Bible's 101 .. help!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

The Living Bible has for years been criticized as a "paraphrase" and not a "word for word" translation. Given the fact that almost every other translation includes some element of "paraphrasing" (See for example Acts 26:10 in the KJV), this sort of criticism is kind of empty.

The NCV is an update of the International Children's Bible. It is aimed at young teens and youth readers.

Which type of Bible you use will just depend on what you are doing with what you read. The 3:16 New Testament & Psalms is good for devotional reading and the notes help to fill in a bit of detail that you might overlook. The disadvantage is that it obviously doesn't contain the whole Old Testament.

If you were expounding or preaching the Bible in a preaching or teaching ministry then you might want to get a "more serious" Study Bible like a KJV, NKJV or one of the many others. These can also be found in different editions however that include devotional approaches as opposed to exegesis (preaching and teaching).

You might even try the local libary. Check out a Bible that seems interesting and if it's a good fit then you can spend the money for one of your own. Just a thought.

Acts 26:10?

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by nova

I want to know what are the differences in bibles such as king James ,the living bible as so on... as well as what once are good to have to get a wide rang of study and insight.

Greetings Nova:

There are Bibles that are formal equivalents/literal which attempt to translate the manuscripts into English word for word. There are functional equivalents/paraphrase Bibles which attempt to translate thought for thought (since meaning can be lost in word for word from one language and culture to another).

May I suggest you read the following from Christianbook.com which will help greatly in understanding the difference in translations:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...3|2275884|1003

May I also suggest you read through some of these articles as well, which will help you choose a Bible.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...275884&sp=1003

TheLayman

[Aquila]

Well Nova, it looks like you've received some fantastic advice. Very little I can add. lol

[Aquila]

Personally here is what I’ve enjoyed using:

King James Version – Serious Study, Preaching, Teaching, Devotional Reading
English Standard Version – Serious Study, Teaching, Devotional Reading
New American Standard Bible – Serious Study and Teaching
New International Version – Devotional Reading, Teaching
New Living Translation – Devotional Reading and used to supplement Teaching

The reason I primarily use King James whenever I’ve preached is because many people get a bit uncomfortable with newer versions of the Bible. The King James Version is tried and true. Also it’s very poetic and beautiful to read. If I were to preach from a newer translation I’d only attempt to preach from the English Standard Version. When using King James I will often reference another translation for clarification, but never in the initial Scripture reading. The King James Version is based on the “word for word” translation philosophy and it is based on the Received Texts (often viewed as a plus by traditionalists).

English Standard Version is beautiful. Its melodic tempo is very similar to King James, so you can follow along with a reading from the King James with little problem. The ESV is based on being essentially literal and word for word. I use it for serious study, teaching (I love it for home Bible studies), and of course devotional reading. I almost never cease to find additional insight from the ESV when reading a passage. Maybe it’s just me. If I feel the group is open to newer translations, I’d prefer to preach and teach from ESV (Influenced by the Alexandrian texts and the Received Texts)

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is very literal. However, it’s almost stilted and sterile in its reading because it’s so literal. Reading the NASB along with another version…forget it. You’ll be lost. It’s nice to study and I’ve used it in home bible studies but I’d never preach form it. (Influenced by the Alexandrian texts)

The New International Version is perhaps the most popular modern version. It’s a very easy read and goes over well in home bible studies. Sometimes it’s too basic. Also it’s heavily influenced by the Alexandrian texts. That might be good or bad depending on your opinion of them. Because it’s so easy to read it’s great for just relaxed personal devotions. The NIV is primarily dynamic in it’s approach, meaning the translators tried to catch the meaning and thought behind the verse, it’s not a word for word translation by any means.

New Living Translation is very easy to read and is basically a paraphrase. A lot of editorial opinion can be found in it, but I’ve found those points to be very minor. It’s great for preparing for youth or Sunday school. It really “dumbs the passage down” for easy digestion. It also uses more modern terms for equivalent measurements. So it can be an eye opener. For example,

Exodus 38:29 (King James Version)
29And the brass of the offering was seventy talents, and two thousand and four hundred shekels.

Exodus 38:29 (New Living Translation)
29 The people also brought as special offerings 5,310 pounds of bronze,

I’ve used this information when preaching to add to what I’m trying to say. Sometimes it’s hard for people to picture how much “seventy talents, and two thousand and four hundred shekels” of brass truly is. But if you say, “This equals 5,310 pounds of bronze.” The people will say “Wow!”

So each version has its value. I’d say that if I had to narrow the above down to best basics, my favorites would be KJV, ESV, and NLT. Just me. lol

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Acts 26:10?

Acts 26:10 "... I gave my voice against them." - in the KJV

A more literal translation would read, "... I threw my small pebble at them." This is so obscure that even "Young's Literal Translation" paraphrases it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

Acts 26:10 "... I gave my voice against them." - in the KJV

A more literal translation would read, "... I threw my small pebble at them." This is so obscure that even "Young's Literal Translation" paraphrases it.

30 tn Grk "cast down a pebble against them." L&N 30.103 states, "(an idiom, Grk 'to bring a pebble against someone,' a reference to a white or black pebble used in voting for or against someone) to make known one's choice against someone--'to vote against.' ...'when they were sentenced to death, I also voted against them' Act_26:10."

Act 26:10 And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them.

hehe, interesting

[Twisp]

My wife and I are reading through the NIV right now. It is written more in current language than the KJV, but some passages are a little more jarring coming from a KJV background. I have an ESV study Bible that I turn to when I am researching something. It is closer to the KJV (what I was brought up on), but seems a little clearer to me.

[Twisp]

Have many people used The Interlinear Bible, and what are the advantages of it? As I read the description, it has the Hebrew/Greek text alongside the literal translation? That seems like a very interesting way to read the Bible and get to the source of the text.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

30 tn Grk "cast down a pebble against them." L&N 30.103 states, "(an idiom, Grk 'to bring a pebble against someone,' a reference to a white or black pebble used in voting for or against someone) to make known one's choice against someone--'to vote against.' ...'when they were sentenced to death, I also voted against them' Act_26:10."

Act 26:10 And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them.

hehe, interesting

A lot of folks take it that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin from this passage, which would have required that he be married at the time.

Others see it as a pure idiom, that Paul didn't rally have "white and black stones or pebbles" that the Sanhedrin used in their voting scheme.

Personally, I dunno. But, it's almost never translated word-for-word, no matter what translation you use.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Twisp

My wife and I are reading through the NIV right now. It is written more in current language than the KJV, but some passages are a little more jarring coming from a KJV background. I have an ESV study Bible that I turn to when I am researching something. It is closer to the KJV (what I was brought up on), but seems a little clearer to me.

I like the ESV too, Twispy.