Bible Translation

[Ponder]

Which Translation of the Bible do you prefer,...and why?

[Octavius]

I prefer ones written in English. Can't be doing with all that foreign la-de-dah nonsense.

[mibn2cweus]

In any choice between the lesser of two evils, evil invariably wins. There is no reason to prefer one version of the glorification of ignorance, the praise of failure and the worship of suffering, over another.

The common thread which runs between all versions of the bible and which should proscribe them from the bookshelves of the rational is their prejudice against the human capacity for goodness and virtue. The only humanity one has any right to prescribe as inherently evil is ones own.

[mibn2cweus]

wiz, Check your premise. I never claimed to be rational

[chakka35]

I certainly agree with all that,Mib, but if I were forced to choose it would undoubtedly be the King James version for the sheer beauty of some of its prose.

After all, some hymns and carols are beautiful even though their content is superstitious nonsense.

[Gormless]

NIV is very readable and evangelical, the Study version is a good buy. RSV / ESV are more literal, NRSV seems to be a politically correct ("gender-inclusive") translation in the same vein.

NEB / REB are very "British" translations, using what has been called rather stilted academic language (blowed if I can see it though).

NASB claims to be the most literal modern version available.

J.B. Phillips is maybe the most readable of the lot. New Testament only.

There are many many others. The best AV is Scofield, because he gives dates, e.g. the date of the creation was 4004 BC (Ussher).

What is so striking is not so much the differences as the similarities. I challenge anybody to find a mainstream version that creates significant doctrinal difficulties.

[chakka35]

Gormless, the bible is full of 'doctrinal difficulties' from beginning to end.

Are you seriously saying that Scofield is best because it reproduces that hilarious estimate of Ussher's? Does it also say 12 noon on October 23rd?

[brionon]

The Irish version,as Jesus was Irish. Lived with his Mum 'till in his 30's ,he thinks she's a virgin -she thinks he's a god.

[naomi24]

I agree with Chakka. If I had to choose, I would go the the King James version too, simply for the language.

Gormless, please tell me you don't believe that date.

[naomi24]

Very good Brionon, except that she didn't think he was a god. At one time his family seemed to be pretty convinced that he was potty.

[ivaclue]

I like the Good News version for easy understanding. Those people who can only take the mick, don't know what thay are missing

[naomi24]

Ivaclue, I think you'll find that many of those people who you say 'take the mick' do know what they're missing. They've read the bible from cover to cover and they know exactly what it contains.

[mibn2cweus]

chakka, naomi, sorry . . . I don't get it?

[evedawn]

like gormless i prefer the NIV or the top of the list must be the NIV study bible....lots of interesting nfo at the bootom of each page and very easy if you wish to cross reference

[naomi24]

Oh, ye of little faith, mibs. :o)

[jake-the-peg]

You know guys I'm not really convinced that this is an appropriate thread for us atheists to be commenting in.

Seems to me that the topic is aimed at Christians for Christians.

Am I getting soft?

[Quinlad]

I like the Arabic version.

[Octavius]

Not at all jake, don�t you think there is something quite delightful in atheists debating their favourite version of the bible?

Obviously they need to tell us about all the foibles that we obviously don�t already know about within it, but I think all-round, everyone gets warm and fluffy. It�s rather encouraging.

[naomi24]

I said that about a question once, Jake, when I first came to AB - but the backlash was relentless! :o)