Thread: Recommend me a bible Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028273

---

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
I'm looking for a good study bible. The new spirit filled life bible has been suggested, and I'm wondering if there are any opinions on this or other version.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
I'm growing fond of the Greek New Testament myself...

Though if you're not into languages, I'd go with an NRSV. Boring, but reliable and generally accurate.
 

---

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I've enjoyed Jack Hayford's teachings over the years, Squibs. Some would find his focus too restrictive, but he he does cover a good breadth and depth of teaching and pastoral insight compared to other teachers from within a pentecostal strand of Christianity.

And then there's also the chorus "Majesty"!

The only drawback for me is the use of the KJV as the base for study. Unless one is born and brought up with that mode of expression, it can be like learning a whole new language for new Christians. A bit of a separatist put off!
 

---

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
Thanks folks. Greek is out for the moment, I'm afraid; I've got other fish to fry. NKJ version is a bit of a turn off, but it gets good reviews on amazon. I was hoping there was something a little more accessible (NIV or some such) but also a little scholarly. In other words, I want something beyond a translation - maps, histories, acknowledgments of variances between Greek texts etc. Something that's not boring
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Scholarly ESV would do. There is a ESV Study Bible. This comes from a more conservative stable but it is a decent translation.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I like the NRSV Study Bible and also the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles.

The pulpit edition of the Jerusalem Bible is full of background information, maps, etc.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
And on that note I'll plug The Lutheran Study Bible from Concordia Publishing House (they're associated with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod). I have one of these. Definitely interesting, tons of added information in the notes, essays, etc., scholarly (if you like the church fathers, you'll find them all over the place in the notes, along with anthropological/cultural information, etc. etc.) and the translation is English Standard Version, which is a bit clunky at times but a decent translation.

Caveats: It is unabashedly conservative, which may or may not bother you--the editors etc. take inerrancy for granted, and hold to everything in the creeds. It is scholarly to the point of "Did I really want to know that detail?" and having notes that climb halfway up the page or higher. As a result, the thing is heavy--Duchess would love it as a replacement for her steel plated Bible. Paper is a bit on the thin side, I would guess to keep weight down, but eco-friendly source. I keep hoping they'll bring out a more portable form--I hear rumors of an e-book version soon, but I don't know in what format. Just flipped over to their page and found there's a sale going on right now--it's here.

I'm sorry. It's just that my church has put out something I'm rather proud of, and I can't help giving it a plug here!
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Scholarly ESV would do. There is a ESV Study Bible. This comes from a more conservative stable but it is a decent translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Scholarly ESV would do. There is a ESV Study Bible. This comes from a more conservative stable but it is a decent translation.

---

I've heard nothing but praise for the ESV study bible. The Oxford Annotatd NRSV is also highly spoken of as a study bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
I agree with those who recommend the New Jerusalem bible for a translation. It strikes a wonderful balance between formal equivalence and readability. There is one version that has some notes, but the Catholics seem to shy away from study notes in general. You really won't find a full-blooded "study" version of this translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I personally appreciate my New Interpreters NRSV Study Bible, although it was quite spendy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I personally appreciate my New Interpreters NRSV Study Bible, although it was quite spendy.

Some of my friends also recommend the Harper-Collins Study Bible, which is a trade paperback -- less expensive and easier to tote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Scholarly ESV would do. There is a ESV Study Bible. This comes from a more conservative stable but it is a decent translation.

---

I've heard nothing but praise for the ESV study bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The NIV was created by the most dishonest group of Biblical scholars ever to create a translation IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
Oh dear, I was all set to buy the ESV Study Bible till TC torpedoed it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
...t your fantasy about it being some sort of far-out evil Fundamentalist plot is really not relevant to advising someone else what Bble to read.

---

quote:

---

He didn't torpedo it. He just said that it has too few pictures for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Good study Bible? It's got to be The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Augmented Third Edition New Revised Standard Version in my opinion.

Mind you, it would help if you could say what sort of things you are hoping to achieve from your Bible study. I don't think there's a single resource that caters for absolutely every whim of Bible-related curiosity that might ever cross my mind - so I have several study Bibles bulging out of my bookcase.

quote:

---

He didn't torpedo it. He just said that it has too few pictures for him.

---

If you want a Bible with pictures in it, I'd suggest the Lion Graphic Bible. I don't see the point in incidental pictures; if you're going to have pictures at all, it might as well be all the way through.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Good study Bible? It's got to be The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Augmented Third Edition New Revised Standard Version in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That's the main reason why I haven't purchased the latest Orthodox bible -- it's a new(ish) translation from the LXX, but it comes very heavily annotated. I've always felt it a bit dodgy to put commentary inside the same cover as holy writ -- too easy to forget they're two different things, and come away with the idea that what you read was what the Bible said, rather than an interpretation.

---

Sola scriptura?Has our beloved mousethief fallen into the hands of a cult of Calvinists?

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
Jessie P. Posted

quote:

---

Good study Bible? It's got to be The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha Augmented Third Edition New Revised Standard Version in my opinion.

---

• Lots of cross refferences to parallel and related bits elsewhere.
• Some notes on different translations of key words.
• Brief discussion of key terms.
• some historical/chronological notes to put a whole book in context

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[qb]...t your fantasy about it being some sort of far-out evil Fundamentalist plot is really not relevant to advising someone else what Bble to read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Helen-Eva:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
... your fantasy about it being some sort of far-out evil Fundamentalist plot is really not relevant to advising someone else what Bble to read.

---

I have an NIV which I have had since I was a teenager and which I bought because a) my friend doing religious studies A Level said it was good and b) it had pictures in. In my innocence I had no idea that suggestions of far-out evil Fundamentalist plots attached to it. In a spirit of only mild mischeviousness, if there are far-out Fundy Bibles, what is the translation going furthest the other direction along the continuum from fundamentalism? (the most liberal? the least literalist?)

---

quote:

---

About the only thing that seems to be a hobby horse of conservaties is to substitute the text of the LXX for the Masoretic text in the places I indicated above. I think that is a foul practice -- our Easter Orthodox brethren have always maintained that the LXX is the right OT for Christians, and base their argument substantially upon the fact that the NT always quotes the LXX when it quotes the OT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Please tell me it ain't so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Please tell me it ain't so.

---

It's so, kid.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:
The only translation that I simply had to push aside was the NEB which was stilted, archaic (on publication) and so very 60s. I shouldn't think anyone would refer to it now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
does that really mean that there are translators of the OT who happily munch through translating the Masoretic Text until they get to something quoted from the LXX by the NT, at which point they translate the LXX until the end of the quoted bit, at which point they return to the MT?

I did not know I led such a sheltered life. Please tell me it ain't so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
... The things that bother me about the NIV are the way that it distorts text to make it fit their theology. For example, when the NIV has Jesus say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed that you plant, it is adding words for no other reason than to "correct" God Himself! There is no hint at all of such wording from Christ. The only value of such things is that they protect literalism from obvious problems for a literalist mind. Maybe that isn't what God had in mind for His text...

The NIV injects these editorial sprucings-up throughout scripture without warning. Most translators, if they do such things, do them in a predictable way. Translators who insist on gender-inclusive language (a practice of which I personally disapprove -- save the editorializing for the footnotes) are pretty easy to anticipate. Whenever they write "brothers and sisters" or "friends of all gender persuasions" or whatever they wish the writer had said, it is pretty obvious.

But when the NIV inserts its rewrites, they can appear anywhere and for any reason that the NIV translation team thought was at odds with their understanding of what scripture ought to have said in order for their interpretation of scripture to be right. There is no predicting it, and the seldom even footnote their perfidy.
...

---

This is not a characteristic specific to the NIV, but can be seen in any version of the bible translated following the ethos of dynamic equivalence, and most versions produced since the 1970s have followed this ethos. A full discussion of the pros and cons of dynamic equivalence (in contrast to ‘essentially literal’ translation) would take an extensive essay, even a book, so I won’t try.

But the two main principles of it could be summarised as: a) rather than keeping strictly to the words of the original, the translators try to get behind the words to the ‘thought’ of the original author and re-express those ‘thoughts’ in more comprehensible language; and b) the usage of the target language (the one being translated into) has absolute primacy, and if this means abandoning the usage and phraseology of the source language, then so be it. The foremost requirement is that the reader should be able to understand easily, rather than the original text being faithfully represented. To achieve this, the translators may insert words in order to explain what they think the text means, in addition to the words that the original author (/editor, etc.) actually wrote. (As objected to in the first para quoted above.)

There is now a whole range of translations showing a varying extent of use of the dynamic equivalence ethos, with the NIV at the conservative (or restrained) end, the GNB somewhere in the middle, and the New Living Translation (NLT) and The Message at the liberal (or enthusiastic) end. Indeed, the result has been a blurring of any distinction between translation and paraphrase (which is what the Living Bible was originally considered to be).

For me, finding out that the NIV used dynamic equivalence explained something that had been puzzling me for ages. When using my Greek/English Interlinear bible with accompanying NIV text, there were often discrepancies between the Greek text and the NIV. I put this down to the comment in the introduction that the NIV wasn’t exclusively based on the Nestle-Aland Greek text (which was the Greek version printed there), but used an eclectic mix of original texts. But I was wrong! It was because the translators had added or changed words in order to clarify (in their opinion) the meaning of the text they were translating.

Recently I have developed a deep-seated distrust and suspicion of all dynamic equivalence versions , and a key influence in that development was reading the book: The Word of God in English: Criteria for excellence in Bible Translation by Leland Ryken (Crossway, 2002) (More info on Amazon as usual, text also available as a free download for personal use here).

Ryken was the literary style editor for the ESV, (an ‘essentially literal’ translation) so it’s no surprise that his critique of dynamic equivalence is a robust one, but I found his arguments pretty convincing. I won’t try to reproduce them here, but I reckon from the quotation above that tclune would agree wholeheartedly with them, too. I would describe this book as the most outstandingly enlightening book that I have read in the last 10 years.

However, the debate on the subject is a lively one, with proponents of both sides of the argument having strongly-held views. On the one side is the opinion that making the Word of God accessible and understandable to the modern mind is a very worthwhile activity, while on the other is the opinion that trying to re-write the bible by getting inside the heads of the original authors (etc.) and re-expressing what you think they meant to say but didn’t actually do so, is to distort the Word of God from its original expression. My preference is to have an accurate representation of the original text that I struggle to understand, rather than a version that is made clearly understandable by simplification, re-phrasing and insertion, but which fails to convey the ambiguities, subtleties, metaphors and imagery of the original. (As ever, other opinions may vary.)

To try desperately to bring this post back on topic, I would reckon that a bible version for in-depth study, using commentaries and maybe venturing into the Hebrew and Greek texts, would best be an essentially literal version. While reading Ryken’s book, I compiled a list of translations which I understood to be done on the principle of ‘essentially literal’ or ‘optimal equivalence’, so for the information of shipmates I’ll reproduce it here: KJV (1611); RV (1881-1885); American Standard Version (1901); RSV (1946-1957); NASB (1971); NKJV (1982); NASB(Updated) (1995); ESV (2001); Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004). Nine in 400 years. Not many, is it? Though there may be others I don’t know about.

The editorial decision of the translators of the NRSV to eliminate gender-specific language means that I don’t reckon it to be ‘essentially literal’, as it is a practise whereby the usage of the target language overrules the original phraseology. I have great respect for the NET bible, as the footnotes and translation notes are awe-inspiring, but the same gender-neutralising tinkering as the NRSV disqualifies it from the list. Though it does have the honesty to footnote the original gender-specific word in each case, and reading the introduction to the translation will give a good taster of the intricacies of bible translation technicalities. (Again, the issue of gender-specific language will provoke strong contrasting opinions.)

AFAIK all other bible versions since the 1970s have used dynamic equivalence as their basic translation ethos (though that statement may render me a hostage to contradiction). And what one will tend to get from comparing a biblical passage in different dynamic versions is a growing sense of confusion, as each of the translation teams tries to re-express their understanding of what the author (etc.) meant – and all of them do so in different ways, and in doing so perhaps distort the text to fit in with their theology (see quote para.1 above). Ryken refers to this as ‘destabilisation of the text’.

Amazingly enough, the most literal translation that I have ever read, where the structure of the Greek text is substantially preserved, is Tyndale’s NT of 1534 (this edition). And I don’t find it at all difficult to understand.

I really must stop there.

Angus
 

---

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Edit note: In my post above,

"my Greek/English Interlinear bible with accompanying NIV text"

should read:

"my Greek/English Interlinear NT with accompanying NIV text"
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Below is what I told someone else who recently asked the same question. It's awfully long, so run off to get a snack or something if you'd rather skip it.

quote:

---

The very best Bible translation is the one you will take joy in and read often, and understand easily, without having to look things up too often, without having to wait on the Holy Spirit to zap you with the gift of reading in tongues.

Anything besides you standing there 2,000 years ago, 5 feet away from Jesus of Nazareth, listening to the Aramaic coming out of His mouth, is a translation done by, you can only hope, a group of scholarly but also common-sense people, with loyalties primarily to the truth of what they are translating.

You have two main extremes of translation -- a direct word-for-word, and a "dynamic equivalent". These things can each be useful. A direct word-for-word Greek-to-English translation looks like someone put the Bible in a food processor. The only way to understand that as an English reader is to digest it in chunks. A dynamically-equivalent phrase can make all the difference in the world, improving the understanding of the reader, but if it's not carefully done it's little better than a paraphrase.

For example, in my region we boil and eat crawfish (crayfish crawdads mudbugs, you know). When we have a visitor from Up North we explain to him, "Don't eat the dead ones".

What's that supposed to mean? They've been boiled, right? They're all dead.

A "direct word-for-word" translation won't mean much to an outsider. But, even though the words actually stated literally were "Don't eat the dead ones", a dynamic equivalent sort of translation is needed for full meaning to the outsider. *(Translation below)*

The best we can do is pick out a handful of passages that have deep meaning for us, passages that make us stop and think, passages that make us cry or laugh -- and read those passages in as many translations as you can get your hands on. The one or two translations that make the passage most clear and useful to you -- those are the ones that should be your main daily-use Bibles.

... here (is a Bible search tool)... For broad segments of Scripture and for a long list of Bible translations, I like Studylight. There are about 45 Bible translations and paraphrases available to you in the search bar there.

For example:

Here's Luke 22:36, in the context, in the KJV, with Strong's numbers, so it's really easy to look things up in the Strong's Concordance.

Here is the same verse, Luke 22:36, in context, in The Message. That's not really a translation -- it's a paraphrase, authored by one man.

Don't ever make a paraphrase, or even a translation done under the power of a single man, your only Bible. It is good to trust in the "crabs in a basket" principle. (Yes, another aquatic example. Might as well. I am here Below the Bible Belt in Southeast Louisiana...)

That is, when you have a bushel of live crabs ready to dump into boiling water -- they are of course crawling about in there, trying to get out, every crab for himself. If one should get lucky and begin to escape, the others usually grab him and pull him back down (in their own escape attempts, but to us it looks like on purpose).

Thus the crabs-in-a-basket factor in translations. Some of the best will have input from a group of translators from different backgrounds. The moment one translator puts his own denominational twist on a passage, the others yank him back...

... a... paraphrase (is no good)... when it comes time for deep study. But they are very good for your "reading Bible". That is, when you want to read a few chapters before bedtime, or when you want to read the Bible straight like any really good book, or when you want to read it aloud in large sections for others to hear it, not worrying about chapters and verses and deep word studies -- a good paraphrase cannot be beaten, at a time like that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*{Translation: "When they are boiled live, their tails curl springily up. Don't eat those few limp, straight-tailed ones. Those died before they were boiled. You will at best get some lower-quality meat, at worst catch a horrible intestinal revolt and die, or wish your could."

In other words: Don't eat the dead ones.}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
To try desperately to bring this post back on topic, I would reckon that a bible version for in-depth study, using commentaries and maybe venturing into the Hebrew and Greek texts, would best be an essentially literal version...

I have great respect for the NET bible, as the footnotes and translation notes are awe-inspiring, but the same gender-neutralising tinkering as the NRSV disqualifies it from the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That all sounds wonderful, Tom, but what's their slant? Once you start interpreting the Bible, you're doing it from a point of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, whatever. Unless they try to present all of these together?

---

quote:

---

The very best Bible translation is the one you will take joy in and read often, and understand easily, without having to look things up too often, ...

---

quote:

---

You have two main extremes of translation -- a direct word-for-word, and a "dynamic equivalent". These things can each be useful. A direct word-for-word Greek-to-English translation looks like someone put the Bible in a food processor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Angus, there is a lot of thoughtful insight in your post. I would like to just take issue with the quoted part above. ...

---

Tom, thanks for the compliment. I’ve read your response about the NET bible, and I do take on board the points that you’ve made. I’ll integrate them into my understanding of bible translations. Prov 27:17

Angus
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
For those still interested, in October the HCSB study bible will be published. I quite like the translation from what I've read so far (not that much). But the study bible looks rather brilliant, here is a video explaining its features, and here is a 16 page PDF excerpt (yes, the study bible will be in full color throughout).

A lot less flash, but more Catholic (the HCSB is mostly from the Baptist tradition, I understand), is the Ignatius Study Bible. The translation is the RSV (2nd Catholic Edition), and notes are by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. The entire New Testament is now available as one book, previously each bible book had to be bought separately. At the link above you can also download 4 sample PDF pages. The same authors are apparently now working through the OT book by book again, here is Genesis. Eventually I guess Ignatius will publish a complete study bible based on this material. Of course, the Navarre Bible is already available as complete Catholic study bible (RSC 1st CE, plus New Latin Vulgate). Perhaps it is of interest again that the New Testament is available as one book. At the link you can also find 8 PDF pages as sample. Again, I expect that eventually they will do the whole bible (and they have the material to do it already, I assume commercial questions are the problem).

All in all, the Protestant study bibles are really in a different league currently as far as the presentation goes. I would love it if the major "conservative" ones like ESV or perhaps now HCSB would spawn a Catholic version with the same production quality but adapted content (translation, notes, and of course the "extra" books would need to be done).
 

---

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :
 
I use three, all of them great and not-so-great for different reasons...

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (2nd edition with the RSV & 3rd edition with the NRSV, both including the Apocrypha). Very scholarly; the academic standard, it seems. Historical-critical to the max; definitely tips the boat toward the liberal side. A 4th edition, again with the NRSV, has recently been released.

The MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV). A 180 from the NOAB (above). Very conservative, perhaps with a fundamentalist flavour; Calvinistic, Baptistic, moderately Dispensationalist. This is a one man job, so you kinda really have to like ol' Johnny Mac to dig this.

The ESV Study Bible. Kind of represents a mean between the 'extremes' of the NOAB and the MSB (above). A conservative, evangelical, moderately Reformed scholarly study Bible, headed by the British-Canadian Anglican theologian J.I. Packer. The load of essays at the back, which could be packaged and sold as a book unto itself (and, knowing Crossway Books, probably will be) are a real draw.
 

---

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
Several years ago when I was looking for a Bible for myself, I asked a colleague's husband, who is the director of a library at an RC theological seminary, for his recommendation. What I wanted was a Bible that had scholarly apparatus with serious chops, more liberal than conservative, but without gender-neutral language (I'm quite liberal theologically but I have not found a gender-neutral Bible whose language scanned well for me). Absolutely no paraphrases or language aimed at elementary school children.

He suggested the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, RSV, 2nd edition. It is just what I wanted. The language is beautiful, the scholarly apparatus is really interesting and the Bible itself is lovely--very nice leather, gilt-edged pages. No illustrations except maps, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I have the Complete Bible Handbook which has color illustrations galore. I consult this frequently when I am reading my Bible.

It has been really interesting reading this thread and checking out the other Bibles that have been mentioned. There are so many different translations out there; I think pretty much anyone could find one that is the right 'fit'.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
May I ask a sub-question? (Hosts please tell me to start a new thread if you think I should.)

Can anyone recommend a good Bible for my newly-acquired Amazon Kindle? I've a fairly strong preference for one with the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, and as far as I can see by searching the amazon website so far, that narrows it down to either the Douay-Rheims or the RSV.

(Note: I don't think UK Kindle users can buy books from amazon.com - only from amazon.co.uk. But I could be wrong about that - I'm very new to it all.)
 

---

Posted by Nenuphar (# 16057) on :
 
Presumably you have looked through the bibles on Amazon.uk? I have bought the Ignatius study bible (RSV) which is a good study bible (if you don't mind catholic notes!) but unfortunately so far it is only the NT. I believe the authors will publish the books of the OT as they annotate them, and then the entire bible, but obviously this is a long term project. There is also an NRSV as well as the RSV or the D-R, or if there is another translation you prefer, you can buy the deuterocanoicals alone for your Kindle. I haven't tried to buy from Amazon.com since transferring my account to the uk store, but I should think it's worth a try if the version you prefer is only available there. Hope this is of some help to you.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Thanks, Nenuphar. In the end I've gone for this, the Ignatius Bible, which doesn't claim to be a "study" Bible but does contain extensive doctrinal and exegetical notes.

I wanted a Bible for my Kindle mainly because I'm at a Certain Age, where small print (espceially on thin paper, where you can see the print on the other side too) tires my eyes after a while. The Kindle allows you to change print size to suit yourself. But in only a couple of days since I bought this, I've also found the notes system very useful - there's nothing distracting on the "page", but a click takes you to the note on a separate "page" - and if I want to use it for my daily prayer readings, it takes only a minute to set up the "bookmarks" and then it's easier to use than a paper Bible. It's also a lot lighter!

(The only thing I've found that doesn't work well on it is the text-to-voice function, where the Kindle reads aloud to you. The problem is, the voice also reads the verse and chapter numbers, making it virtually unintelligible!)
 

---

Posted by Nenuphar (# 16057) on :
 
I hadn't tried the text-to-voice function until I read your post, then I tried the beginning of Matthew. I preferred the male voice to the female one, but I see the reading of the verse numbers etc. would be a bit disconcerting if you didn't know it was going to happen. "He" read the asterisks and the letters for footnotes too, but I must say that for a computer, I thought "he" managed the names quite well.
 

---

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I have just this very now returned from an excellent talk by Fr. Nicholas King, who has recently produced a translation of the NT - has anyone come across it or used it?
 

---

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I have just this very now returned from an excellent talk by Fr. Nicholas King, who has recently produced a translation of the NT - has anyone come across it or used it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is called "The New Testament: Freshly translated by Nicholas King" ISBN 1-84417-324-0 and the publisher is Kevin Mayhew.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That all sounds wonderful, Tom, but what's their slant? Once you start interpreting the Bible, you're doing it from a point of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, whatever. Unless they try to present all of these together?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
(ie, one that American (that is where I live) college professors would use when providing an English quote from scripture) Catholic Bible translation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
(ie, one that American (that is where I live) college professors would use when providing an English quote from scripture) Catholic Bible translation?

---

In my experience, in my NT classes it was either NRSV or RSV. In OT classes, it was generally NAB, or sometimes JPS. In preaching, it was NAB.

The Catholic Study Bible that Don Senior and John Collins edited really is very good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart:
NABRE is probably the most up-to-date in terms of integrating new manuscript evidence. I think that overall the NRSV is an improvement over the RSV. Also, from briefly skimming the Ignatius notes, I couldn't recommend them. (Note all the hedges on that statement). Jerusalem is probably the most mellifluous translation out there, but it doesn't meet your standards for formal equivalence. Both NABRE and NRSV would be close enough. You could get them both and switch between them. All translators are traitors (a saying that sounds much better in its original Italian), but between those two, you'll get a pretty good sense of the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I have heard people complain that the NAB is kind of a compromise between formal and dynamic equivalence,

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0