Reading the Bible next year

[Rippon]

But much to be preferred over the so-called "dynamic equivalence translation" but really a brief paraphrase, the NIV!

My favorite parphrase is J.B. Phillips' New Testament and Minor Prophets. But his reworked 1972 version is rarely cited which is unfair.

According to most biblical New Testament scholars the NIV is certainly not in the dynamic-equivalence category; much less a paraphrase slot.

But in a very real sense all Bible translations are paraphrases of the original. They are approximations of the original.

 

[evangelist6589]

my advice is to read for quality and not quantity.

It's better to read 1 verse and to meditate on it (psalm 1:2) than to read a whole bunch to check it off your daily list..

this is why I also recommend trying to memorize whole chapters of scripture, I recommend working through a small book of the bible to start, like James, Philippians, 1 John, Galatians, Ephesians, or some of the Psalms.

work through them chapter by chapter, spend a whole month on each chapter, read it 2 times in the morning, and 3 times at night. this will help you commit to memory, and it's also causes the passage to really get into your heart, it really opens up the scriptures to you.

I also recommend the King James bible for accuracy and because it's beauty and style really work well for memorization.

Granted it is better for memorization. However the ESV is a better overall translation.

 

[evangelist6589]

But much to be preferred over the so-called "dynamic equivalence translation" but really a brief paraphrase, the NIV!

You are incorrect on the NIV. It is not a paraphrase nor dynamic but a optical translation just like the HCSB.

 

[evangelist6589]

Oh gosh, not at all! You CAN buy it but why if you already have a Bible? Print out this PDF and you're all set with the Bible that you already own.

http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/rp.chronological.pdf

Thanks will print.

 

[annsni]

Thanks will print.

I did too, right after I posted it.

 

[Rippon]

You are incorrect on the NIV. It is not a paraphrase nor dynamic but a optical translation just like the HCSB.

Question: What is an "optical translation" evan? Answer: It's all in the way you look at it. ;-)

You mean the marketing arm of the HCSB says it is an optimal equivalent translation. And of course, that boils down to the same philosophy as the NIV. Both translations steer a middle course between overly dynamic and overly literal.

 

[gigabyte71]

my advice is to read for quality and not quantity.

In a sense, this is good advice. But what happens with most people is they never read through the Old Testament. Every believer should strive to have a good overview of the entire Bible. In the Bible Explorer's Handbook, John Phillips gives an account of a preacher who didn't have a summary understanding of the Old Testament and what resulted from it.

It is unlikely that someone who only focuses on quality will actually walk away with quality. Every believer needs to have quantity and quality, not just one or the other. It makes me wonder how people come to doctrinal conclusions when the don't have a basic understanding of the entire Bible.

As to your comment about the KJV, I would agree. I use the NIV 1984, KJV, and NASB for study, but I always go to the KJV for memorization. The NIV just doesn't seem to flow, which can make it very difficult to memorize.

 

[Rippon]

The NIV just doesn't seem to flow, which can make it very difficult to memorize.

You need to inform Max Mclean. He has memorized from the NIV all of Genesis and Mark among other sections of Scripture.

He has recorded the entire NIV,ESV, and KJV. I don't know if he has memorized sections of the latter two. The NIV remains his personal favorite.

 

[annsni]

I think a good way to deal with quality vs. quantity is to have two Bible times in your day. One is just reading. If you do best with this first thing in the morning or last thing at night, do it then. Then you do your actual study time. This is where you dive deeper into a book or passage or a topic as you choose. Right now I'm going through 1 John more deeply so this is my study time - not my reading time.

 

[OldRegular]

You are incorrect on the NIV. It is not a paraphrase nor dynamic but a optical translation just like the HCSB.

The preface of the NIV states:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.
http://hissheep.org/kjv/preface_to_the_niv_bible.html

Thus call it Dynamic Equivalence, "optical translation", or "brief paraphrase "the "translation" includes the "thoughts of the translators" rather than the Words of Scripture. Some would call that a commentary!

 

[OldRegular]

You are incorrect on the NIV. It is not a paraphrase nor dynamic but a optical translation just like the HCSB.

The preface to the HCSB states:

3. Optimal Equivalence: In practice, translations are seldom if ever purely formal or dynamic but favor one theory of Bible translation or the other to varying degrees. Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be changed (for example, nouns to verbs or third person "they" to second person "you") unless comprehension demands it. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation language permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes its limitations.

Optimal equivalence starts with an exhaustive analysis of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) in the original language to determine its original meaning and intention (or purpose). Then relying on the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original.

The Holman CSB uses optimal equivalence as its translation philosophy. When a literal translation meets these criteria, it is used. When clarity and readability demand an idiomatic translation, the reader can still access the form of the original text by means of a footnote with the abbreviation "Lit."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb-intro.html

Therefore both the NIV and the HCSB substitute to some degree the thoughts of the translators for the Words of Scripture.

 

[gigabyte71]

You need to inform Max Mclean. He has memorized from the NIV all of Genesis and Mark among other sections of Scripture.

He has recorded the entire NIV,ESV, and KJV. I don't know if he has memorized sections of the latter two. The NIV remains his personal favorite.

And I should care, why? I don't even know who that is, nor do I care. I am a member of a church that the pastor only uses the NIV, that doesn't make me think it is easier to memorize.

 

[RLBosley]

My wife and I will be reading through the Bible using Robert Murray M'Cheyne's Bible reading plan. We're looking forward to it. We will be using the HCSB.

http://mcheyne.info/calendar.pdf

 

[RLBosley]

The preface to the HCSB states:



Therefore both the NIV and the HCSB substitute to some degree the thoughts of the translators for the Words of Scripture.

Brother, normally I agree with you, but here I must dissent. What the HCS says in it's preface is true of any tranlsation. There is not, can not, be a perfect one to one translation and still be readable. The HCSB is a great translation and IMO superior to the NIV and the ESV.

 

[righteousdude2]

What is your daily reading plan? I want to complete the OT AS I have already read the NT through several times. A study bible can be helpful to read through for the notes, Maps, charts, etc.. Not sure if I will use the ESV/NIV AS I MAY switch back and forth given how sometimes the literal rendering can be awkward in contemporary English and why the NIV has the advantage at times. But the ESV is in the same line as the KJV and is probably the most accurate translation in English.

But in all honesty when I meet Amos in heaven what If he asked if I read his book and I said no I read MacArthurs FaithWorks and all of RC SPROUL instead... What an embarrassment!!!!

GREAT post. Your OP reminded me of a story about reading the Bible....

A pastor got a request to visit a family member's elderly aunt who resided in a rest home. As a pastor, he felt the duty to visit with her, and stopped by one afternoon.

After the introductions and small talk, the lady told the Pastor, "You know preacher, I've read the Bible from the front to back every year of my life on earth!"

The pastor was truly impressed with her commitment and dedication to reading the Word of God, and complimented her by saying, "Ma'am, that is impressive. I don't know many people who can claim to have read the Bible from the front to the back every year of their lives since being saved?"

"Saved?" she said, "who said anything about being saved, young man? I don't even know what 'being saved' is. I just said that I read the Bible through and through every year, because I thought it was the right thing to do!"

A little embarrassed, and somewhat confused, the pastor apologized for the assumption, and followed up his apology by reassuring her, "Well a lot lot of people don't know much about the terminology I use, like 'saved' so let me say this .... having read the Bible through each year, you must know a lot about God and His Son, Jesus?"

The lady, starting to get frustrated with the young preacher, pulled herself up in the bed, and looked him square in the eye, and said, "Listen hear sonny! I never said I knew God or that fictional Son of His .... I just said, I had read the Bible from the front to back every year of my life!"

:flower: This story always reminded me of the fact that many folks have read the Bible and probably know it and can even quote it, backwards and forward. But, if they don't know the God of the Bible and have a personal relationship with His Son, it is nothing more than a reading assignment! :wavey:

 

[Marooncat79]

Why is it important to read through the Bible in a year?

I certainly have nothing against it, but why not read through the NT-3 times, or the OT-2 times, or spend the whole year reading through the Gospels?

BTW, I would encourage everyone to read through the Bible at least every 2-3 yrs.

Grace and peace

Romans 5:1

 

[OldRegular]

Why is it important to read through the Bible in a year?

I certainly have nothing against it, but why not read through the NT-3 times, or the OT-2 times, or spend the whole year reading through the Gospels?

BTW, I would encourage everyone to read through the Bible at least every 2-3 yrs.

Grace and peace

Romans 5:1

I have read through the Bible a number of times in past years. I believe I always learned something and was always greatly blessed by certain Scripture. However, in my opinion, simply reading through the Bible is not sufficient when it comes to Bible study. That requires time prayerfully studying a passage in context and also considering other relevant Scripture.

 

[Marooncat79]

I agree OR!!

 

[RLBosley]

Why is it important to read through the Bible in a year?

I certainly have nothing against it, but why not read through the NT-3 times, or the OT-2 times, or spend the whole year reading through the Gospels?

BTW, I would encourage everyone to read through the Bible at least every 2-3 yrs.

Grace and peace

Romans 5:1

It's not "important" per se, but it is a goal as are the other options you listed. All are good choices.

But, IMO, reading through the Bible, even a couple chapters a day, is not an adequate substitute for careful, thorough study. Both should be done IMO, the one for brief devotion and getting your mind fixed on God, the other to learn more deeply the things of God.

 

[HeDied4U]

Brother, normally I agree with you, but here I must dissent. What the HCS says in it's preface is true of any tranlsation. There is not, can not, be a perfect one to one translation and still be readable. The HCSB is a great translation and IMO superior to the NIV and the ESV.

:thumbs: :thumbs:

It's the version I mostly read from this past year (when I did read). It will be my version of choice in the coming new year.