Is there a bible translation that you will not recommend?

[David J]

Since this is a bible version/translation board I thought that I would get some thoughts about different translations.

Since KJVOism is not the "be all end all" of this board, I will ask that KJVOism not surface here. I want some honest answers with examples.

This is merely for my personal study. I ask that we refrain from attacks and just list the examples and reasons.

Is there a bible version that you will not recommend? This question came up at work and I have not studied every translation on the market.

If this turns into a KJVO debate I ask the mods to close this thread.

Thank you,

David

 

[Johnv]

I would never recommend the Reader's Digest Bible. I don't even think it's in publication anymore.

 

[gb93433]

If it's not an accurate translation then it is an interpretation only. Accurate translation involves interpretation and other contextual studies along with language studies both past and present.

 

[Phillip]

The Good News for Modern Man or other versions of the same thing by its other names. No recommendation........

The Living Bible (paraphase) or any other paraphrase. (If you want to just refer to it out of curiousity or to see another person's thoughts, okay, just be aware that it is not final authority.)

The WatchTower Bible (New American or something similar to that?)

The KJV that contains the apocrypha. (Ignore or tear out the apocrypha that the [snip] translators so logically included.)

Among others that I'm probably not aware of right now without referring to my list.

[ October 15, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[russell55]

At the Salvation Army Thrift store I picked up a used copy of The Cotton Patch Version of Paul's Epistles.

It calls itself a translation. It isn't.

I don't think the terms profane and blasphemous are too strong to use in regards to it.

 

[robycop3]

I'd not recommend the "Good as New", the British "People's Bible", the old edition of the "Living Bible"( Contains scatology as alluded to in another thread, is TOO much of a paraphrase), the NWT(Jehovah Witness bible...it departs from its sources too often!), the Phillips version(Too loose an interpretation), the Joseph Smith edition of the King James, the TNIV. That's just about all the BVs I've sampled besides the valid versions.

I've not even sampled such editions as Cotton Patch or Ebonics version, whatever it's called.

 

[Marcia]

I know the question is about translations, but I am not sure if you are excluding or including parapharses in that question.

I never recommend paraphrases, especially The Message.

As far as other Christian (as opposed to versions like the JW New World Translation)translations go, there isn't any I know of that I would warn against or not recommend generally, though I would not recommend the New Living Translation for serious, in-depth Bible study.

 

[Bro Tony]

The Message would be one that I would never recommend.

Bro Tony

 

[Ransom]

The Message just grates on my nerves, because the translation is just too sentimental and loose.

The Today's English Version aka the Good News Bible was translated by someone with some serious doctrinal biases and isn't worth much. That being said, it's done some good in my life.

Like many European translations, the New English Bible betrays the liberal biases of its translators.

And there are all sorts of politically motivated translations - inclusive-language Bibles and that one that came out in England recently - that tell you more about the ideology of the translators than they do about God's word. Certain sectarian translations are out too, such as the NWT and various "Sacred Name" editions, which are intended to push a particular theology.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Although clearly not KJVO the only "MV"s I use would be the NKJV and rarely, the NASV.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Is there a bible version that you will not recommend?

Recommend for what purpose or purposes?

• A primary study Bible?

• A secondary study Bible?

• An additional study Bible?

• A Bible for devotional reading?

• A Bible for new converts?

• A Bible for evangelistic purposes?

• A Bible to be studied as literature?

• A Bible to use in the study of translation theory?

• A Bible to study to learn how one/s theology influences one’s translation?

 

[David J]

For study and growth Craig.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is there a bible version that you will not recommend?

Recommend for what purpose or purposes?

• A primary study Bible?

• A secondary study Bible?

• An additional study Bible?

• A Bible for devotional reading?

• A Bible for new converts?

• A Bible for evangelistic purposes?

• A Bible to be studied as literature?

• A Bible to use in the study of translation theory?

• A Bible to study to learn how one/s theology influences one’s translation? </font>[/QUOTE]You certainly have a good point, Craig. I think what is being sought is a Bible that corrupts any doctrine, or is obviously inaccurate. One that you would not use for any reason, except maybe to study it to see how IS wrong.

Does that make sense?

You do have a good point though, there could be different Bibles. FOr instance, I wouldn't recommend a KJV to a new convert that is young and didn't grow up with it. I would recommend a newer version. As time goes on, then they could try it. Just not at first. I have seen many lose interest in it.

I just don't think that is the question here. It would be, What Bible translation would not be suitable for anything that would consist of reading or studying the true Word-of-God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Assuming that to be the intent of the question, I would not recommend:

The Bible in Basic English
The Contemporary English Version
The New Living Translation

And other translations that simplify or paraphrase the Bible.

 

[BruceB]

I will only comment on Bibles I use or have used (NASB, NKJV, NLT, NIV, KJV, The Message). I would not recommend The Message. I purchased it and read it for a while, but found I could not recognize much of what was written. When I want to read in a easy reading, modern english Bible I use the NLT. Bruce

 

[Bro.Bill]

Paraphrases,JW,or Joseph Smith KJV would not be recommended.

 

[pastorjeff]

I don't recomend paraphrases, but they aren't translations anyway.

[ October 15, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[Pete]

NWT, Living, NCV

 

[manchester]

I would not recommend the NWT, TEV, or the KJV.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by mioque:
Paraphrases, Bibles translated individuals (as opposed to committees), Bibles purely translated from other translations and Bibles translated with a strong theological bias I would not recommend.

Does that mean that you would not recommend a German speaker read a Luther Bible or an English speaker read a Tyndale Bible because they were translated by one person instead of a commitee? What about the TR then? It was compiled by one person - Erasmus. Each revision after that was mostly done by one person or a very small group (which IMO cannot be considered a commitee).

Personally, I use paraphrases like a commentary. It is good to get someone elses opinion at times, but I would not trust them like a good formal translation. I do not, however, recommend the Message. It can be ok in certain spots, but it is loose as a goose in others.