One of my old college friends went to high school with Anton LaVey's daughter, and occasionally saw LaVey himself, shopping at the local Safeway. (He ate normal food.) Standing in a supermarket checkout line isn't what one one would intuitively expect from a Bible author. But I guess that at one time Paul could have been found down in the town market selling his tents. When the topic is divine (or infernal) inspiration, who among us can really say? On another note, I kinda like the King James Version. It just *sounds* cool, with those Renaissance literary qualities. Some of the newer translations may be textually more accurate (assuming that the goal is fidelity to extant early manuscripts or something), but they're often just flat modern prose without the poetic quality.
The New English Translation, 'cuz it comes closest to successfully balancing the aims of readability, accuracy, and elegance, and I like to know the rationale behind the translators' choices.
Levicoff, thanks for asking!!! The first bible I ever read was the King James Bible and it took me four long years, but I did it!!! For clarification and understanding, I prefer: The Clear Word for the Old Testament The Amblified Bible for the New Testament
Where is the option for "none of the above"? Come on Steve, surely this can't represent all the possible choices. Tony
Have to go with the NET for the same reason's Ed gave. But I use the NIV quite a lot; you can get a clear, quick and strong general understanding of the text you're reading. Next is the NKJV. Keith
I love the NET bible...and by extension http://www.bible.org. When I have a few moments between patient care I like to read passages from the NET bible on my PDA. Isn't technology great? If you have never checked out www.bible.org - it's a great place to whet your theological appetite. Steven King
I have seen advertisements for the NET but have not yet read it. The advertisements almost made it appear that the publishers were hoping it would take the place of the NIV. The NIV revision (TNIV) is probably not going to so to well as it took too many hits from evangelicals (including some with no theological background who lined up against a perceived agenda of the translators). I use the NKJV. It seems to reads close to the NASB and I have noticed that a pastor I know will often say that such and such a Greek word is better translated as.....and that is the word the NKJV uses. NKJV seems to be gaining popularity with various evangelical Christian leaders as I see it popping up more and more. I read that Broadman is intending to publish a Southern Baptist version. I think the quote was something to the effect of a "translation we can control". Considering the size of the Southern Baptists this could be interesting. Thanks to the control of the SBC by conservatives (thankfully in my opinion) the version is likely to be faithful to the original texts and retain conservative scholarly sensibilities. SBCers may or may not line up in droves to buy it. Concordia put out there own study bible (jokingly called the Company Bible) but most LCMS I knew did not purchase it. North
Not exactly. See my article, “The NET Bible: Filling a Unique Role on a Crowded Stage,” in Christian Research Journal 23/2 (2000).
Well, what I am wondering is if the NASB in the poll is the old NASB or the updated NASB. Since the NASB was updated in 1995, shouldn't it now be called the NNASB (New New American Standard)? clint
King James... which, although it lost favor long ago, is still the most relevant to Anglo-American literary traditions, and essential for grasping the evolution and political debate of the Anglosphere (i.e., the English speaking countries), through the centuries! --Orson
The Bible I own is an "Oxford Study Bible," which is "Revised English Bible" translation with notes etc (which I, a layman of extraordinary ignorance, find useful).
Perhaps we should have a poll on the (unintentionally) funniest bible. My vote goes to the "dramatized" audio NIV. A friend of mine played me the section in Mark 5 about the demons who were sent into the pigs. The demons' voices sounded like those of pro wrestlers or Saturday-morning cartoon villains. He plays these tapes in his car but I wouldn't be able to do that -- I'd be laughing so much that I'd soon crash.
My dad used to have a copy of a "version" of the bible called THE WORD MADE FRESH. It was quite a hoot. The author had updated the language to an absurd level. Things like changing "Pharoah" to "The Governor of Mississippi." As I remember, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, were named Tom, Dick and Harry. Not reliable for study, but interesting, if nothing else. clint
As far as picking the best from your list, I like the King James translation. It takes a while but when you're used to it it's quite poetic and clear. Sometimes, though, it can be a bit too archaic with the thee, thine, thou etc... I would also like to give honorable mention to the NKJV. I also like the Amplified, though, as a study aid because it's too wordy to read large amounts at a time. One other version I like and recomend as a good second version ,when studying the Word, is The New Testament in Modern English; by J. B. Phillips. It's very understandable and I'd say fairly accurate in portraying the Greek thought.
My favorite for reading aloud was the Pidgin Bible, in Pidgin English. The Lord's Prayer, for instance, began: "Papa belong me-fellow, he stop on top." (I just searched to see if it was findable, mine being long gone, and I found the Hawaiian Pidgin one, published by Wyckliffe of all people, but not the Niugini one, which was what I had. The Hawaiian one, product of 12 years of research, is, well, so Hawaiian. "John 3:16: God wen get so plenny love an aloha for da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva. You know, God neva send me, his Boy, inside da world for punish da peopo. He wen send me fo take da peopo outqa da bad kine stuff dey doing."
Steve, I own 10 translations of the New Testament (including one in Spanish) and I find them all edifying (with the possible exception of the Living bible, which I do not like). Of course, I am the one who chose the KJV with the Book of Mormon (would you expect otherwise). The "as far as translated correctly" qualification basically means the same thing as the evangelical qualification of "in the original autographs". Personally, I do not know a single person who would choose "The Book of Mormon, period. Who needs the Bible?" certanly not anyone in my (LDS) church, so your inclusion of that choice must have been to make a statement. Tony Piña B.A., M.Ed., Brigham Young U. Doctoral Study, Arizona State U. Ed.D. Candidate, La Sierra U.
Actually, Tony, you are more correct than anyone else here in terms of "getting the message." I intended the entire poll as a satire, especially in light of some of the other (somewhat ridiculous) polls that had recently appeared here. Honestly, I'm surprised at how many people took the poll seriously, especially in light of my original comments in the selections. Therefore, you shouldn't take my selections as a statement against any one group; it was actually a statement against . . . weird polls.
There are Scots who are fond of asking, "What is the very first name that you see when you pick up the Holy Bible? It is, of course, that of "Jamie the Saxt," King James the Sixth of Scotland.
