Which Bible should I use

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canadianguy1143

Guest
I am doing a research paper on the Sabbath and the teacher has given me the choice of these 3 bibles:

Referenced scripture must source from the
English Standard Version (ESV),
King James Version (KJV), or
New King James Version (NKJV).

Students may find the Bible Gateway website a useful resource in this regard: www.biblegateway.org

The University that I am attending is a Baptist University.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
I am doing a research paper on the Sabbath and the teacher has given me the choice of these 3 bibles:

Referenced scripture must source from the
English Standard Version (ESV),
King James Version (KJV), or
New King James Version (NKJV).

Students may find the Bible Gateway website a useful resource in this regard: www.biblegateway.org

The University that I am attending is a Baptist University.
Click to expand...
if me? Out of just those 3, I’d go with the ESV cause its based on Eclectic (~Alexandrian) Greek versus the Byzantine Greek which KJV and nKJV are based on. Also, there is a King James version of the deuterocanonical books if you need to go there.

see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
 
ESV is also available w/ Deuterocanon (look for “Apocrypha” version).
 
canadianguy1143 said:
I am doing a research paper on the Sabbath and the teacher has given me the choice of these 3 bibles:

Referenced scripture must source from the
English Standard Version (ESV),
King James Version (KJV), or
New King James Version (NKJV).

Students may find the Bible Gateway website a useful resource in this regard: www.biblegateway.org

The University that I am attending is a Baptist University.
Click to expand...
For reading, I’d say the ESV is better, but for research I would choose a more literal translation, such as the KJV and NKJV. The ESV has more “Dynamic Equivalence” to its translation, which means it has more contextual paraphrasing, which makes it easier to read, but includes more “interpretation” than a more literal Bible.
 
Those listed should be burned. Please defy him and choose the Catholic Bible 😉
 
StTommyMore said:
Now that wasn’t very ecumenical of you. 😉
Click to expand...
am not ecumenical, at least not in the liberal definition of the word, but i’ll gladly open the door to the catholic church open to any one that wishes to enter.

Lord Jesus Christ, most merciful Saviour of the world, we humbly beseech You, by Your most Sacred Heart, that all the sheep who stray out of Your fold may in one days be converted to You, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, who lives and reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, world without end.
Amen.
 
Califman831 said:
am not ecumenical, at least not in the liberal definition of the word, but i’ll gladly open the door to the catholic church open to any one that wishes to enter.

Lord Jesus Christ, most merciful Saviour of the world, we humbly beseech You, by Your most Sacred Heart, that all the sheep who stray out of Your fold may in one days be converted to You, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, who lives and reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, world without end.
Amen.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to burn these translations. For at least the ESV and KJV, the Deuterocanonicals are available. Also “Catholic translation” does not mean better. The NAB is Catholic, but absolutely awful.
 
StTommyMore said:
There is no reason to burn these translations. For at least the ESV and KJV, the Deuterocanonicals are available. Also “Catholic translation” does not mean better. The NAB is Catholic, but absolutely awful.
Click to expand...
Every translation has its strengths and faults. Personally, I find the NAB’s notes to be quite useful at times.
 
SonCatcher said:
Every translation has its strengths and faults. Personally, I find the NAB’s notes to be quite useful at times.
Click to expand...
The notes can be problematic, especially where they deal with literary and historical criticism
 
For research and scholarly writing like in a school project, I would choose the KJV. I know it is from the Byzantine Text, which is not as old as the Alexandrian Texts, but the Alexandrian texts have not been proven more accurate. Indeed, they omit entirely some passages like the last part of Mark 16, although we know from the early church fathers that these passages existed in the originals.

For reading I would choose the translation that you will want to read the most. Whether is is Catholic or not doesn’t make any difference. They all have their idiosyncracies. The two or three Catholic translations vary significantly from each other in some places. But they are all quite similar on the important points. But what about the Deuteros? If you enjoy reading a Protestant bible, such as the NASB, get a Catholic bible and read the Deuteros out of that.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
I am doing a research paper on the Sabbath and the teacher has given me the choice of these 3 bibles:

Referenced scripture must source from the
English Standard Version (ESV),
King James Version (KJV), or
New King James Version (NKJV).

Students may find the Bible Gateway website a useful resource in this regard: www.biblegateway.org

The University that I am attending is a Baptist University.
Click to expand...
KJV
Califman831 said:
Those listed should be burned. Please defy him and choose the Catholic Bible 😉
Click to expand...
yeah, he could use the Douay-Rheims and they probably wouldn’t know the difference from the KJV
 
StTommyMore said:
The notes can be problematic, especially where they deal with literary and historical criticism
Click to expand...
I am reading a 1986 version right now and find the same problem. The notes seem to want to go out of their way to create as much doubt regarding traditional Catholicism as possible. It’s embarrassingly evangelical in its doubting aspersions.
 
Definitely a KJV (standard text). I am actually in love with my KJV standard text… I honestly don’t think there is a better bible translation out there.

The language is so clear and lucid and yet poetic; it retains such a great dignity about it. Yes. KJV all the way (not the heavily embellished one which is almost unreadable, but the standardised text).
 
I’d suggest you use the KJV and it may be handy to have the Strong’s Concordance nearby, which it must be in your school library.

I’m curious to know what direction your research is taking on the Sabbath.

I’d have a Jewish website in your backpocket, for a reality check on the Old Testament interpretations of the sabbath. Try www.chabad.org. or google yourself around.

Also in your school library, see if they might have Abraham Cohen’s Everyman’s Talmud, which is an explanation of Judaism for Jews. It teases out the traditional meanings of the sabbath.

Be sure to look up the gospel references to the Sabbath.

Don’t waste more time, get going!
 
The Deuterocanonicals read quite differently in the Byzantine texts compared to the Alexandrian texts. This might not make a difference in a study of the Sabbath, but it is something to consider. The Alexandrian texts contain much more fleshed out versions. Just compare the first few verses in Tobit to see what I mean.
 
Tannhauser said:
Definitely a KJV (standard text). I am actually in love with my KJV standard text… I honestly don’t think there is a better bible translation out there.

The language is so clear and lucid and yet poetic; it retains such a great dignity about it. Yes. KJV all the way (not the heavily embellished one which is almost unreadable, but the standardised text).
Click to expand...
Another opinion:

The highly esteemed translators of the Revised Standard Version, who were commissioned by the Church of England to make a translation to replace the KJV, which was also commissioned by the head of the C of E in the seventeenth century, have this to say:

QUOTE

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation.

. . .

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.

END QUOTE

Preface to the Revised Standard Version, p. xi, xiv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top