The New Testament says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
My question is: how should a Christian in today’s world - what with (figuratively) hundreds of translations of the Bible - practically use the Bible to worship God, expand one’s faith, and learn God’s Word? Which translation(s) should be used? How should it/they be used? What should the object of reading/studying it/them be?
To highlight the choice of version problem, let us take the verses above (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and render them according to four more versions (the verses above were according the King James Version):
The New American Standard Bible (NASB): “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
The New Living Translation: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.”
The English Standard Version: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
The Holman Christian Standard Bible: “All Scripture is inspired by God and if profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Add to this the New International Version, the Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New King James Version, the 1611 King James Version, the Amplified Bible, the Recovery Version, the New English Translation, the New World Translation (sectarian: Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Inspired Version (sectarian: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)). For the Old Testament (according to Christians) or the Hebrew Bible (according to Jews), there are also the New Jewish Publication Society, Artscroll, and Koren translations. I am sure there are several dozen versions/translations I have not included. Oh, and let us not forget whether one uses the *Textus Receptus * or the Novum Testamentum Graece.
As such, it is becoming impossible to determine what the Bible is saying or supposed to say. Commentaries, each with its own agenda, do not help either. So the Bible cannot be practically used for learning or instruction from a neutral perspective, can it? One would have to be aware of its theological slant before picking it up to study it, no? So how should a Bible be used, practically, to enrich one’s Christian spirituality?
(As an aside: Is there a list with Bible versions along with their theological slant?)
My feeling is that most bibles are effective in rendering the intent/thrust accurately. Even in the verses you qouted, there is very little difference between the 4, and qualitatively they are essentially the same. I’ve only ever read one translation that I found poor. It was a translation that, in an effort to be cool I suppose, was too coloquial. I’m also not a fan of bibles that insert commentary in/between the texts. I saw one bible that had inspritational quotes from prominent people throughout the bible. I was offended by that. I also don’t like bibles that offer running commentary throughout explaining what’s going on. I prefer to let the bible/author speak for himself. (I have a similiar aversion towards most pastors/preachers)
I own a little more than a dozen translations. There are some that I prefer and use more often. My suggestion is to go to a Christian bookstore and sample several. A serious student/reader may choose to ultimately own 2 or 3 bibles and compare different translations when reading something that is interesting or perplexing.
I would also suggest getting an interlinear which renders the bible text word for word alongside the original text in the source language. There are some excellent interlinears out there. Owning 3 bibles and an interlinear may set you back a few bucks, but for an interested student it is a worthwhile investment.
But as I said, I’ve found that most bibles—the ones in the widest circulation for sure— do a good job on the whole and comparing them one finds that there is generally harmony between them.
I was about to say that I prefer translations to versions. But then I remembered that one of my favorite things to read does not even measure up to the standard of being a version. It is called A Scots Gospel by Jamie Stuart. It is some of the scripture from the New Testament written in colloquial and modern Scots.
I grew up in the rural Southern United States and there is something vaguely familiar about some of the usages and it comforts me to let the words play on my mind:
I have several different Bibles. They seem to end up here, passed on from loved ones. The best ones are underlined by people I love still. I wrote my mother-in-law’s eulogy based on what she had underlined in her Bible.
But that’s not what you asked.
I don’t study the Bible anymore. Sometimes I look things up. Sometimes I read something old and familiar in a newer version so that it is fresh to me. It’s not that I know what there is to know at all. I know that I don’t know. I did study the Bible for two years in college, but I don’t remember much of that. I’m just at peace with what I know and with learning in other ways.
Just like any other book. A big part of the problem for some people is that they hold the Bible to be perfect — without error. That means, of course, that the Bible is their God, since only God is perfect. Use the Bible as a guide, and let the Holy Spirit be your teacher. If you truly believe that the Holy Spirit is God, is alive, and is your counselor, then act like it. And if you are concerned about translations (as I was prior to my conversion), then teach yourself Koine Greek. It is easy. Very small vocabulary and simple grammar. If you’re of reasonable intelligence, it’ll take you a few short months. Then read the original. Just don’t worship the book. It is Jesus — and not the Bible — Who is God’s word.
With all due respect, Liberal, I’m not sure what you’re saying exactly from a practical POV. It is certainly incumbent to understand the “spirit of the law” and to accept the holy spirit’s influence in shaping our Christian personality. By meditating on what we’ve learned (which requires study!) and through earnest prayer one draws closer to God.
But a desire to have the spirit of the law operable in your life doesn’t absolve the Christian from endeavorong to know the letter of the law. In fact, how does one know the spirit of any law, if you don’t know the law?
It is true that Jesus is God’s word. But our knowledge of him, his qualities and his words come from our consideration of his life recorded in the bible. One certainly have to consider the bible his god because he endeavors to read it and apply it in his life.
Nor does one have to learn Greek. (or Hebrew for that matter) The bibles that I have represent the work of no less than 125 scholars and thousands of hours of careful consideration. There’s simply no way that a student with a few short months of study will be able to replicate accurately the work of those scholars. From my comparisions, (including the OP!) the differences in most bibles are mostly cosmetic.
I’ve had this “worshiping the book” concept brought up 2 times here, one online and one offline. Both posters used Matthew 15:1-9 to make their point which says:
*"15 Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying: 2 “Why is it your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.”
3 In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? 4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ 5 But YOU say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he must not honor his father at all.’ And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. 7 YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’*
Both posters used these texts to show that some people “worship the book” and that is was spititually unprofitable to cite scrpiture. But is that what it says?
Look at the texts. A careful consideration of the verses notes first that Jesus is quoting the holy scrpitures. In verse 4, Jesus is quoting features of the Mosaic Law that governed how one should treat his/her parents. He’s quoting **Ex 20:12, Ex 21:17, De 5:16, De 27:16, and Lev 20:9. **
Were the Jews “slavishly” worshipping the book? Heck no! Look at verses 5 and 6. Jesus points out that the religious leaders had perverted the Law by adding man-made traditions that weren’t required and had the effect of making the scrpitures invalid. (He begins those verses my saying " But YOU say…)
He then calls them hypocrites and once again quotes the scrpitures in verse 9 when he says, “because they teach commands of men as doctrines.” In verse 9 Jesus is quoting Isaiah 29:13 which says in part, “…and their fear toward me become’s men’s commandment that is being taught.” (see supporting scrpitures Col 2:8 and Eph 6:2)
Was Jesus counseling against slavishly worshipping the book, or taking it all too seriously? Nope. In fact, he was warning against letting man-made reasonings and traditions creeping into how we apply scrpiture in our lives, and by extension our worship to God. Rather than recommending less bible reading & application, as has been suggested here, he was recommending more of it! He was pointing out that the Jews had polluted the word of God with their own reasonings and traditions. Yet these scrpitures have been presented here, more than once, as cites to show that one can go overboard with bible reading. Does careful consideration of those texts support that view? My reading does not.
As to bible reading, there can be 2 extremes. Certainly one extreme is to immerse yourself in the bible and become an expert in it. You can memorize much of it, and learn the history and background information. If however, you are not interested in meditating on what you’ve learned, or don’t appeal to God for holy spirit and direction on what you’ve read it can end up as nothing more than an intellectual excercise; no less than studying Hemingway or Twain. If you have no spiritual hunger, and have no desire to know God intimately you will never know him no matter how prodigious your bible knowledge.
The other extreme however is to conciously, blissfully and with good intention remain ignorant about God and his requirements, cloaking yourself with self serving comments about not wanting to “worship the book.” (I’m not inferring that about you, Liberal) Often people pick and choose that they are willing to believe. Paul is not a favorite among many. The amount of bible ignorance among those who would identify themselves as Christians, or believers is surprising. We’re not talking about the finer details about doctrinal issues, which often can be arcane and difficult. We’re talking about garden variety stuff. Again and again and again I run across people who don’t know the first thing about the bible, or what God has to say on a matter, but are convinced they know God’s view on the matter and have his blessing.
I would submit that, for the believer, both approaches are equally unprofitable. The Jews of the OT were required to have the holy scrpitures read as part of their daily family life. the scrpitures were central to the family, to society and central to their form of worship. Jesus advocated bible reading, and throughout his ministry quoted the scrpitures. (which of course required him knowing them and studying them from youth on up) The other apostles were well versed in the scrpitures and advocated bible reading and using the bible and it’s counsel and principles to govern one’s affairs. Paul was a student of the scrpitures before his conversion and as Christian quoted it extensively. In short, one has to have balance. That balance must include bible reading. There is no substitute for it. But after reading, and thoughtfully considering what you’ve read, take it to God in prayer and ask that his holy spirit provide you the wisdom to understand His will and how it should be applied in your life.
Oh…and the Bible is so utterly, chaotically inconsistent, contradictory and sometimes appalling in its moral messages that it wouldn’t even be possible to follow it “to the letter.”
The law has been fulfilled. All you need to know now is the Fulfiller.
Jesus can make knowledgable men out of stones in the dirt. It is He Who is the Way. It is not the case that the only way to Him is through any book, including the one compiled by Nicean politicians at the command of a Roman Emperor. Here is a book that will do a man just as well as the Bible. Jesus teaches one thing: love. All else follows from it, including His moral imperative: be perfect.
Nonsense. I lived with one of them, a man with two doctorate degrees (one in English from the University of Chicago, and one in divinity from Harvard), who was an ordained minister, and whom we called “The Reverand Doctor Doctor”. He was bright, but no brighter than I. And it was he who gave me the book of John in Greek, and challenged me to read it. It was, after all, what I had been ridiculing, and yet I had never read it.
Yes, but two things: (1) the scripture they read did not include the scripture you quote saying they read scripture; and (2) another great authority on scripture is Satan. God is love, and dwells not in the mind but in the heart. A man need know nothing to be Godly; he need only love. As He told me: I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart.
I would encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the bible, and not once but for a sustained period of time, endeavor to read for themselves what the bible has to say.
As a “scholar”, and one who is non-Christian you have a certain perspective on God, Christ and the bible. You cetainly have that right. For the established believer, it’s worth noting that you come to the discussion with that bias. But, even from a non-spiritual perspective I have found the majority of your points intellectually vacant or suspect.
As to translations, given that your credentials include 2 years of college Greek and that you’re not fluent in the language, one has to accept your post by accepting that you’re qualified to make that assertion, and that the work of hundreds of scholars in the source languages is somehow suspect. This is especially strange when you consider that there are at leat a dozen “major” translations available, and many more less known translations, and that, most of them are in amazing harmony with each other.
Still, if someone wants to get as close to the bible as possible and learn the source language, cool!
I heartily endorse that advice, and if you can read it in the original languages, so much the better.
I’m crushed.
Sometimes they’re consistently wrong. Have you ever studied another language, Raindog? If you have then you know there is no such thing as a perfect translation. There are some things which simply can’t be perfectly rendered from one language to another.
Are you aware of any English translations which are able to render the Koine puns or multiple meanings of certain words? Can they accurately render the author’s “voices?” Their tone, their style? Can they render the Greek idioms and figures of speech?
Is there a scholar on earth who could translate Shakespeare’s Hamlet into…say…Russian and still be able to perfectly preserve everything that is quintessentially Shakespeare?
You have a tendency to exaggerate the importance of scholarly credentials, btw. All I’m talking about is being able to read a Greek text, not write a literary treatise on it… It’s really not that difficult to learn enough Koine to be able to muddle through Mark (with a lexicon handy, of course). And in so doing, you will discover that reading the original text is a significantly different experience than reading a translation. You will learn just how much paraphrasing, interpretation selective translation is present in the English versions that you’re used to.
The Mosaic Law I presume? The scriptures that show a requirement to read/consider the scriptures are many. Before we go there, clarify something for me. What does that mean in practical terms? Do we need to read the bible at all? How often? For what purpose?
Sure. Of course Jesus taught many things other than love, although love was the most prominent. And, Paul and the other writers taught love and many other things. I’m quite familair with the “Love is the only thing that matters” philosophy, and that I [we] have no obligation to learn/know anything else or to pick up the bible. I’ve had large doses of it here.
There are many fine bible translations, compliled by scholars—not internet message board scholars–but the dyed in the wool kind. And you would have me believe that in 2 months I could read the bible as qualitatively in Greek as well as I can read the English product (my native tongue) of these scholars? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to anyone learning Greek or Hebrew as part of their faith. But to suggest that English translations done by scholars are inadequate, I’m going to have to disagree.
That is a little confusing to me. In dozens and dozens of NT scriptures one can find Jesus quoting a scrpiture and you can find the exact scrpiture he’s quoting in the OT. That goes for Paul et al, even Satan. In Matthew 4, satan quoted Psalms 91 in attempting to tempt Jesus. (Whe responded with the correct scriptural cite)
How Satan’s knowledge applies to us is lost on me. Surely you’re not suggesting that knowledge is futile because even Satan is in possesion of it too are you?
As to not neding to “know nothing” I must disagree. i’ve seen to many threads about mixed threads, lobsters, and comments like “Paul was against sex, all sex!.”
We’re not fighting ignorance, we’re promoting it. But that’s cool, 'God is Love. '(Which ironically the overwhelming couldn’t cite if pressed)
I’m guessing that you know me well enough, that I know you well enough, that that comment didn’t apply to you. But, thanks for citing it.
I’m also guessing that you know the Mosaic Law was designed to lead to the Christ, and that the Jews had been in anticipation of the Christ for centuries. (and of course many still are) Even the woman at the well went back to her home and asked, “This is not perhaps the Christ is it?”
The fullfillment of the Law of course was achieved by the death of the Christ, an unparalleled act of love in behalf of mankind. It was appropriate for Paul to point out this ultimate act of love as being the fullfillment of the Mosaic Law, although no level of human love could have achieved it in the absense of that sacrifice. It remains the ultimate symbol of love.
Still, Jesus, Paul and the other writers wrote extensively about love and the obligations that this love imposed or our personal morality, choices and behavior. They also outlined stiff penalties for those who either rejected this love or who made a mockery of it through their actions. I appreciate the cite, but there are hundreds of cites that show what this love would compel os to do and responsibilities that the mantle of Christian would impose on a person acceptibng it.
The words, weight and context of the bible (especially the NT) make it clear that basking in the warm glow of “God is Love” is not a license to remain ignorant about God’s word, to abdicate personal responsibility or do whatever you like.
Huh? No it wasn’t. It was “designed” to be complete in and of itself. There is nothing in Mosaic Law that has any reference to the Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is not a salvic figure in the sense of a redeemer of sns.
If by “Christ” you mean the “Annointed One,” the heir to the throne of David who would restore the Kingdom of Israel and bring world peace, then yes, Jews did and still do anticipate such a figure. If you mean “Christ” in a Christian sense- an incarnation of God who “dies for our sins,” then no, the Jews never have and still don’t anticipate such a figure. In the Jewish tradition you are judged by your own deeds and “righteousness.” You can not be "saved’ by another, not even by the Messiah.
In the passage I quoted, Paul was quite clearly talking our own actions, not the crucifixion. We fulfill the law by loving others.
Jesus said the same thing when he named the two greatest commandments as loving God and loving your neigbors. He not only said they were the greatest commandments, he said they were sufficient for salvation (Luke 10:28- “Do this and you will live.”) Furthermore, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, he defined those two commandments as synonomous (“Whatever you did to the least among you, you did to me.”) So according to Jesus, all you need to do is love others. That’s it.
Do you know how ridiculous it sound to say “accept this love or else?”
It isn’t about “accepting” love, it’s about giving it. You are redeemed by giving not by taking.
Who said anything about doing whatever you like? If you are loving others you are following mandate of Jesus. The only “words” that matter are “love your neighbor.” Do this and you will live.
Well…suffice it to say that I find your biblical reasonings deeply flawed. I’m a little pressed for time this weekend and I’m not up for the gruesome spectacle of the two of us banging our heads against a KJV bible. And given that this a hijack anyway, I’ll sit this one out.
Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone so inclined to read the whole bible, not the few verses that Diogenes has mastered (to the exclusion of the words, weight and context of the rest of the bible) and see for yourself if this is so.
Hmmm. I agree that there is much more in the Bible than “those few verses that Diogenes has mastered” – which in his shoes I’d report as a flagrant insult in GD, given his credentials in the field. Good manners, to say nothing of Christian ethics, would result in an apology, IMO (and I know you didn’t ask; I’m volunteering the information, as my brotherly duty towards you, and on open board because private messaging is not permitted here and I don’t feel like going through the effort of trying to locate and send private e-mail).
But the question that your comment raises, which has come up more than once in this forum, is: Why should anybody give a rat’s patoot about the Bible in the first place? And I trust that we’d agree that the proper answer to that is that it gives a record of God’s doings with men, that it is, in some sense, “the word of God” – and though I think we’d differ on in what sense that is true, I think we can agree on it as a generic statement.
In other words, God validates the Bible. It has no intrinsic value in and of itself; its importance derives from the fact that it is the inspired record of the Triune God in whom we believe.
Good so far?
Now, in any book whatsoever, there are passages crucial to its meaning and ones that are purely exposition, support, example, analogy, or any one of a number of other rhetorical devices.
The same is true for Scripture. If Diogenes were to tell me what he considers the most important messages in all of Scripture, I could take or leave his answer – it’s the opinion of a fallible human being, albeit one for whom I have great respect.
However, at least four times Jesus Christ said what was the most important message we could possibly get, the one that summarizes every other element of Scripture and of God’s Law into a couple of short sentences.
Three times that summary is the Two Great Commandments: love God; love your fellow man. And once it’s the Golden Rule: do to others as you would have them do unto you. Christ added one commandment to the 613 that those summarize: Love one another, not merely as yourself (as the Second Greatest Commandment says), but as He has loved us. That’s the New Commandment.
No bullshit about dispensations, Scriptural inerrancy, Pauline amplification of the nature of grace and faith, or anything else supersedes, or can supersede, the explicit words of our Lord and Savior as to what is most important to do.
If those few verses were all that Diogenes had mastered, they would be enough – Jesus said so. (And I believe it, and that settles it! ;))
Well…I appreciate your thoughts. And while I hardly feel it constitutes a “flagrant foul” I have to agree it is snide and ultimately un-Christian. I know, you didn’t ask, but I apologize to Diogenes.
I would note that while I sincerely enjoy Diogenes posts, I find nothing compelling about his credentials. God chose common men to carry his word and held “intellectual” men in derision. (1 Cor 1:19,20) Ultimately, I am impressed on one’s ability to use the bible accurately and in a balanced way. In my experience here, his ability to render the bible’s views on many topics lack depth and contextual understanding. That’s simply my view. I understand his knowledge of the bible is held in high regard here, and particularly his knowledge of Greek. I do not share those views. On many occasions he has expressed views that indicate he holds the bible in something akin to contempt as a means of discerning God’s will or that it is indeed God’s word. It’s one thing to conciously decide that faith in God is not for you, But I don’t think Diogenes has an intellectual understanding as to what faith is all about.
Of course, none of that gives me cause to be snarky. I regret the snide comment. FTR, my private email & phone number is available to anyone who wants it.
For the most part, and for the purpose of this discussion…
Well put. Of course I disagree with some of that; or rather how it is being interpreted. But that’s a thread for another day.
Since no one has actually answered the OP’s questions, I guess I’ll give it a shot.
As has been pointed out, there really isn’t that much difference between the various translations.
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is, by almost all accounts, the best all-purpose, scholarly translation. It has recieved the support of almost every main-line denomination in the US, including Catholics and Orthodox (though they have other more widely used translations specific to those traditions–the New Jerusalem, a Catholic translation, is generally very highly regarded by Catholics and Protestants alike). It is used in classrooms in universities and seminaries throughout the English speaking world.
The New International Version (NIV) is the most popular modern English translation. Like the NRSV, it based on the latest scholarship available, although it eschews the NRSV’s occasionally forced efforts to be gender neutral, making it more popular amoung concervative and Evangelical churches. (“Today’s New International Version” (TNIV), the latest update of the NIV, follows the NRSV in attempting to be as gender-neutral as possible.) It is a looser translation with less stilted English and is easier to read.
The most conservative or traditional churches use The King James Version (KJV), AKA the Authorized Version (AV). This was based on the latest scholarship available at the time, but is now somewhat outdated. It is still suitable for devotional study, although it can be difficult to understand. It is best to compare it with a modern version. The New King James Version is also a very conservative translation, and only updates the language of the KJV for inteligibility or where the earlier version was clearly inadequate or in error.
Those are the big three. You would be very hard pressed to find a Christian church anywhere in the country (besides Witnesses and Mormons) who would not accept at least one, and usually all three, of those translations as perfectly acceptable. You don’t need to spend money on several dozen translations, unless you want to. If you were asking about scholarly study, I’d go into more detail, but for devotional purposes, any one of the three is enough.
How you use it is up to you. Some people like to read through it like any other book. Others read one or two chapters a day at a specific time, as part of a spiritual discipline. Some use daily devotional guides such as My Utmost for His Highest or The Upper Room, which give one or two verses each day as the focus of a short meditation and prayers. Others use journaling, painting, meditation, or Lectio Devina (a specifc method of spiritual reading) to enhance their devotions.
It may also help to find a church or other spiritual community to help answer questions and provide support and insight for your spiritual journey. Find one that is open and welcoming and that encourages curiosity and accepts diversity of opinions.
Forgot to add: The Spiritual Formation Bible is another resource to look at. It is available in NRSV and NIV and includes descriptions of several ways reading scripture devotionally (including Lectio Devina) and frequent sidebars with devotional ideas for meditating on specific passages. Some folks find that sort of thing helpful, others not so much. (Me, not so much, but is very nicely put together, and the descriptions of the various techniques are quite useful.)
(to the exclusion of the words, weight and context of the rest of the bible) and see for yourself if this is so.