Favourite Bible Translations

[Nehemiah6]

I will provide you with some choice examples of the paraphrasing found in the NET at another time.

"The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (2006) is inconsistent, but in general it is less literal than the New International Version. The translators have for the most part employed a dynamic equivalence method, in which they have tried to use expressions in "common language." This method gives the version a simple and contemporary English style, which may be appreciated by some readers; but it does tend to degrade the accuracy of the translation.... Evidently the translators felt that such interpretive adjustments are necessary for the average reader. But readers will pay a price for this condescending help. [IOW a paraphrase]

It departs from the usual evangelical treatment of the Old Testament, by interpreting it without any reference to the New Testament. But the NET Bible interprets [with reference to Psalm 8] these statements as referring only to mankind in general, and by its paraphrastic use of plural pronouns it simply excludes the Christological interpretation. The result is, readers cannot interpret the passage according to the interpretation indicated in the New Testament. This problem frequently occurs in the NET Bible. [Note: "paraphrastic = making a paraphrase]...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html

This should be enough to tell the reader that the NET Bible is indeed a paraphrase. Actually A MISLEADING PARAPHRASE.

 

[Pilgrim]

When I was newly saved the recommended Bible was the Revised Standard Version, so I got one and relied on it for about a year. This was the time of Wescott and Hort who were so called Christian Scholars who doubted the fundamental teachings of their day. In a time of witnessing to a cult member I was shown errors in it. I went back to my Pastor and after research of an interlinear Greek Mew Testament abandoned the faulty Bible for a King James Version, which I still use today. It was a word for word translation written in grammatic English. Perhaps it's greatest value is the ease with which you can hide the word in your heart that you might not sin against God. To best keep the words of God we need to have them always before us.

 

[Dino246]

When I was newly saved the recommended Bible was the Revised Standard Version, so I got one and relied on it for about a year. This was the time of Wescott and Hort...

You've been around since the time of Westcott and Hort? Wow.

who were so called Christian Scholars who doubted the fundamental teachings of their day. In a time of witnessing to a cult member I was shown errors in it. I went back to my Pastor and after research of an interlinear Greek Mew Testament abandoned the faulty Bible for a King James Version, which I still use today. It was a word for word translation written in grammatic English. Perhaps it's greatest value is the ease with which you can hide the word in your heart that you might not sin against God. To best keep the words of God we need to have them always before us.

The KJV is not a word for word translation; it is impossible to translate Greek "word for word" into English because the sentence structure is very different, and English does not have words for all the Greek words. While the KJV was written in grammatically correct English, that is true for every other English translation as well.

There are many interlinear Bibles; the one you happened to consult might have been written by people whose preference was the KJV. An interlinear is essentially another translation (ie.; an interpretation).

Objectively, it is no easier to "hide the word in your heart" with the KJV than with any other translation.

I can respect your preference and your right to it, but the reasons you have presented for your choice wouldn't convince a knowledgeable person of anything.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Have you buys heard of the NET Bible? There is an app (free) available. Probably the best thing about it are the 63,000 translation notes. it’s strength is its accuracy.

Yes, I use it for study regularly along with my favourite NIV & CSB. A most welcome translation.

 

[Lanolin]

I havent seen or heard anyone read the NET bible. what does NET stand for.
Is it only online or what.

Not really a fan of online bible if you cant obtain it in hard copy. I like to look things up without going online. I dont have a zillion screens.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I will provide you with some choice examples of the paraphrasing found in the NET at another time.

There are much better things for a Christian man to do in our present age.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I havent seen or heard anyone read the NET bible. what does NET stand for.
Is it only online or what.

New English Translation
Of course it depends what country you are in but it does exist in book form
https://www.re-vived.com/products/n..._content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic

 

[Magenta]

Yes, I use it (NET) for study regularly along with my favourite NIV & CSB. A most welcome translation.

I have not looked into the NET translation much... NIV was a go-to for quite some time, as well as KJV, but these days I often prefer to refer to the Berean Study Bible. Someone (perhaps more than one ) mentioned the NLT, whether for or against? I would hope/think against, as I found it a very poor translation and quite weak in its use of certain words and phrases.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

"The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (2006) is inconsistent, but in general it is less literal than the New International Version. The translators have for the most part employed a dynamic equivalence method, in which they have tried to use expressions in "common language." This method gives the version a simple and contemporary English style, which may be appreciated by some readers; but it does tend to degrade the accuracy of the translation.... Evidently the translators felt that such interpretive adjustments are necessary for the average reader. But readers will pay a price for this condescending help. [IOW a paraphrase]

It departs from the usual evangelical treatment of the Old Testament, by interpreting it without any reference to the New Testament. But the NET Bible interprets [with reference to Psalm 8] these statements as referring only to mankind in general, and by its paraphrastic use of plural pronouns it simply excludes the Christological interpretation. The result is, readers cannot interpret the passage according to the interpretation indicated in the New Testament. This problem frequently occurs in the NET Bible. [Note: "paraphrastic = making a paraphrase]...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html

This should be enough to tell the reader that the NET Bible is indeed a paraphrase. Actually A MISLEADING PARAPHRASE.

Does your anti-bible cult run courses on how to attack each English bible translation?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Ive never seen a hard copy of the NET bible, if they did print one I might be keen to read it, if its as good as purported to be.

I cant be bothered with online bibles.

I think if you found a good translation, you tend to stick with it and dont really need any others. If the translation is any good it should serve you well.

What I find annoying is when people neglect to say what version they are quoting from. Because kjv is so familiar, any other version used will have words changed around and sounds strange. eg someone gave me a calendar with bible quotes for everyday, but it doesnt say what version is used, and so a lot of those quotes are unfamiliar to me.
I can look up the reference in KJv and then go, oh yes...but other versions seem to have lost their meaning. Its kinda weird. I think the verses have been truncated to fit in the box for each day, I dont like when people do that.

You are not supposed to add or delete scripture. People will quote only part of the verse and put .... in but that doesnt help if they never said what version it was so you can fill in the gaps.

It's a matter of perspective. The KJV is most familiar to you. That isn't the case for everyone.

 

[Lanolin]

I saw in the bookshop a Battlefield of the Mind Bible, with the same cover as Joyce Meyers book (with the chess pieces) and it was the Amplified version.

There must be a lot of Bibles like this being endorsed by various preachers though I am a bit wary of these.

If you like crossword puzzles though, maybe Amplified is the one for you. I dont know how people can quote from it though, whether they just pick and choose the word they think fits best or give people a choice cos they cant decide.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I have not looked into the NET translation much... NIV was a go-to for quite some time, as well as KJV, but these days I often prefer to refer to the Berean Study Bible. Someone (perhaps more than one ) mentioned the NLT, whether for or against? I would hope/think against, as I found it a very poor translation and quite weak in its use of certain words and phrases.

I used to glance at The LT years ago. (1980's). Someone gave it to me for free. I didn't stick to it & I wouldn't use it for study. I have no idea about the NLT but I reckon even easy to read paraphrases have their place. Maybe an occasional easy-read for leisure purposes? I believe The Holy Spirit can speak to us in many ways. I'm not sure he expects us to be deep in serious study at all times. It might even do us some good to have a bit of light-reading now & again.

 

[Lanolin]

It's a matter of perspective. The KJV is most familiar to you. That isn't the case for everyone.

im just saying that its helpful to write what version you are quoting from.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

im just saying that its helpful to write what version you are quoting from.

Yes, I agree. I usually do that here.

 

[oyster67]

Any thoughts on the new NASB20?

 

[UCA4J]

I saw in the bookshop a Battlefield of the Mind Bible, with the same cover as Joyce Meyers book (with the chess pieces) and it was the Amplified version.

There must be a lot of Bibles like this being endorsed by various preachers though I am a bit wary of these.

If you like crossword puzzles though, maybe Amplified is the one for you. I dont know how people can quote from it though, whether they just pick and choose the word they think fits best or give people a choice cos they cant decide.

is Joyce Meyer legit or a fraud ?

 

[FaithAlone]

Ive never seen a hard copy of the NET bible, if they did print one I might be keen to read it, if its as good as purported to be.

I cant be bothered with online bibles.

I have one of the beta versions. You can buy a hard copy still - go to www.bible.org - there’s a link there somewhere. I think they only sell them online.

I think if you found a good translation, you tend to stick with it and dont really need any others. If the translation is any good it should serve you well.

What I find annoying is when people neglect to say what version they are quoting from. Because kjv is so familiar, any other version used will have words changed around and sounds strange. eg someone gave me a calendar with bible quotes for everyday, but it doesnt say what version is used, and so a lot of those quotes are unfamiliar to me.
I can look up the reference in KJv and then go, oh yes...but other versions seem to have lost their meaning. Its kinda weird. I think the verses have been truncated to fit in the box for each day, I dont like when people do that.

You are not supposed to add or delete scripture. People will quote only part of the verse and put .... in but that doesnt help if they never said what version it was so you can fill in the gaps.

I love so many translations. I used to be really particular, but now I‘ve grown to appreciate many of the strengths of most of them. People worked hard to make those translations. I personally use mainly just 3 translations... the NET, ESV and HCSB.

Though I do not use the NIV that often, I do have respect for it... it probably is the best translation which combines accuracy and readability.

FA

 

[Nehemiah6]

is Joyce Meyer legit or a fraud ?

A fraud who promotes false doctrine.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Any thoughts on the new NASB20?

It's just as bad as the old NASB. Can a leopard change his spots?

The very fact that these CORRUPT modern versions must be constantly updated confirms two things: (1) they were faulty to begin with, and (2) the motive for coming up with new versions (like fashion changes) is purely monetary -- cash for corruption.

 

[Dino246]

A fraud who promotes false doctrine.

Slander without evidence. Standard fare around here lately, it seems.