Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 11-10-2003, 12:57 AM

Funny, I don't remember that bit. I think it was actually a serious attempt to translate it into Scots, so maybe the haggis eating saga is in the Scots Message Bible. You do know that haggis are wee little critters with one leg shorter than the other to enable them to run round and round the hills in Scotland right?

Joel

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-10-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
I generally use the NRSV, though I've been quite used to the RSV, NIV, and KJV thanks to a Christian past. I greatly enjoyed reading a Scots Bible--imagine Mel Gibson's William Wallace as Jesus (I did, I finished all the gospels in Scots, it was that fun). Lately, I've been meaning to get a Hebrew parallel Bible but it's bloody expensive, and its basically for showing off since my Hebrew is nonexistant. After that, I intend to reach the pinnacle of text critical analysis by getting me The Message. Incidentally, how useful is Young's Literal Translation?

Joel

People here should be aware that Young's Literal Translation was a translation from the Majority/Byzantine Greek text. In other words, in meaning, it'll be equivalent to the KJV (although not in wording).

For a serious student of the NT, I'll generally recommend the KJV/YLT as the best English versions. The Peshitta,

James Murdock | The Syriac New Testament.
http://www.peshitta.com/jamesmurdock/books/

is probably even better, but you'd need to be a bit more adventurous to get into this...

All the best,

Yuri.

Tod · 11-10-2003, 08:27 PM

The New Jerusalem and New Revised Standard.

Dean Anderson · 11-11-2003, 12:30 AM

I recently went to http://bibledatabase.org/ and downloaded their viewer and their electronic translations.

It's all freeware, so it costs nothing, and the viewer lets you do searches and compare the same verse in different translations - very useful.

Anyway. One of the translations I downloaded was Wycliffe's Lollard bible (from 1387 or thereabouts).

They had the NT only, but I must say that (accuracy notwithstanding) it is the most beautiful text I have seen in a bible translation.

The 14th century English is exquisite and knocks the 'Thee's and 'Thou's of the KJV into a cocked hat.

Example (John 1: 1-23)

Quote:

1:1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
1:2 This was in the bigynnyng at God.
1:3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
1:4 In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,
1:5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.
1:6 A man was sent fro God, to whom the name was Joon.
1:7 This man cam in to witnessyng, that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt, that alle men schulden bileue bi hym.
1:8 He was not the liyt, but that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt.
1:9 There was a very liyt, which liytneth ech man that cometh in to this world.
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was maad bi hym, and the world knew hym not.
1:11 He cam in to his owne thingis, and hise resseyueden hym not.
1:12 But hou many euer resseyueden hym, he yaf to hem power to be maad the sones of God, to hem that bileueden in his name; the whiche not of bloodis,
1:13 nether of the wille of fleische, nether of the wille of man, but ben borun of God.
1:14 And the word was maad man, and dwellyde among vs, and we han seyn the glorie of hym, as the glorie of the `oon bigetun sone of the fadir, ful of grace and of treuthe.
1:15 Joon berith witnessyng of hym, and crieth, and seith, This is, whom Y seide, He that schal come aftir me, is maad bifore me, for he was tofor me;
1:16 and of the plente of hym we alle han takun, and grace for grace.
1:17 For the lawe was youun bi Moises; but grace and treuthe `is maad bi Jhesu Crist.
1:18 No man sai euer God, no but the `oon bigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out.
1:19 And this is the witnessyng of Joon, whanne Jewis senten fro Jerusalem prestis and dekenes to hym, that thei schulden axe hym, Who art thou?
1:20 He knoulechide, and denyede not, and he knoulechide, For Y am not Crist.
1:21 And thei axiden hym, What thanne? Art thou Elie? And he seide, Y am not. Art thou a profete? And he answeride, Nay.
1:22 Therfor thei seiden to hym, Who art thou? that we yyue an answere to these that senten vs. What seist thou of thi silf?
1:23 He seide, Y am a vois of a crier in deseert, Dresse ye the weie of the Lord, as Ysaie, the prophete, seide.

Radcliffe Emerson · 11-11-2003, 10:51 AM

Jesus is a Greek legend to begin with, and most scholars do not support the "originally written in Aramaic" theory.
Then again, as Jesus was invented by Greeks to primarily reach out to Greeks, that's understandable.

Mike(ATL) · 11-13-2003, 03:58 PM

Nobody uses the NASB? That's usually my translation of choice. I find it to be accurate and readable, more accurate then the NIV and has great reference materials available for looking up the words used in the original texts.

Radcliffe Emerson · 11-14-2003, 06:38 AM

I have a very old KJV and and a very old RSV, given me when I was a child. As the bible is just fiction anyway, I am not going to waste any of my hard-earned money on buying new versions of it.
There are several study bibles in the different versions on the net, I refer to those when I want to look up something, or I go to the library or book store.

HerodionRomulus · 11-14-2003, 08:00 AM

I use the New Revised Standard Version with the Dueterocanonicals.
The exact edition is by Oxford Press(UK) and is bound together with the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer so reading and daily devotionals are in one volume.

Also used are Jerusalem Bible and Revised English Bible. The 1966 JB is less biased than the later New JB of 1983. Both JB's have superb verse cross-references and annotations.
Both versions are British and so the spelling and word choice is sometimes odd sounding to Americans. Most Americans would not a clue as to what a mantilla is.

But using a non-American version sometimes sheds new light on the text because of the different word choices.

Simply because of availability, I have the Queer James Version NT on CD.

I have about 2 dozen versions in my library, ranging from common to obscure. The NT by Edgar Goodspeed is a very easy to read and clear version, but a bit dated.

Like someone else noted, using a complete Bible gets you some wierd looks from other Protestants---their loss.

Amaleq13 · 11-14-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Nobody uses the NASB? That's usually my translation of choice. I find it to be accurate and readable, more accurate then the NIV and has great reference materials available for looking up the words used in the original texts.

I like that one, too. You are not alone.

I do, however, tend to check several translations for any given passage including Young's Literal found at:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

A_Feeble_Mind · 11-14-2003, 08:48 AM

My favorite version actually is the SAB (Skeptic's Annotated Bible).

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2003, 12:57 AM	#21
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Funny, I don't remember that bit. I think it was actually a serious attempt to translate it into Scots, so maybe the haggis eating saga is in the Scots Message Bible. You do know that haggis are wee little critters with one leg shorter than the other to enable them to run round and round the hills in Scotland right? Joel

11-10-2003, 08:27 PM	#23
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	The New Jerusalem and New Revised Standard.

11-11-2003, 10:51 AM	#25
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Jesus is a Greek legend to begin with, and most scholars do not support the "originally written in Aramaic" theory. Then again, as Jesus was invented by Greeks to primarily reach out to Greeks, that's understandable.

11-13-2003, 03:58 PM	#26
Mike(ATL) Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 98	Nobody uses the NASB? That's usually my translation of choice. I find it to be accurate and readable, more accurate then the NIV and has great reference materials available for looking up the words used in the original texts.

11-14-2003, 06:38 AM	#27
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I have a very old KJV and and a very old RSV, given me when I was a child. As the bible is just fiction anyway, I am not going to waste any of my hard-earned money on buying new versions of it. There are several study bibles in the different versions on the net, I refer to those when I want to look up something, or I go to the library or book store.

11-14-2003, 08:00 AM	#28
HerodionRomulus Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Music City USA Posts: 40	I use the New Revised Standard Version with the Dueterocanonicals. The exact edition is by Oxford Press(UK) and is bound together with the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer so reading and daily devotionals are in one volume. Also used are Jerusalem Bible and Revised English Bible. The 1966 JB is less biased than the later New JB of 1983. Both JB's have superb verse cross-references and annotations. Both versions are British and so the spelling and word choice is sometimes odd sounding to Americans. Most Americans would not a clue as to what a mantilla is. But using a non-American version sometimes sheds new light on the text because of the different word choices. Simply because of availability, I have the Queer James Version NT on CD. I have about 2 dozen versions in my library, ranging from common to obscure. The NT by Edgar Goodspeed is a very easy to read and clear version, but a bit dated. Like someone else noted, using a complete Bible gets you some wierd looks from other Protestants---their loss.

11-14-2003, 08:48 AM	#30
A_Feeble_Mind Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portage, Michigan Posts: 90	My favorite version actually is the SAB (Skeptic's Annotated Bible). http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.