Which bible version would you recommend?

[F4lconF16]

I had a friend ask which one I would recommend, and I told him that I have my King James version, and that's all I know. As an atheist, I really have no particular preference (and the guy who asked is as well), so what do you think?

He wants to read it so that he'll have a better understanding of religion. My guess is he'll get 2 chapters in before he gives up

Edit to add that I wouldn't mind a recommendation for the Koran, either--that's something I need to read at some point.

[shenmue]

1. I read the Orthodox Study Bible

I also like the Douay-Rheims. I had a copy of the Septuagint once, which was nice, but it vanished.

[F4lconF16]

2. I can look them up myself if you want

But is there any reason you recommend those over others?

[immoderate]

3. I like...

--imm

[F4lconF16]

4. I've heard about that one!

I entirely forgot about it...I might get a copy for myself, thanks.

[Journeyman]

10. Here it is on the internet, along with a version for the Quran and the Book of Mormon. . .

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

There's a tab at the top of the home page to select which book you wish to explore.

[edhopper]

12. Thanks for that

That gets bookmarked.

[Brettongarcia]

20. the Koran can be a quick read

The lines are spaced out like poetry

Read it through quickly first

I marked similarities and differences with Christianity

Then I went to the Middle East. Where no one had read it

[longship]

5. Well, the language in the KJV was out of date when it was published.

There are many other translations that are better, I am told, but I am by no means an expert. I listen to the Bible Geek, Robert Price, though.

I once tried to read the KJV. I could not get through the Pentateuch. Leviticus was tough enough. Numbers is unreadable tosh from the Department of Redundancy Department. I hear that I should have skipped around, maybe take in Song of Solomon (Bible porn, I understand). And other narratives, like Job, are apparently good. But the Psalms are frankly a lot of dull worship rubbish.

I would look for a modern translation, but not the dumbed down ones. Apparently the annotated study Bibles are good. Some recommend the Oxford version. (Some do not.) At least its annotations would be scholarly.

I just hate the olde language in the KJV, so to speake.

[F4lconF16]

21. That might explain why reading it was so dry.

As much as I love the sound and cadence of older language, it can be a slog.

I will definitely try and find something modern for him.

[rogerashton]

6. I have a modern King James

From the Dallas seminary -- the footnotes are interesting -- and The Contemporary Parallel New Testament, which gives eight translations in parallel. It has no Old Testament, though.

As to the Koran -- I have the translation by A. Yusuf Ali, 1946 edition, printed in the US by McGregor and Werner. It has the Arabic in parallel with the English, but of course the Arabic means nothing to me. It was given to me in about 1972 as a farewell gift from a student who later became known as The Butcher of Isfahan. Or, well, a person of the same name.

This seems to be a more recent printing.

[F4lconF16]

22. What makes footnotes interesting to you?

As in, what qualities do you look for in the annotations?

It would be cool to see the original arabic, even without being able to read it.

[rogerashton]

36. Well, for example,

there is a footnote explaining that the communism of the Jerusalem Christian Community was a temporary necessity, not an expression of Christian values.

[Fumesucker]

7. Just about everything is available online..

https://www.biblegateway.com/

I like the language of the KJ largely because snobbishly I can read it out loud and not stumble over the archaic stuff, really impresses the rubes.

Personally I would suggest a few hits of potent LSD and a nice hot tub with some good companionship under a dark starry sky, the only real down side is that his face will be sore for a day or two from smiling so much.

[F4lconF16]

23. I had an english teacher that spoke 16th century English

and it blew all of our minds. It's pretty cool hearing it.

...I'm thinking I like your second option

[Cartoonist]

8. My choice

[F4lconF16]

24. Before I recommend this to him, I want to check:

This is a totally accurate translation, correct?

[Cartoonist]

29. Of course!

Didn't you notice the Famous Funnies logo?

[Qutzupalotl]

9. I have a New American Standard that I like.

The text is straightforward to read, and avoids the stilted nature of King James. The Koiné of the New Testament was mostly written in the present tense. The NAS changed this to past tense, since that is how most narratives are written now, but they indicate those changed instances with an asterisk. Nice.

It's a study bible, meaning it has footnotes and cross-references. Unfortunately, the footnotes are written in a fundamentalist tone, whereas I usually favor a symbolic/mystical interpretation.

[F4lconF16]

25. What is gained/or lost in the different translations? Do you have a link where some of those are

described in detail?

The NAS changed this to past tense, since that is how most narratives are written now, but they indicate those changed instances with an asterisk. Nice.

Yeah I like that. It's good to know.

[demwing]

11. The Fosterite New Revelation version of 1961 /nt

[pennylane100]

13. I know that reading the bible gives comfort to a lot of people.

My mother was a devout catholic and it certainly helped her. Sadly, for her at least, none of her children even owned a bible and neither did their children.

I was educated in a convent school, run by French nuns and trust me, they are the most scariest of all. I hated the bible and I could never understand how cruel the people were, especially in the old testimony. It still amazes me how important that book is in today's world. I cannot believe the Koran would be any scarier. I just wish that those who teach hate of the Koran would reread their own book.

[F4lconF16]

26. For both him and I, reading it is an educational experience rather than a comforting one.

I think we view it much the same as you, otherwise.

[Journeyman]

14. A good place to start any exploration of "The Bible" is Alan Watt's essay. . .

"The World's Most Dangerous Book."

It was one of the last essays he wrote. Well worth a few minutes contemplation.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/alan-watts-bible.html

[MisterP]

16. Wiki's also fun for rummaging around in theology

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

that's why we might need more Bible-reading and US religious history--it makes the students realize they're not an "original Christian," they're a premillenniallist providentialist sentimentalist lackadaisical Anabaptist-tinged watered-down Wesleyan whose view of history has been imported entirely from one Victorian amateur who renounced the whole shebang and who're using some excommunicated Adventist to filter all their geology through

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. The NRSV is probably the most "academic" translation.

It tends to sacrifice the flowery language for literal translation, and comes highly recommended by those textual critics I've read.

[F4lconF16]

28. That's probably the one I'm going to recommend to him...

I think that's what he's looking for most, is just an accurate and clear translation.

Any annotated versions of that you might know of? I tend to like those.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. There are many.

They're called "study Bibles", and come well-stocked with academic notation. I don't own one myself, so I can't make a specific suggestion, but The New Oxford Annotated Bible seems to be pretty well-regarded.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. As a former catholic I always use the RSV-CE

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

But the Jefferson Bible is probably best since all the bull got cut out

[F4lconF16]

27. Forgot about the Jefferson Bible!

That's another of my favorites--never read the whole thing, but enough to know I liked it a lot more

[okasha]

18. KJV if you want poetry: NRSV or Jerusalem for scholarship.

[F4lconF16]

30. What differences are there between the NRSV and Jerusalem versions?

Apologies if this is an easy google search; sometimes people have the answers readily.

[NeoGreen]

19. Azimov's

http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Volumes-Testaments/dp/051734582X

[F4lconF16]

31. Without knowing a thing about what he writes in there...

I want to read that.

[arcane1]

32. Thomas Jefferson's

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. The Jefferson....the only one allowed in my house!

[merrily]

35. A woman who passed away left me her PTL bible. (Baker's ministry, for those who don't know.)

Each page was divided into two columns. On the left side was the original KJV. (Tthere's a new KJV, too, just to confuse matters). On the right hand side of each page is a more modern language version. I found it helpful on occasion.

The reason I like the KJV is that I suspect translators of the Bible usually have an agenda. I'm sure the King James translators had one too, but I figure it's probably irrelevant now.

[Petrushka]

37. The Companion Bible . . . and a Strong's Concordance

http://www.bing.com/search?q=companion+bible&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR

http://www.bing.com/search?q=strong%27s+concordance&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR

[hrmjustin]

38. I use the New Revised Standard Version.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Any of them that have been recycled into coffee cups.

Because coffee is useful.

[stone space]

40. I came across an internet forum reciently...

...where somebody asked what the source of consciousness is.

My response was "coffee".

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Cheers *clink*

[hunter]

42. The New English Bible: With the Apocrypha (Oxford Study Edition), 1976, is my favorite.

http://www.amazon.com/New-English-Bible-Apocrypha-Oxford/dp/0195297105

It makes Ezekiel sound like a modern San Francisco street preacher, and I'm pretty sure whatever drives a modern San Francisco street preacher was driving Ezekiel too.



This Bible is straightforward in it's translation, and does not try to replace incomprehensible ancient euphemisms, flowery language, puns, etc., with modern versions of the same which could obscure the meaning and impact of the original text.

Some people choke on that, and think many of the translations in this version are too explicit. More recent versions tone the language down a notch. I suspect most contemporary readers of the original texts found the language similarly explicit, but what do I know? I don't speak the languages of the original texts

But I do know it's nuts to use the King James Version as any kind of touchstone of authenticity, which is where many Fundamentalists (or more horribly, Joseph Smith) go off the rails.