Need help in recommending a Bible for someone

[Tradd]

I've been asked to recommend a Bible translation for someone who hasn't had much experience with reading it before. Religious background is sort of general cultural Protestant, but not much church attendance. Education is high school graduate, with some college, I believe. Little actual knowledge of Christianity, although this person seems to want to become a practicing Christian.

My only stipulation is that it must be an actual translation, not a paraphrase.

I'm only asking for assistance since I'm an Orthodox Christian and my Bible reading consists of the RSV/NKJV/KJV. I think the NIV is pretty popular among many Protestants, but that's the extent of what I know about it. Not sure about ease of understanding, etc.

[true2Him]

The Amplified Bible is pretty popular with pastors along with the KJV. The New Living Translation is kind of a combination of the Amplified on the top portion with more explanation at the bottom to go along with the verses. It expands on why a particular action may have taken place, gives summaries of highs and lows of different Biblical characters, includes timelines of things such as kings of Israel/Judah, etc.

Some people respond better to the Bibles that are geared to their age or gender since the explanations tend to put things in terms geared for that audience.

[lilyka]

My fav for readability is the NIV.

[caro113]

I wouldn't go the King James. I remember translating Pslam 23 (the one with the lord is my Shepard one) from the original Latin and it was nothing like what the KJ said. Nothing.

In college I took a course that compared the three monotheistic religions. It was designed so anyone could it, even if you've never heard of the books. We were told to get "The Harper Collin Study Bible". It has the bible and everything but also explains everything at the bottom of the page.

Example: From 2 Kings 18.24-18.28
26: Then Eliakim son of Kilkian, and Shebnah, and Joan said to the Rabshakeh, "please speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; do not speak to us inthe laungage of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall."

Below, at the bottom it says: 18.26 The Judeans request that the negotiations be carried out in Aramaic, a West Semitic dialect related to Hebrew. By this time Aramaic had become the language of international diplomacy and trade but was not well understood by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who spoke only the local dialect of Hebrew.


So if you are looking for a bible for someone who is unfamiliar and wants more of a literal translation, that's where I'd go. I think I picked it up for $20

PS: the book also has an introduction to each book in the bible, explaining what it's about and such. It also includes maps, which explain the different areas that the different groups lived in. And for the most part, they are in colour. It's really designed to teach someone about the bible.

[miss_sonja]

I was going to suggest The Message until I saw you didn't want a paraphrase. I'd try the New American Bible, it's quite readable and still poetic.

[Bluegoat]

I think I would stay away from the Amplified Bible if he wants something that doesn't attempt to "interpret" what it is translating.

I think you could suggest any of the ones you use. They would still be fine for a Protestant.

[xekomaya]

I would probably say the Jerusalem Bible in this situation.

I would recommend a Catholic bible so it has all the books. You don't have to read them, but they're there if you want to. Some version like RSV I believe, have a Catholic & non-Catholic edition.

[JenBuckyfan]

I really like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Study Bible. I have always grown up with the NRSV bibles, but I received a study bible in high school and thought it was great and have used it in bible study classes past college.

There are study books for adults and there are student - study bibles. I think the student bible would be the one to look into.

[Adele_Mommy]

If you want to give them a Bible to read, like literature, then I would recommend the King James Version. If the recipient has "Bible quotes" in her head gleaned from her general Protestant culture, she will probably recognize them as they are written in the KJV. If you are going for a scholarly Bible that attempts to be an accurate translation, I would choose the New Revised Standard Version. I have both and like both for different reasons.

[angelpie545]

I would recommend the Recovery Version. It has footnotes explaining each verse and is great for new Christians.

[Tjej]

There are good study Bibles that give cultural/contextual information at the bottom of the page to go with many of the verses. I have found them to be very helpful, and when we had a friend in college who wanted a Bible that is what she ended up choosing (I think she chose NIV). I think that a general protestant background would mean the person would be most familiar with NIV.

So I recommend the NIV study Bible, although if you think the person would be interested, there are also a number of "one year" Bibles, that have passages broken up for reading through in a year. Could be a nice feature.

Tjej

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by caro113

I wouldn't go the King James. I remember translating Pslam 23 (the one with the lord is my Shepard one) from the original Latin and it was nothing like what the KJ said. Nothing.

The Psalms were all originally written in Hebrew, though we only have surviving ancient copies in Greek and Syriac. The Latin was a later edition, originally translated from the Greek. So even that Latin translation is 3-times translated already.

For the most accurate translation (of the OT, at least - can't speak for the new) stay away from KJV and NIV. The translation is so far from the original, it's scary.

For the most accurate translation of the OT, you might want to go to a Jewish source and get the Stone edition of the Torah, or the JPS study edition. Both have commentaries.

For the most accurate Christian translation of the OT, check out the English Standard Version. It is by far the most accurate, though there are HUGE portions of Isaiah that are unrecognizable from the Hebrew (though better than any of the above suggested versions). The Contemporary English version is ok, too. It's a bit easier to read than the ESV.

It's been really interesting looking at all the recommendations. What a neat thread.

[notjustmamie]

Another idea to consider is a multi-translation text. One of my favorite Bibles is a side-by-side NIV/Message. I like the Message paraphrase just to read, but it's nice to have a more familiar/standard translation to refer to as well.

I don't have any knowledge of the "best" translations for accuracy ... though as an armchair linguist myself, I would guess that opinions vary, depending on how one would interpret the original. There is so much culture inherent in any language that, in my opinion, any translating done is actually interpretation and/or paraphrase. I often think the restrictions on the Koran (I'm not sure how to spell it with a Q) and not translating it make some sense. I suppose that, even at that, there are changes to a language in several hundred year, though.

[umsami]

This is an interesting chart which shows the various translations by reading level as well as literalness of the translation.

http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblechoices.htm

I had a great NIV Bible put out by the Christianity Today folks. It was filled with study notes in the margins--which really made it easy to read/understand. I think it was called The Quest study Bible or something like that. It's been awhile.

http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Quest-Stud.../dp/0310928044

OK, it's been revised, but basically the same format.

[Bluegoat]

It isn't always as simple as saying that the best translation is the one from the original language, even if you do not care about the literary value and are just looking for accurate meaning.

The difficulty with the Bible is that even in the original language, you need to choose a text to translate from. In the OT, for example, you could look at a very early Hebrew version of a text, or a medieval Hebrew version, and they might not be the same. Is earlier always better? Which version is the correct one? And then in some cases with OT there are Greek texts which were translated from Hebrew texts that are now lost, so in that case, is it better to use the Greek text???

Some people also feel that there was a change in the way the Hebrew texts were interpreted and so documented after the Christian period began. That such changes happen in general is well known with ancient texts in general and also with the Bible. In some cases there are questions in transcribing, even in the same language, and one's interpretation of the text ends up being the deciding factor in how it is transcribed. The argument is in this case that there was a tendency for Jewish transcriptional to favour interpretations that were farther from the Christian understanding. If that were the case, Christians would want to avoid using Jewish texts from after that period to base their translations on. (And vice versa too of course.)

Which is why comparing Bible translations to see which is more accurate is sticky business. More accurate to what? What texts were the translations based on? Why did they choose those ones? If we can't assume older is better always, then what basis can a non-philologist make a choice?

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

The Psalms were all originally written in Hebrew, though we only have surviving ancient copies in Greek and Syriac. The Latin was a later edition, originally translated from the Greek. So even that Latin translation is 3-times translated already.

For the most accurate translation (of the OT, at least - can't speak for the new) stay away from KJV and NIV. The translation is so far from the original, it's scary.

For the most accurate translation of the OT, you might want to go to a Jewish source and get the Stone edition of the Torah, or the JPS study edition. Both have commentaries.

For the most accurate Christian translation of the OT, check out the English Standard Version. It is by far the most accurate, though there are HUGE portions of Isaiah that are unrecognizable from the Hebrew (though better than any of the above suggested versions). The Contemporary English version is ok, too. It's a bit easier to read than the ESV.

It's been really interesting looking at all the recommendations. What a neat thread.

Depends on what your source text is - for Orthodox Christians, the Greek Old Testament (aka the Septguagint) is the canonical OT, *not* the Hebrew Masoretic text. For us, there are pretty much only 3 translations in English, that in the Orthodox Study Bible, Breton (done in 19th Century), and one done by a bunch of scholars. The Greek text can be quite different from the Hebrew, particularly in the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. The Septuagint is what is quoted in the NT, not the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

[AahRee]

I really like the English Standard Version. It's a word-by-word translation (like NKJV), rather than a phrase-by-phrase translation (like NIV), but a bit easier to read. It's a newer translation with a large group of excellent scholars behind it.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Tradd

Depends on what your source text is - for Orthodox Christians, the Greek Old Testament (aka the Septguagint) is the canonical OT, *not* the Hebrew Masoretic text. For us, there are pretty much only 3 translations in English, that in the Orthodox Study Bible, Breton (done in 19th Century), and one done by a bunch of scholars. The Greek text can be quite different from the Hebrew, particularly in the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. The Septuagint is what is quoted in the NT, not the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

Interesting. I did not know that.

[MammaG]

Depends on what you want out of it, I suppose. I use the KJV for personal devotion because I feel that the beauty of the language captures the intent for prayer beautifully.

When I was in Seminary, we used the NRSV, with Apocrypha (the books that have been cut over the years). I includes Deuterocononical books and the full Roman Catholic and Orthodox canons. This is, I think, one of the best from a translation standpoint for scholarly use. However, it's a Christian text, so I believe (without rereading the preface!) that the Hebrew Bible portion is translated from the Septuagint, not from more-authentic Hebrew sources. (wow, I havent had that book out in ages...feels good in my hand!)

[Tradd]

NRSV OT is from the Hebrew, aside from the deutero-canonical books that only exist in the Greek (aka the Septuagint). I don't use the NRSV. Had enough exposure to it as an Episcopalian (we were told we had to use it in Bible studies). In going gender inclusive with the translation, stuff got messed up. I'm at work on iPhone so it's too hard to do more right now. The NRSV changed the RSV to the extent that the NRSV has been forbidden to be used in worship and church-sponsored Bible studies by the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America, of which I am a member. This decision dates to 1990.