Which version of the bible should I read?

[johnl10]

Hello, I just joined this forum.
I grew up in a family that was catholic and attended church regularly but never really read the bible much.
I now have decided to learn the bible and am looking for a local non denominational church but also have begun watching Joel Osteen on TV.
What I'd like to know is which version of the bible should I read? I have seen King James, American Standard Version, and New International Version.

[OnceConvinced]

And remember, just because a bible looks old does not mean it was acuurately translated. Some of the newer ones are better/ more accurate.

So a lot of people claim, but can we really be assured of that? One would hope modern translations would be more accurate, but from what I see a lot of words have been given new meanings to get around the fact that the older meanings showed flaws in "God's word".

[cnorman18]

And remember, just because a bible looks old does not mean it was acuurately translated. Some of the newer ones are better/ more accurate.

So a lot of people claim, but can we really be assured of that? One would hope modern translations would be more accurate, but from what I see a lot of words have been given new meanings to get around the fact that the older meanings showed flaws in "God's word".

I'm curious about that. Can you post some examples?

Other than revising the archaic 17th-century English of the KJV, and some versions that are admitted to be "paraphrases" as opposed to "translations" (e.g. The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man), the only version I know of that contains substantive departures from the Textus Receptus is the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, which contains a great many straight-up alterations - notably the deletion of any references to the Cross (Witnesses maintain that Jesus was nailed to an upright stake and that the Cross is a later fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church).

I'd be interested in seeing any references or examples of other alterations or revisions to the text. I admit that I'm not current with several recent versions of the NT; for the last twelve years or so, I have used Jewish Bibles exclusively and gotten my NT quotes from the Web, usually from the KJV (no copyright issues).

It would be hard for translators or publishers of Jewish Bibles to depart from the text to any significant degree; many of them contain the Hebrew Masoretic text, and very many Jews are fluent in Biblical Hebrew.

Full disclosure: I do know of one rather bizarre exception; I own an Orthodox Chumash published by Artscroll that contains a wildly revised translation of the "Song of Songs." (Chumashim are books which contain the Torah (the first five books of the OT, for those who came in late), the Haftorahs (passages from the Prophets that are read in synagogue services), and the five Megilloth or "scrolls" that are read on specific Jewish holidays; Esther on Purim, Ruth on Shavuout, Eichah (Lamentations) on the Ninth of Av, Koheles (Ecclesiastes) on Succoth, and Shir HaShirim (the Song of Songs) on Passover.)

This last - second in the order given in the Chumash - is translated "allegorically." The frankly erotic content of the poem is changed into a rhapsodic essay about the "love affair" between God and the Jewish people. It's deeply weird, and it is admitted in the commentary that of all the books in the Hebrew Bible, the Song of Songs seems out of place and that this is an effort to make it fit in. Even there, though, the Hebrew text is printed alongside the loopy English "translation."

I know of nothing else like this from any other publisher.

[OnceConvinced]

And remember, just because a bible looks old does not mean it was acuurately translated. Some of the newer ones are better/ more accurate.

So a lot of people claim, but can we really be assured of that? One would hope modern translations would be more accurate, but from what I see a lot of words have been given new meanings to get around the fact that the older meanings showed flaws in "God's word".

I'm curious about that. Can you post some examples?

It looks like I am guilty of making an unsupported claim here as I have no real evidence to support this, only strongly held opinion. I have not bothered to investigate it as I do not understand the original languages. I just can't fathom that God would allow his word to become so severly screwed up with major translation errors. And it really makes me doubt how any English translation can be trusted when such "supposed" errors as this are still being picked up. When will we ever get an English translation that can be relied upon as correct? Seems like we never will as long as current English translations are being exposed as wrong.

One of the examples that comes to mind are the mythical creatures from the bible.
eg the Satyr and the Cockatrice. Obviously these creatures are fictional and now we have more modern translations that have them retranslated to Goat and Viper. I do not know exactly what translations they are, but I've had Christians argue this and claiming that their modern translations are more accurate because of these so-called corrections. Call me cynical if you like, but I find that argument very convenient. Almost too convenient.

[cnorman18]

And remember, just because a bible looks old does not mean it was acuurately translated. Some of the newer ones are better/ more accurate.

So a lot of people claim, but can we really be assured of that? One would hope modern translations would be more accurate, but from what I see a lot of words have been given new meanings to get around the fact that the older meanings showed flaws in "God's word".

I'm curious about that. Can you post some examples?

It looks like I am guilty of making an unsupported claim here as I have no real evidence to support this, only strongly held opinion. I have not bothered to investigate it as I do not understand the original languages. I just can't fathom that God would allow his word to become so severly screwed up with major translation errors. And it really makes me doubt how any English translation can be trusted when such "supposed" errors as this are still being picked up. When will we ever get an English translation that can be relied upon as correct? Seems like we never will as long as current English translations are being exposed as wrong.

One of the examples that comes to mind are the mythical creatures from the bible.
eg the Satyr and the Cockatrice. Obviously these creatures are fictional and now we have more modern translations that have them retranslated to Goat and Viper. I do not know exactly what translations they are, but I've had Christians argue this and claiming that their modern translations are more accurate because of these so-called corrections. Call me cynical if you like, but I find that argument very convenient. Almost too convenient.

That one's actually pretty easy. What you're talking about is the translation of some specific words in the KJV, and those were guesses then and they are mostly guesses now, though they are probably more accurate in some cases. There are just some Hebrew words in the OT that aren't found anywhere else, and no one is quite sure what they mean. That is especially true in the case of animals; some words may be references to mythical animals (like "Leviathan" in Job), or maybe to animals that are extinct today, like the aurochs or the cave lion. In some cases it's just hard to tell. Those words don't usually have any deep significance to anyone but literalists.

That's another reason to use a study Bible with marginal notes, annotations, footnotes and commentary. In the places where words like this are found, you will read "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain" at the foot of the page and find alternate readings and cross-references to other places where the word is found. Sometimes the reasoning behind a specific translation is given, but it's usually pretty clear from the context.

I frankly don't know why anyone would attempt anything but casual, devotional reading of the Bible in other than an annotated edition -whether one "believes" or not, it's essential to understanding what the book actually says and what it means. Considering what professional scholars have to say about it seems to me to be essential to understanding ANY book that old.

[Nilloc James]

And remember, just because a bible looks old does not mean it was acuurately translated. Some of the newer ones are better/ more accurate.

So a lot of people claim, but can we really be assured of that? One would hope modern translations would be more accurate, but from what I see a lot of words have been given new meanings to get around the fact that the older meanings showed flaws in "God's word".

Well I was refering to some.