Bede

Thomas,

The New versions very often try to use gender inclusive language which is not always appropriate for a text over two thousand years old. The Revised Standard Version is often felt to be the best as it is quite literal and theologically neutral.

However, whatever version you get - do not try reading it from cover to cover. You will get very bored indeed. I suggest reading Genesis, the first twenty chapters of Exodus, most of Judges, 12 Samual and 12 Kings which is most of the history in the OT. Then tackle the Gospels of Matthew and John, then Acts. After that you will have read the narrative of the Bible and might want to look at the prophecy and fables. Song of Songs is lovely, Esther contains the best jokes (if you have the full (Catholic bible) version, and Revelation is, well, interesting in its imagary. After that, Isaiah and Job, perhaps. Some stuff, like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, much of the prophets, etc is of hard core interest only unless you are really interested in the purity regulations of ancient tribes or want to see the bits the more juvenile sort of atheist likes to quote as if it has much relavance today.

You might like some of this for <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html" target="_blank">background information on who wrote what when.</a>.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library faith and reason</a>

Clutch

You mean, the gospels?

Sorry, I forgot -- the gospels aren't filtered out by the TBWTBDS test (Things Bede Wishes The Bible Didn't Say), while Perfect God's Levitican and Deuteronomic ravings are. Well, as long as it's all highly principled...

HelenM

I think the New King James and New American Standard are the most literal of the major translations around today, apart from the KJV which is hard to read and it's misleading because some English words have changed meaning over the last 400 years so you need a guide to those, really, if you're reading it.

Oh, the English Standard Version is a brand new one that is supposed to be quite literal and readable. The NASB is harder to read than the ESV or NKJV.

I don't know anything about the Jerusalem Bible; I'd guess it's less literal than the ones I've mentioned, which are word-for-word translations.

The NIV and NRSV are not literal. The NIV is not liberal but it does do phrase for phrase translation making it more interpretative and less literal than the first three I mentioned. Just about everything else is less literal than them and the KJV.

It's a huge book and you might enjoy reading a less literal version in general because it's easier to read, for the overall sense of what is in there. Then you can cross reference and look up passages of interest, in the literal one. So I agree with whoever said, take more than one version. But one literal and one easy-to-read but not too liberal is probably enough. I'd say that the NIV and New Living Translation are good choices for easier to read than the first three I listed. The NRSV is gender-inclusive so it's a bit further from the original, in places, than those other two. It's easy to read though. And as I said I don't know about the New Jerusalem Bible.

take care
Helen

p.s. edited to add, you can get an NRSV with apocrypha, I think. You can't get it included in the NIV, NAS, ESV, NLT to my knowledge.

Oh, and if you're from Oxford England, you might like the Revised English Version which is similar to the NIV in approach but has a nicer turn of phrase, in my opinion, being more distinctively 'English' in its choice of words and phrases. The NIV is more 'international'.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Bede

No Clutch, I included two Gospels. Any atheist who had read the bible, and clearly you have not, would largely agree with my thoughts on which bits are worth reading. No test except avoiding getting too bored.

B

semyaza

I think it just means that the notes reflect the opinion of mainstream Biblical scholars, rather than the narrow conservative approach. For example, the introduction to Genesis has a long and favorable discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis. Within the Biblical text itself, the annotations point out who the author (J,E,D,P) is thought to be. The introduction to Daniel points out that the book is definitley not a product of the sixth century BC, but rather a pseudepigraphic work from the second century. And so on.

Celsus

Hi Thomas,

Completely off-topic, but which part of Ghana are you going to? Accra has a surprisingly large number of Christians, and no shortage of Christian faith-healers, charlatans, fundies and the like. If you want some tips, Busua (west of Takoradi) has the best beach in Ghana for chilling out. Ada-foah (sp?) near Ada is pretty good too - there's a hotel there with some water sports (not great, but better than nothing). Cape Coast is absolutely beautiful, and visiting any of the slave forts is really moving.

Joel

Thomas Ash

Hi Joel,

Thanks for the tips. I'm going to Accra, so I'll definitely try and see Cape Coast and maybe Ada Foah. Yes, I had heard that Ghana has a lot of <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> 's... thoug that's probably true in much of the developing world where people are a) less well educated themselves and b) extra vulnerable to ill-edcuated and unscrupulous US fundies.

Best wishes,

Thomas

Clutch

Bede,
Clearly I have not read the bible! Because, after, I don't "largely agree with" you.

Thanks for parading your ignorance about me, and for revealing the rational poverty of your position.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you could suggest a cartoon version with anything of possible historical or sociological value excised, thereby making it accessible to the disinterested and the juvenile theist alike.

Xman

If you want to garner content quickly, I'd suggest foregoing some of the more traditional translations and using the New Living Translation. It's the most readable translation (not a paraphrase) out there, and not a bad one (though I wouldn't use it for a "study Bible"). It's in hardback, so you can get it fairly cheaply.

I would also suggest not ruling out translations simply because they push your buttons (slave/servant, etc.). After all, if you haven't read it, and you don't know the original langauges, how do you know one word is better than the other in the context in which different translations use them? Otherwise you might overlook some translations that would be very helpful to you (quick read, good comprehension).