Bible Recomendation's

[IDon'tKnow]

Hello
I was wondering if I could be given some recomendations for trustworthy Bible translations. (When reading the recovery version I found at least one place where the Lord is quoted as saying something which is not even hinted at in the original greek, It was in italics but I find as I suspect most do that if I'm not actively looked out for that sort of thing I don't notice it)

I managed to get a good news translation for free. But upon starting to read it I'm not completely certain. It seems more interpreted, and my gut feeling on that is that the more that is done the more you're getting somebody elses sense of the Bible and less of the Bible itself.

Thanks for any help you could give

[djohnson]

There are several types of translations for example: literal (Young's), word-for-word (NASB), thought-for-thought (NIV, NLT), paraphrase (Living Bible, The Message, Good News). All have their usefulness but personally I like NASB for study and NLT for readability. When studying a passage of the Bible I like to compare many translations. A useful tool to do this is: www.biblegateway.com.

As a general rule I would closely cross check any translation done by an individual or a certain group/denomination as they will tend to have built-in bias. For regular usage a translation done by a team of bonafide scholars from various backgrounds has obvious advantages.

[countmeworthy]

For prayer, I use the KJ & NASB.

For readability NLT (New Living Translation & NASB)

For explanation of certain passages- Amplified. It will expound passages to help give you a good understanding of what the Word means.

I use Biblelgateway.com often. It has many, many translations.

My least favorites are 'The Message' & NIV. But I don't discount them all together. On occassion, they have an excellent translation or explanation of a passage. Still, I rarely use either of those translations.

The LC originally used KJ & NASB. It is too bad they went to the 'RcV'. I also believe they lost much of the Lord's blessings when they went exclusively to the 'RcV'. The RcV is definitely MAN'S interpretation...not God's book. The footnotes have become more important than the Word of God itself.

God warns us in Revelation 22:18 & 19 not to add or take away His Words from the Bible.

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When the footnotes become more important than the Word of God, there is danger..grave danger plagues will come upon the reader who upholds the footnotes more important than the Revelation of the Word of God through the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF.

It seems to me, the LSM/LC does not want the Spirit of God, the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word of God to an individual. The revelation from the Word through the Spirit might not concur with Lee's teachings...and thus cause problems for the LSM/LC. It's sort of like the times of the Dark Ages...when the Catholic bishops & priests told the people what the 'Word of God' said. But once people began to read the Word of God for themselves...they ruffled the RCC's feathers...'cause GOD opened their eyes.

I am not saying, we can't refer to study notes for help in understanding the Word. I cross reference certain passages a lot but the LSMrs & LCrs have a different 'spirit'. I will repeat myself.."if Brother Lee said it and wrote it.....it's infallible." If you digress, in the beginning you are told 'For the sake of ONENESS' let's not discuss it any further. If you continue to discuss it, then eventually you are going to be labeled 'rebellious'...and we know the 'rest of the story'.

[Cal]

For study I use the NASB and the NIV, also the Amplified.

For reading I used the NLT and the Message.

My wife is very suspicious of the Message, but I like it because it exposes the fallacy that the Bible was originally written in some kind of "high language." Some Christians talk in the cadences of the Bible, which admittedly are beautiful, but are not necessarily more holy, and sometimes are misleading. It's a misconception that the tone of Bible is different than the way people commonly spoke at the time it was written. Paul wrote the way people spoke. Most of the writers did.

So versions like the Message or the NLT often convey the unpretentious, down-to-earth tone of the writing better than some of our more literal translations.

[djohnson]

I neglected to mention I like the old school KJV for the sheer beauty of the language. Probably also because I memorized a lot of my favorite passages from the KJV. But Igzy is right. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek i.e. the common Greek used at the time and in a way people could understand.

The KJV was a translation done in the way that people spoke and understood at the time. As common usage of the language changes translation work should keep up with it. Today's generation esp the youth cannot readily understand the KJV so thankfully there is the NLT and other versions they can relate to. And as they grow in the Lord and begin to be serious Bible students there are many versions they can refer to.

We are really blessed in the English speaking world because we have so many teams of scholars through the years that have produced good translations. Some languages have one translation or maybe two and many times they are very inaccurate.

[IDon'tKnow]

Thank you for your recomendations

I have just purchased a NASB and NLT and will begin reading them. I also managed to pick up an amplified cheap also.
Also countmeworthy for clarity while the footnotes were definitely part of it, what I was worried about was not the Footnotes but a part of the actual text of the RcV.

In Luke 4:19 "where the Lord says to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" the recovery version add ", the year of jubilee". (the word jubilee doesn't seem to even occur outside of lev) While I don't look upon this as an evil twisting of scripture (I actually believe that the Lord is in fact proclaiming the jubilee here), and I do know that historically people have done far worse for the sake of pleasing kings and such. I however also know that the Lord for whatever reason did not feel the need to inspire luke here nor Isaiah in the original prophecy for that matter to add the words "year of jubilee" and given this there is no reason to go against that (especially in the light of the verse you quoted). I also know that if you'll do it once you'll probably do it twice (Brother Lee stated in the life study that Lord was anouncing the new testament jubilee here (no problem with that), And the entire continuation of look is on the announcing of this jubilee (probably at least partially true). So I'm guessing that the translators probably felt that because it was so integral to the book of Luke they should put it in to point us in the right direction (this I have a problem with), even though the footnotes already did).

Also while I know it is in italics I didn't notice on my first read through (neither did most of the others which I talked to later), the RcV was supposed to be a literal translation and that goes way beyond what your supposed to do with italicized words. Anyway to me this is a subtle form of deception.

[Oregon]

I like the New King James version and mostly use it. I don't like any paraphrased versions of the bible. They are simply someones thought as to what the writer may have been saying and to me are a corruption of God's Word.

The task of the blble translater is to translate as accuratley as possible form one language to another......not to put it in some sort of modern language that the tranlater thinks is the general meaning of the original author.

[cityonahill]

I prefer NASB...

and no english version is completely in line with the greek/hebrew/aramaic...

even if they get the literal translation perfect, sometimes they miss the contextual meaning...This is why a study bible always comes in handy...not a recovery type of study bible with subjective opinions in the footnotes but rather a solid study bible with footnotes that help put certain phrases in context rather than interpret everything subjectively...

For instance, say someone wrote a book today and used the Super Bowl as an illustration to prove a point...two thousand years later, the readers would not understand that "Super Bowl" was a huge sporting event and not a large bowl.

examples like this can be found in passages like the "triumphal procession" passage of 2 corinthians and elsewhere...sometimes footnotes can explain the historical context of what was written.

For a great study bible I prefer the TNIV Study...

I love it! It is more accurate than the original NIV(new incomplete version) and the footnotes are helpful and not subjective opinions like the footnotes of the recovery version.

Definately pick up a TNIV Study Bible....and a NASB

[JJ]

It is easy to get “twisted around an axel” trying to find “the perfect translation” for sure. But thankfully we can be enriched in Christ Jesus through reading many different translations which today are only a click away on our stationary and portable devices.

And, of course the question of questions is “who do you say Jesus is?”. Because regardless of translation the point is still the same. To His followers Christ is all and in all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

It is easy to get “twisted around an axel” trying to find “the perfect translation” for sure. But thankfully we can be enriched in Christ Jesus through reading many different translations which today are only a click away on our stationary and portable devices.

And, of course the question of questions is “who do you say Jesus is?”. Because regardless of translation the point is still the same. To His followers Christ is all and in all.

Idealized “perfection” is always the enemy of “good enough.”

There are many great Bible versions in English. Since language is always a “moving target,” the more modern versions more closely reflect our present language.

I’ll also second the recommendation of the NIV Study Bible. I use this every day. It does not “overlay” one man’s opinions on the scripture like the Recovery Version often does. The numerous scholarly editors prefer to provide background information and diverse interpretations to assist the reader to understand the Bible directly.

Since departing the Recovery, as a time-tested wise principle, I always am skeptical of any ministry or publication based on the teachings of just one man. That fact alone conflicts with the principles found in the scripture.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Idealized “perfection” is always the enemy of “good enough.”

There are many great Bible versions in English. Since language is always a “moving target,” the more modern versions more closely reflect our present language.

I’ll also second the recommendation of the NIV Study Bible. I use this every day. It does not “overlay” one man’s opinions on the scripture like the Recovery Version often does. The numerous scholarly editors prefer to provide background information and diverse interpretations to assist the reader to understand the Bible directly.

Since departing the Recovery, as a time-tested wise principle, I always am skeptical of any ministry or publication based on the teachings of just one man. That fact alone conflicts with the principles found in the scripture.

Helpful info to keep in mind for sure!

Some versions strive for more word for word literal translation of the original language to English equivalents (like NASB and Berean, which I use a lot), while others strive more to convey what the writer was saying, even if it means departing from word for word translation. I have been told that NIV leans more that way. Since it does, that tends to “bug me”.

Since Hebrew is Hebrew, Greek is Greek (and no longer used languages at that) and neither are English (well duh), writer’s writing styles vary, and punctuation is lacking, translation takes a lot of language expertise. None of that is my forte.