The first book I should recommend must be the Bible because the best book to read is the Bible.
But recommending the Bible is not as easy as it sounds. There are many Bibles out there and so a good reading list should make a recommendation as to which Bible you should read as your main Bible (i.e. for devotional reading, memorisation etc).
As this is a blog written for English readers, the English Bible that I would recommend as your main Bible is the New International Translation (NIV).
Now I must admit that I grew up with the NIV and so I probably do have a potential bias toward it. But here are reasons why I don't use some of the other English translations as my main Bible:
(i) King James Version. The English language has changed (notably the second person pronouns) and the original language texts that the KJV uses to translate from are not as reliable as those used by more modern translations;
(ii) New King James Version. Like the KJV, the NKJV is based on less reliable texts - e.g. 1 John 5:7 is still translated as 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit'!
(iii) English Standard Version. I read through this translation this year and did find it to be a very good literal translation (and whenever I do some Greek and Hebrew translation I look at it first), but it is a bit too literal which makes reading it difficult. Also, what is with the translation of 1 Samuel 13:1: 'Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel'? How are you meant to read that aloud in church?
(iv) New American Standard. Same as ESV, a good literal translation but a bit too awkward to read. Although I must admit I haven't read the whole thing. I plan to do so in 2011.
(v) New Living Translation. In my opinion, too much of a paraphrase - in other words introduces too much new material into the text.
(vi) Today's New International Version (TNIV) - I do think Carson in his book 'The Inclusive-Language Debate' (Amazon link) makes a good case that one day our English translations will have to reflect gender neutral terms as the English language is gradually introducing them into common speech. But I'm not sure we're there yet. Plus I believe this translation is now being phased out and I don't want to memorise a text I may not have easy access to in the future.
Now I realise that I just trod on a good number of toes and this blog has only just begun! But I promised that I would pick one book on each subject and the NIV is the one English Bible I would recommend above the rest as your main Bible.
If you prefer another, then that is ok. As long as you recognise that whatever translation you choose it will not be perfect. All translations are faulty. Even if you were to wish that the whole Christian church use Hebrew and Greek Bibles, you would still have to pick which critical text you would use - after all no original language Bible claims to have the actual text of the original autographs.
So I would encourage you to settle on one translation that stays close to the best critical texts we have but also is one that you can understand easily enough. Then read it as much as you can and dedicate yourself to memorising it.
4 comments:
>(i) King James Version. The English language has changed (notably the second person pronouns) and the original language texts that the KJV uses to translate from are not as reliable as those used by more modern translations;
The second person pronounds are a glory of English and enable accuracy. As for the underlying texts of the AV1611 (King James Version)...the priesthood of scholars will tell you that the traditional text (Hebrew and Greek) are not a good, or reliable to use your word, as the manuscripts the modern translation are based on, but there *is* an argument there. The main thing to know is this: the King James Version is based on the *received* texts. The modern versions are based on various *constructed* texts. God has preserved His Word *pure and whole*. Read your modern version if language is an issue for you, but just know that the Standard - the pure and whole Word of God - exists in the received texts and the English translation that culminated in the Authorized - King James - Version.
Ct,
Thanks for your interest.
Two questions.
Are you implying that the Textus Receptus is:
(i) not a constructed text?
(ii) identical to the original autographs?
All manuscripts are edited. There is a difference between editing a received manuscript and constructing a manuscript based on every-changing criteria, ever-changing source material.
The priesthood of scholars don't think the pure and whole Word of God exists, in any manuscript, in any translation of any manuscript. I believe God that He has preserved His Word. That Word is preserved in the Traditional Received Text - Hebrew and Greek - in sound translation such as appeared out of the Reformation.
Again, read whatever version you want or feel you need to. Just don't write as if there is no argument to be made regarding these matters. The Standard exists. Without it all the modern versions would be babble. Or, Babel. The devil himself needs a Standard so as to have something to *deviate* from.
I thank God that the Standard exists and that I can hold His pure and whole preserved Word in my hand today. The sacrifice of my brothers and sisters in Christ throughout history as well I give thanks to.
Thanks again for your comments ct.
Although I think we might leave the discussion there, I do admire your faithfulness to a particular text.
But if any other readers are interested in reading more on textual criticism, Metzger's work 'The text of the New Testament' is a must read. And of course his 'Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament' is very helpful for variants on actual verses (I use it every week in sermon prep).
As for a good view of the King James Version discussion, I would encourage everyone to read Carson's 'The King James Debate'.
Thanks again ct for raising your points.
Post a Comment