Douay-Rheims. the Latin Vulgate on either site, however, is not a Church-approved Vulgate, as is the Clementine or the Nova Vulgata; it’s the Stuttgart version from a german bible society.

Each of these sites has a Parallel Bible feature for comparing two translations for any given passage. The only versions worth comparing with others are (in no particular order):

RSV
Douay-Rheims
New American Standard
American Standard
ESV
KJV
NKJV
 
RosaryGirl,

A similar site is studylight.org; both this and crosswalk.com offer a variety of translations, mostly Protestant, except for the Douay-Rheims. the Latin Vulgate on either site, however, is not a Church-approved Vulgate, as is the Clementine or the Nova Vulgata; it’s the Stuttgart version from a german bible society.

Each of these sites has a Parallel Bible feature for comparing two translations for any given passage. The only versions worth comparing with others are (in no particular order):

RSV
Douay-Rheims
New American Standard
American Standard
ESV
KJV
NKJV
Thanks 👍
 
I found a site that helps you to read the whole Bible in one year.
biblestudy.crosswalk.com/ But its mostly protestant translations, the site wants me to pick a translation. Which of these would be a good modern translation to pick. (I’m going to use my RSV-CE & NAB as my main Bibles:))

Whats your opinion of these Translations.
( When using the word apocrypha they mean the Catholic deuterocanonical books, in most cases)

English Standard Version

Good News Translation/Apocrypha

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard/Apocrypha

(the only protestants bibles I’ve really used are the NKJV & the KJV.)

Thanks
Honestly I wouldn’t even bother with the ESV, GNT/Apocrypha, NLT and NRSV/Apocrypha. They aren’t worth look.
 
Manfred’s list in Post #4 is exactly right. There are a number of problems common to all the others, most notably they are dumbed down and also they reflect the biases and outlook of the people who publish the translation.

I would also like to add that a great website to do bible research is www.biblegateway.com. It has about 18 different translations and a word search engine for each one. I use it almost daily.
 
What translation would you suggest?
I would suggest just staying with RSV-CE and NAB. If you must refer to a Protestant Translation I suggest the KJV or if you can get a hold of a reprint or facsimile of the Geneva Bible. I don’t quite agree with a lot of these newer translations because of inclusive language and some take away key things like Deity and key phrases. On the other hand reading the Catholic Bibles I recommend the Douay-Rheims over any translation, but that is just me and I wouldn’t suggest changing translations if you feel comfortable with NAB and RSV-CE. The translations you use on a regular basis allow you to get the most out it.
 
Manfred’s list in Post #4 is exactly right. There are a number of problems common to all the others, most notably they are dumbed down and also they reflect the biases and outlook of the people who publish the translation.

I would also like to add that a great website to do bible research is www.biblegateway.com. It has about 18 different translations and a word search engine for each one. I use it almost daily.
Thanks & Thanks for the link 🙂
 
I would suggest just staying with RSV-CE and NAB. If you must refer to a Protestant Translation I suggest the KJV or if you can get a hold of a reprint or facsimile of the Geneva Bible. I don’t quite agree with a lot of these newer translations because of inclusive language and some take away key things like Deity and key phrases. On the other hand reading the Catholic Bibles I recommend the Douay-Rheims over any translation, but that is just me and I wouldn’t suggest changing translations if you feel comfortable with NAB and RSV-CE. The translations you use on a regular basis allow you to get the most out it.
I would love to read the Douay-Rheims but its written in old English, I’ve tried but I cant understand a lot of what it says (the same problem I’ve always run in to with the KJV,) Someone needs to make a old English word search engine 😃
I plan to use my RSV-CE & NAB as my main Bibles. Though some times on curtain words that I’m not familiar with I have to check another translation. (Words that are old English/archaism or scholarly.) Some might be surprised but even the NAB has some very hard to understand words, some of which I had to Google to find the meaning.

Thanks 🙂
 
The West Saxon translation is in old english:

1 On FRYMÐ WÆ word & þt word wæs mid gode & god wæs þt word.
2 þt wæs on fruman mid gode
3 ealle þing wæron geworhte ðurh hyne & nan þing næs geworht butan him.
4 þt wæs lïf þe on him geworht wæs. & þt lïf wæs manna leoht
5 & þt leoht lyht on ðystrum. & þystro þt ne genamon;
6 Mann wæs fram gode asend. þæs nama wæs iohannes.
7 ðes cöm to gewitnesse. þt he gewitnesse cyðde be ðam leohte. þt ealle menn þurh hyne gelyfdon;
8 Næs he leoht. ac þt he gewitnesse forð-bære be þam leohte;
9 Soð leoht wæs. þt onlyht ælcne cumendne man on þisne middan-eard.
10 he wæs on middan-earde. & middan-eard wæs geworht þurh hine. & middan-eard hine ne ge-cneow;

The Wycliff edition was written in middle english:

1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
2 This was in the bigynnyng at God.
3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
4 In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,
5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.
6 A man was sent fro God, to whom the name was Joon.
7 This man cam in to witnessyng, that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt, that alle men schulden bileue bi hym.
8 He was not the liyt, but that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt.
9 There was a very liyt, which liytneth ech man that cometh in to this world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was maad bi hym, and the world knew hym not.

The original Douai was written in early modern english (1582).

1 IN THE beginning vvas the WORD, and the WORD vvas vvith God, and God vvas the WORD.
2 This vvas in the beginning vvith God.
3 Al things vvere made by him: and vvithout him vvas made nothing. That vvhich vvas made,
4 in him vvas life, and the life vvas the light of men:
5 and the light fhineth in darkeneffe, and darkeneffe did not comprehend it.
6 There vvas a man fent from God, wwhofe name vvas Iohn.
7 This man came for teftimonie: to giue teftimonie of the light, that al might beleeue through him.
8 He vvas not the light, but to giue teftimonie of the light.
9 It vvas the true light, vvhich lighteneth euery man that commeth into this vvorld.
10 He vvas in the vvorld, and the vvorld vvas made by him, and the vvorld knevv him not.

The Challoner edition of the Douai was written in modern english in the mid 1700’s:

[John 1]
{1:1} In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
{1:2} The same was in the beginning with God.
{1:3} All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
{1:4} In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
{1:5} And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.
{1:6} There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
{1:7} This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
{1:8} He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
{1:9} That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
{1:10} He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.
 
The West Saxon translation is in old english:

1 On FRYMÐ WÆ word & þt word wæs mid gode & god wæs þt word.
2 þt wæs on fruman mid gode
3 ealle þing wæron geworhte ðurh hyne & nan þing næs geworht butan him.
4 þt wæs lïf þe on him geworht wæs. & þt lïf wæs manna leoht
5 & þt leoht lyht on ðystrum. & þystro þt ne genamon;
6 Mann wæs fram gode asend. þæs nama wæs iohannes.
7 ðes cöm to gewitnesse. þt he gewitnesse cyðde be ðam leohte. þt ealle menn þurh hyne gelyfdon;
8 Næs he leoht. ac þt he gewitnesse forð-bære be þam leohte;
9 Soð leoht wæs. þt onlyht ælcne cumendne man on þisne middan-eard.
10 he wæs on middan-earde. & middan-eard wæs geworht þurh hine. & middan-eard hine ne ge-cneow;

The Wycliff edition was written in middle english:

1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
2 This was in the bigynnyng at God.
3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
4 In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,
5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.
6 A man was sent fro God, to whom the name was Joon.
7 This man cam in to witnessyng, that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt, that alle men schulden bileue bi hym.
8 He was not the liyt, but that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt.
9 There was a very liyt, which liytneth ech man that cometh in to this world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was maad bi hym, and the world knew hym not.

The original Douai was written in early modern english (1582).

1 IN THE beginning vvas the WORD, and the WORD vvas vvith God, and God vvas the WORD.
2 This vvas in the beginning vvith God.
3 Al things vvere made by him: and vvithout him vvas made nothing. That vvhich vvas made,
4 in him vvas life, and the life vvas the light of men:
5 and the light fhineth in darkeneffe, and darkeneffe did not comprehend it.
6 There vvas a man fent from God, wwhofe name vvas Iohn.
7 This man came for teftimonie: to giue teftimonie of the light, that al might beleeue through him.
8 He vvas not the light, but to giue teftimonie of the light.
9 It vvas the true light, vvhich lighteneth euery man that commeth into this vvorld.
10 He vvas in the vvorld, and the vvorld vvas made by him, and the vvorld knevv him not.

The Challoner edition of the Douai was written in modern english in the mid 1700’s:

[John 1]
{1:1} In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
{1:2} The same was in the beginning with God.
{1:3} All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
{1:4} In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
{1:5} And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.
{1:6} There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
{1:7} This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
{1:8} He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
{1:9} That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
{1:10} He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.
Thanks I didn’t know this I always thought that old English was thee,thine & thy type language. I thought the KJV & the D-R was hard to read, but some of these are even harder.
 
I found a site that helps you to read the whole Bible in one year.
biblestudy.crosswalk.com/ But its mostly protestant translations, the site wants me to pick a translation. Which of these would be a good modern translation to pick. (I’m going to use my RSV-CE & NAB as my main Bibles:))

Whats your opinion of these Translations.
( When using the word apocrypha they mean the Catholic deuterocanonical books, in most cases)

English Standard Version

Good News Translation/Apocrypha

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard/Apocrypha

(the only protestants bibles I’ve really used are the NKJV & the KJV.)

Thanks
Personally, I’m going to stick with the ESV if we’re talking about Protestant versions, as it is the only literal, aka “word-for-word,” translation in this list, it seems (here my bias against dynamic equivalence translations shows up :p); as a plus, it’s a bit more readable than the (much more literal IMO) New American Standard Bible.

As for Catholic translations, the NAB (while ignoring some of the more questionable prefaces and footnotes and the inclusive language in some places) is also a good choice for the time being.
 
RosaryGirl,

A similar site is studylight.org; both this and crosswalk.com offer a variety of translations, mostly Protestant, except for the Douay-Rheims. the Latin Vulgate on either site, however, is not a Church-approved Vulgate, as is the Clementine or the Nova Vulgata; it’s the Stuttgart version from a german bible society.

Each of these sites has a Parallel Bible feature for comparing two translations for any given passage. The only versions worth comparing with others are (in no particular order):

RSV
Douay-Rheims
New American Standard
American Standard
ESV
KJV
NKJV
From this list the Douey-Rheims is far superior to the others on the list.
 
The ESV is a revision of the RSV. The editors set out to make the RSV more literal, to avoid inclusive language, and to correct the problem in the RSV that the OT is not translated in the light of the NT.

But the meaning of literal and the meaning of inclusive are moving targets. Over time, not only have translations become less and less literal, but texts that would have been considered loose are now considered to be literal. Versions with inclusive language are now said to avoid inclusive language, because by comparison, they have less inclusive language than other contemporary editions.

In some cases the ESV made changes that are less literal and more inclusive.
bible-researcher.com/esv.html
 
The ESV is a revision of the RSV. The editors set out to make the RSV more literal, to avoid inclusive language, and to correct the problem in the RSV that the OT is not translated in the light of the NT.

But the meaning of literal and the meaning of inclusive are moving targets. Over time, not only have translations become less and less literal, but texts that would have been considered loose are now considered to be literal. Versions with inclusive language are now said to avoid inclusive language, because by comparison, they have less inclusive language than other contemporary editions.

In some cases the ESV made changes that are less literal and more inclusive.
bible-researcher.com/esv.html
Thanks 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top