Best Bible To Read?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-12-04 01:26pm

I've been avoiding this for decades, but it seems clear that one day I actually have to read the Bible. Its been referenced for cwenturies on thousands of works, and I'd like to read the original context from whence these phrases and stories sprung.

So...what version of the Bible is the "best" to read? King James I understand is the one that has been the most heavily edited,IIRC.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-12-04 01:40pm

Try the New International version.

KJV is corrupted code; burn it as the heresy it is.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-12-04 02:10pm

The SAB and it is online so you can save some cash.

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2005-12-04 02:38pm

1: Don't try and read the whole thing, even ignoring the mind-numbing genealogy parts there's an insane amount of boredom involved. Hit the highlights instead.

2: King James all the way. It's the poetry in there that you'll recognise.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-12-04 04:01pm

Forgive me for being 'old school', but I grew up with one and only one Bible: KJV.

Hell, I remember the bitching that started when the NIV first showed up... it was damn near Heresy in my church to see a "Modern Translation".

Eris · Post by **Eris** » 2005-12-04 04:29pm

Well, my copy is of the KJV; it was the cheapest hardcover in good condition I could find at a used bookstore. I would suggest similar criteria for getting your own; it's really just too dull to be worth much more of an investment. And while the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is an excellent resource, it's not portable which is vexing when you need it as a reference while away from the 'net.

The problem I have with the NIV though is that they 'updated' it. You'll find terms in that translation that don't even have analogues in the Greek and Hebrew that was the original text. Sadly no matter which way you go, you're still going to find yourself falling asleep every other book. For all it's touted as the greatest piece of literature ever, most of it's just mediocre writing.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-12-04 04:44pm

The ideal thing to do is to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic and read the source manuscripts.

I am not so blessed as to be learned in any of those languages, so I use the New Interpreter's Study Bible: NRSV, because the translation is considered to be one of the best, and you get a lot of commentary in the book itself.

The best thing to do, however, is read the areas that interest you using several translations at once. My personal reading 'cocktail' is NIS: NRSV + CEV + NIV + The Message (the Bible re-written in a modern, conversational tone without all the passage and verse numbers.) Yes, it is more work and takes longer, but you get a better understanding of the intent of the passage you are reading. It will also give you a feel for how interpretations differ on use, emphasis and style.

Also, get your hands on a good commentary for the book of the Bible you are reading. Commentaries help to tell the back-story as well as clue you into POV's that existed at the time of writing that may be quite foreign and unnatural to you now. Using myself as an example, if I read the Bible strictly from the POV of privileged, white, male North American, then I would miss the point most of the time.

Then of course, you are going to have to decide how you are going to read the Bible, literally, systemically or as a study in comparative literature. But that's the subject of a new thread.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2005-12-04 06:52pm

Lord Poe wrote:So...what version of the Bible is the "best" to read? King James I understand is the one that has been the most heavily edited,IIRC.

The KJV has been around pretty long (a few hundred years), but it is a translation that was done before the discovery of most of the best Scripture manuscripts. In fact, if you want the most accurate translations you'll need to get something done in the past 50 years, because prior to that the most trusted source manuscripts simply were not available.

The NIV (New International Version) is an excellent translation and is probably the best, or at least the most "standard" version available today. I recommend it. If you have not been raised in the church, I strongly advise you to stay away from the KJV. The archaic language does a great job of obscuring the meaning.

This web page gives a brief overview of major modern translations: http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.php

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-12-04 08:44pm

I've heard the NIV and KJV are pretty bad translations, but I've heard the NASB is fairly up to date and easier to read.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2005-12-04 09:42pm

The Catholic New American Bible is probably best since it's the approved translation of the largest denomination of Christianity and is fairly up-to-date.

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2005-12-04 09:56pm

Rye wrote:I've heard the NIV and KJV are pretty bad translations, but I've heard the NASB is fairly up to date and easier to read.

Like its been said, the catch is that he's wanting it for literature reference to see the original context for specific readings. The only way the newer translations would really be of any legitimate help is if the stories he's looking for hte references on aren't 50+ years old.

For original context research, the KJV is probably the best choice. Though I'd still keep a younger version around to help with the...wordiness...but most of the weight would be on KJV in this particular case.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2005-12-04 10:10pm

Gaidin wrote:
Rye wrote:I've heard the NIV and KJV are pretty bad translations, but I've heard the NASB is fairly up to date and easier to read.
Like its been said, the catch is that he's wanting it for literature reference to see the original context for specific readings. The only way the newer translations would really be of any legitimate help is if the stories he's looking for hte references on aren't 50+ years old.

Quite right. For any of the poetry sections (Psalms, Song of Solomon, etc) the KJV would probably be the best reference from a literary perspective.

For the historical parts of the Bible, just pick a version that's easier to read. All you're looking for is the story so you can understand the literary references to it, so pick a version that is easy to read.

Remember, the Bible stories are all there in any version of the Bible you pick. Even the KJV is a complete Bible. It's not like we found any "new" Bible stories or new books of the Bible since then. The newer translations are more doctrinally sound, though. If you're not worried about pedantic doctrinal issues, then basically any translation of the Bible you pick is good enough: they all have the exact same content. Some are just easier to read than others.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-12-04 10:38pm

they all have the exact same content

Not true. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopean Bibles all include books that are considered apocryphal to mainline Protestants. Or the other way to view this is that mainline Protestan versions of the Bible will not include books that are considered canon to Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopean Christians.

Upon re-reading the OP I recommend the KJV. As a literary reference it will prove to be the most fruitful I think.

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2005-12-04 11:47pm

In regard to the old testimate, check out The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, translated by Everett Fox. He does a better job bringing out the dynamic nature of the original Hebrew, which often gets killed in most Christian translations.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-12-05 01:02am

I know this isn't why you asked, but everyone should read the Bible. Love it or hate it, its influence on Western civilization is undeniable.

I need to read it too, because it's been my experience that not having actually sat down and read it cover to cover invalidates anything you say in the minds of your opponents. A working knowledge of geology, biology and ethics are not enough, you have to have an intimate knowledge of where they're coming from.

Good luck to you, though. It's boring as hell. If it weren't such a sacrament, more people would be pointing out what an insufferably shitty anthology it is.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-12-05 02:54am

If it weren't such a sacrament, more people would be pointing out what an insufferably shitty anthology it is.

This made me laugh - and not at your expense I hope you understand. I know you meant sacrilege when you used sacrament.

For the mood that I'm in right now it is profoundly amusing. Thank you.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-12-05 02:59am

chaoschristian wrote:For the mood that I'm in right now it is profoundly amusing. Thank you.

Me talk good!

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2005-12-05 08:45am

chaoschristian wrote:
they all have the exact same content
Not true. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopean Bibles all include books that are considered apocryphal to mainline Protestants.

That's true, the Protestants don't use the "apocryphal" books of the Bible. I haven't noticed a whole lot of literary references to them, though, but maybe that's just because I'm not as familiar with them so I don't pick up on the allusions. But aside from including or excluding the apocryphal books, Bibles have the same basic content.

My original point was that the discovery of new and better manuscripts has not significantly changed the content of the Bible; it has merely cleared up some textual problems and ambiguities--most of which resulted from scribes inserting their own explanations into the Bible text, and then those explanations were mistakenly thought to be part of the actual Scripture. Either that, or some basic copying "typos" that got inserted into the more recent manuscripts. The older, better manuscripts that have been found in the past hundred years don't have those interpolations and typos, so the newer Bible translations leave them out too.

But you're right about Catholic and Protestant Bibles having some differences.

Kettch · Post by **Kettch** » 2005-12-06 07:11pm

Happer Collins Study Bible. Pretty good for noting footnotes & ambiguities in the text. It uses the NRSV

BTW if you're looking for OT reading, especially in the Pentatuch / Torah / Books of Moses, AKA the first five, pick up Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible It gives you alot of good context and is a good, pretty quick read. (You'll never read the Ark Story the same way.)

USSEnterprise · Post by **USSEnterprise** » 2005-12-06 10:24pm

Does Flying Spaghetti Monsterism have a bible?

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2005-12-08 10:48pm

KJV the whole way. If not for the uncorrupted recieved text, for the beautiful poetic language.

As for the archaic language, in school they don't rename scientific terms to simpler terms so people understand - they teach the definition and use the term because it has meaning. In the same way, regligous language should be taught to people because it is important too. Terms like charity (agape love) and conversation (way/walk of life) for example.

I'm currently trying to write a King James companion as a dictionary of terms, words, suffixes/prefixes and their meanings.

CorSec · Post by **CorSec** » 2005-12-09 12:10am

One of the best Bibles I've come across is the New Jerusalem Bible. I believe my step-mom has one and that's how I was exposed to it. It was interesting to me at the time because it wasn't the NIV, which I was most familiar with. Nor was it the King James (aka the one true translation).

On top of that, it contained the Apocrypha. Being a Protestant all of my life I had no idea there were more books to the Bible. Also, I found the included commentaries and notes very enlightening. It was with the NJB that I first read about the JDEP school of thought.

Obviously it's not perfect, nor is it cheap. Well, I paid $50 for the one I had (and subsequently lost). I just looked: Amazon has it for not too much scratch.

But that's just one man's opinion.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-12-09 05:44am

Darth Raptor wrote:I know this isn't why you asked, but everyone should read the Bible. Love it or hate it, its influence on Western civilization is undeniable.

Actually, that's exactly why I asked!

Thanks, all. I think I'll begin with KJV. I'm not about to become a biblical scholar, so I'm not sure I'll go any further. I'm on the verge of finishing "The Guns Of The South" by Turtledove, so currently my interest is pointing to a good civil war book!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-12-09 06:25am

I honestly think you'd be better off with the New International Version (NIV), Wayne. The KJV is really hard to read because of that annoying Shakespeare-style use of language. You will often have to read passages twice in order to figure out what they're saying.

Mobiboros · Post by **Mobiboros** » 2005-12-09 12:36pm

+http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/

The above is a link to the current NAB (Official Catholic) version of the bible. It's linked on the US Catholic Bishops website.

It's one of teh easier bibles to read. But except for Ezekiel and Revelations (which are completely whacked) much of the bible is rather boring.

How they made wars, politics, and sex boring I don't know. But they did.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Best Bible To Read?

Best Bible To Read?

Re: Best Bible To Read?