5 ms·

Can you recommend an accurate translation? I've always wanted to read the bible

by afro88 11y ago

baldfat 11y ago
I have studied 2 years of Greek and Hebrew and some Aramaic. The more I learned of these languages the more I realized how good our own translations are. All the modern translations are good but I do have two recommendations. New Living Translation is the best reading bible. It just is well written in sentence structure and word choices. New Revised Standard is the best "study" translation. To me it has the best "word for word" though I must say my old Hebrew teacher HATES this version's Old Testament version's word choices. (For example NIV translate the Greek word SOMA (flesh) sinful nature, I have an issue with that. In the Old Testament there are similar things that are merely differences in opinion) As a Linux and Open Source (Free Software) person I hate these copyrights so there are a few open license projects that I haven' dug into yet.
- gecko 11y ago
  When I'm doing scholarly work, I think that the New Revised Standard version for the Gospels and other Christian writings is hands-down the best option. Its translations can be a bit stilted, since they try as hard as possible to go word-for-word with the original, but that's exactly what you want if you're trying to do a historical analysis. That said, I agree with your Hebrew teacher that it's not my top scholarly choice for the Hebrew bible. For that, I prefer the New Jewish Publication Society translation. Just as the NRSV, it's very easy to find with full scholarly commentary and without best-guess emendations (i.e., if the Hebrew makes no sense, or the meaning of a word has been forgotten, they will clearly mark it, rather than reaching to the Septuagint/Vulgate/Targum for a translation), but in my personal opinion, the NJPS translation is a bit more accurate.
nogridbag 11y ago
If you have an open mind, I recommend the SAB [0]. It's the King James version annotated by skeptics. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
- Karunamon 11y ago
  And for an alternate viewpoint that addresses 100% of the annotations: http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ The author of SAB fell into the snarky dismissal trap in more than a few places. It cheapens the work greatly.
  - nogridbag 11y ago
    It's hard for me to take that seriously. I'm on page 1 of chapter 1. I have a real interest in Earths' creation, but I'm also a logical person like many HN readers here. The bible says day and night were created several days before the Sun (and each day has an morning, daylight, evening, and night period). Educated humans now know this is because of the Earth's rotation where the side of the Earth facing the sun is in daylight. The SAB I listed points out this flaw. The link you listed states "Obviously there were photons before there were stars" as it's rebuttal. I'm sorry but it's hard for me to even proceed any further. It's almost laughable. So am I, as a logical person, supposed to believe that god is shooting various amounts of photons from his/her fingers creating these beautiful periods of morning, day, evening, and night for three days or so for no apparent reason? God hasn't created humans yet. God hasn't created plants yet. It serves no function. It's not like he's doing testing before it goes into production - the production environment uses a star (our Sun) and the Earth's rotation to create periods of day and night. Finally, a few verses later the bible says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The SAB rightfully points out that the moon does not emit light - it only reflects the Sun's light. The link you provided offers the following rebuttal: "obviously the author of the SAB hasn't spend much time outside at night at full moon. That's a lot of light". Hehe.. I do find the link you provided amusing but also a bit depressing honestly. People want so much to believe that they're willing to accept a rebuttal like the one you provided without even thinking for themselves.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Those responses are made in direct response to the theological arguments made by SAB, along the lines of "This is a contradiction". "No it isn't, because X". If you're a hard empiricist, you will find nothing in the bible of interest to your life, save for historic/anthropological curiosity. There's no point in getting into such a discussion on Hacker News, interesting as that might be. But the specific thing you mentioned - as an omnipotent being, the very idea of our existence "has no point", let alone the order elementary building blocks of the universe came into existence (at least as described by bronze-age scribes). Be very careful with the "this has no reason to be this way" argument, it could very well be that you don't know the reason, or that there really isn't one.
code4life 11y ago
I enjoy the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It's easy to read and is very similar to the King James Version (KJV). Others I know enjoy the New King James Version. I recommend starting in the new testament and reading Matthew through Romans if you are a first time reader. Read those several times through and see what the Bible (the Word of God) has to offer!

Can you recommend an accurate translation? I've always wanted to read the bible

by afro88 11y ago

Can you recommend an accurate translation? I've always wanted to read the bible

I have studied 2 years of Greek and Hebrew and some Aramaic. The more I learned of these languages the more I realized how good our own translations are. All the modern translations are good but I do have two recommendations. New Living Translation is the best reading bible. It just is well written in sentence structure and word choices. New Revised Standard is the best "study" translation. To me it has the best "word for word" though I must say my old Hebrew teacher HATES this version's Old Testament version's word choices. (For example NIV translate the Greek word SOMA (flesh) sinful nature, I have an issue with that. In the Old Testament there are similar things that are merely differences in opinion) As a Linux and Open Source (Free Software) person I hate these copyrights so there are a few open license projects that I haven' dug into yet.

gecko 11y ago
When I'm doing scholarly work, I think that the New Revised Standard version for the Gospels and other Christian writings is hands-down the best option. Its translations can be a bit stilted, since they try as hard as possible to go word-for-word with the original, but that's exactly what you want if you're trying to do a historical analysis. That said, I agree with your Hebrew teacher that it's not my top scholarly choice for the Hebrew bible. For that, I prefer the New Jewish Publication Society translation. Just as the NRSV, it's very easy to find with full scholarly commentary and without best-guess emendations (i.e., if the Hebrew makes no sense, or the meaning of a word has been forgotten, they will clearly mark it, rather than reaching to the Septuagint/Vulgate/Targum for a translation), but in my personal opinion, the NJPS translation is a bit more accurate.

nogridbag 11y ago

If you have an open mind, I recommend the SAB [0]. It's the King James version annotated by skeptics. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Karunamon 11y ago
And for an alternate viewpoint that addresses 100% of the annotations: http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ The author of SAB fell into the snarky dismissal trap in more than a few places. It cheapens the work greatly.
- nogridbag 11y ago
  It's hard for me to take that seriously. I'm on page 1 of chapter 1. I have a real interest in Earths' creation, but I'm also a logical person like many HN readers here. The bible says day and night were created several days before the Sun (and each day has an morning, daylight, evening, and night period). Educated humans now know this is because of the Earth's rotation where the side of the Earth facing the sun is in daylight. The SAB I listed points out this flaw. The link you listed states "Obviously there were photons before there were stars" as it's rebuttal. I'm sorry but it's hard for me to even proceed any further. It's almost laughable. So am I, as a logical person, supposed to believe that god is shooting various amounts of photons from his/her fingers creating these beautiful periods of morning, day, evening, and night for three days or so for no apparent reason? God hasn't created humans yet. God hasn't created plants yet. It serves no function. It's not like he's doing testing before it goes into production - the production environment uses a star (our Sun) and the Earth's rotation to create periods of day and night. Finally, a few verses later the bible says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The SAB rightfully points out that the moon does not emit light - it only reflects the Sun's light. The link you provided offers the following rebuttal: "obviously the author of the SAB hasn't spend much time outside at night at full moon. That's a lot of light". Hehe.. I do find the link you provided amusing but also a bit depressing honestly. People want so much to believe that they're willing to accept a rebuttal like the one you provided without even thinking for themselves.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Those responses are made in direct response to the theological arguments made by SAB, along the lines of "This is a contradiction". "No it isn't, because X". If you're a hard empiricist, you will find nothing in the bible of interest to your life, save for historic/anthropological curiosity. There's no point in getting into such a discussion on Hacker News, interesting as that might be. But the specific thing you mentioned - as an omnipotent being, the very idea of our existence "has no point", let alone the order elementary building blocks of the universe came into existence (at least as described by bronze-age scribes). Be very careful with the "this has no reason to be this way" argument, it could very well be that you don't know the reason, or that there really isn't one.

code4life 11y ago

I enjoy the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It's easy to read and is very similar to the King James Version (KJV). Others I know enjoy the New King James Version. I recommend starting in the new testament and reading Matthew through Romans if you are a first time reader. Read those several times through and see what the Bible (the Word of God) has to offer!