Question: How accurate is the information on this graphic?

[Drich]

Then i appologise for makeing such a big deal about nothing. From my perspective I spent twenty mins looking for the link I was going to post and the next day it wasn't there. what I then remebered was being told recently this was not a place/forum that we could post links. i assumed that it was simply erased.

My mistake if I did not post it, and again appologise for making a big deal about nothing.

Given your knowledge of scripture (I have seen you in other threads argue against English passage interpretation by invoking meanings from original Hebrew texts), I have a question:

In your opinion, what is the most definitive English translation of The Bible given what we know from modern Biblical scholarship?

The problems with translating any text from one language to another is not all words directly translate, then if you add the complexity of culturally specific terms, or phrases based in a specific time period, then a direct transaltions sometimes make little sense, or at minimum lose their intended meaning. John 3:16 is a good example of this. In that "God so Loved..." We take the word we understand to be love and substitute our meaning or the modern interpertation of the word, and build churches and doctrine(The Doctrine of Omni Benevolence is partially based on this passage) on the english understanding of the passage. Rather than look at the word that was translated into the english as 'love.' For a beginner or someone new in the faith it is ok to stop with the translated text still their Spiritual maturing demands that they know more. Then they must take on the task of seeking God in His word beyond the limitations of their favorite translation. Or even beyond the limitations of their favorite denomination or specific brand of Chruch.

So to answer your question directly "Which translation is the best?" It depends on who I am sppeaking to, and what passage I am trying to explain. Sometimes it is better to use the Easy to Read version, when a plain reading with a beginner is all that is needed, and other times when I want to show or focous on translation I will use the King James or NKJ becuse its eloberate use of the kings english often times has the other person question the meaning of what is being cited in the english. So a deeper look it welcomed.

If you or anyone else is looking for a translation to start with then I would maybe start with a study bible in a version that spells passages out in plain english. NIV study, New American Standard Study, or Even a MacAuthur Study bible. But understand study bibles are all commentary based bibles and all commentary based bibles support one form/brand of Christianity or another. Meaning they are often written to support a specific doctrine or Denomination first. That doesn't mean there isn't alot of good and accurate insite in these commentary based bibles. however I would recomend staying away from commentary or instruction that over emphisizes one verse or if they take one verse out of it's context and pair it with another to build a doctrine.

This web site is a good resource that contains just about every legitmate directly translated bible avaiable.(and some others) I use it in conjunction with the strong's blue letter.
http://www.biblegateway.com/

At first I would stick with the more popular translations before you/anyone ventured out into some of the others. I started with the Student NIV and it helped cement basic principles and branched out from their. I would not recommend getting into alot of direct translating till you have a basic grasp of the standard english translation first. It's easy to loose yourself in what is meant in a given text unless you first understand what the text is about. A Church, or Good study bible will help you do that.

[Rev. Rye]

What is your opinion of the Amplified Bible, which tries to give as many possible interpretations of every word in the Bible as they can without sacrificing readability too much?

[Minimalist]

They forgot to mention that the KJV is largely based on translations by a man that they burnt alive for translating the Bible from Latin.

Edited: Oh, sorry. They strangled him before burning him.

He got leniency?


Must have had a good lawyer.

[Drich]

What is your opinion of the Amplified Bible, which tries to give as many possible interpretations of every word in the Bible as they can without sacrificing readability too much?

Again it depends on what you are using it for. I believe Amplified bibles are good as on the fly reminders that a given text may have a deeper meaning or are a good way to spot translated material that may have a deeper meaning than what is generally understood. But like with anyother translations also have limitations. That is why I look to the various translations reference material and seek the actual meaning or translation directly from the Greek or Hebrew.

In short the amplified is another good resource but you should not limit your understanding of God to what single translations says. If your specific brand of Christianity is heavily dependant on one very specific translation then their is a problem. One that the Pharasees and makers of the Law had. The solution is to come to an understanding of God, that exceeds a single view point, or a single point of reference. (Meaning one specific bible over another)

[Ziploc Surprise]

Well some things came up and I finally got the time to read through all the links. Thanks for posting.

Tyndale: He was killed because he pissed off Henry the 8th. Looking at this through modern eyes I don't think this invalidates his translations. I would assume that what would invalidate anything is the accuracy of the scriptures he translated from and his own ability to translate.

As for the KJV as a whole it looks like it can't be as accurate as many modern translations because of the limited number of texts and more specifically the limited number of old texts available at the time of the translation of the KJV. Oh, and political pressure....

Political Pressure: I agree that translating with the threat of royal disproval (and all the implications thereof) could skew things a bit. Thanks for pointing that out.

All in all, it looks like that modern translations could be more accurate but the inaccuracies for all translations leave serious room for doubt.

Bart Ehrman. What do you think of him? The wikipedia link was not very favorable. I read his book "forged" and thought it sounded ok, but this is not my field of expertise. Many Christians have jumped down his throat and supposedly won debates with him.

The wikipedia link said quote: But from where I sit, it seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them."

Is Bart Ehrman a scholar to be trusted or is there any validity to these accusations?

[Minimalist]

Many Christians have jumped down his throat and supposedly won debates with him.

Xtians always think they win - no matter how fucking stupid they look.

[Shell B]

Ziploc: Tyndale was convicted of heresy. It is my understanding that his translation made him a wanted man even before he pissed off the king.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Many Christians have jumped down his throat and supposedly won debates with him.

Xtians always think they win - no matter how fucking stupid they look.

Yeah I experienced this about two weekends ago when one of my fundy friends thought he won a debate because I couldn't produce an experiment that proved evolution (I couldn't find any link to any experiment that produced a separate species, the process by which was completely manipulated by the experimenter). Everything else we said (I had another atheist debating with me) was irrelevant. He was hunting for an admission. When he thought he got this, he stopped debating. I don't think he noticed or cared that the throughout the whole debate he made himself look like a complete dunce.

As for Ehrman, is as narrow minded and as cherry picking as he is accused of being? Or even close to this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your fundy friend asked you to prove an observation which led to the theory that he just can't handle. IOW, he has no fucking clue, and the monumental wall of ignorance he has built between his beliefs and reality would be impressive if it weren't so common.

[Minimalist]

Xtians always think they win - no matter how fucking stupid they look.

Yeah I experienced this about two weekends ago when one of my fundy friends thought he won a debate because I couldn't produce an experiment that proved evolution (I couldn't find any link to any experiment that produced a separate species, the process by which was completely manipulated by the experimenter). Everything else we said (I had another atheist debating with me) was irrelevant. He was hunting for an admission. When he thought he got this, he stopped debating. I don't think he noticed or cared that the throughout the whole debate he made himself look like a complete dunce.

As for Ehrman, is as narrow minded and as cherry picking as he is accused of being? Or even close to this?

Those experiments are detailed in Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Of course, even if you had cited them the jesus freak would have simply ignored them. They ignore anything that does not have their sky-daddy in a starring role.

As for Ehrman, what he has done for textual criticism is what Finkelstein and Silbermann have done for archaeology. Neatly summarized for the layman recent research ( or in Ehrman's case not so recent - the fuck ups in the bible have been known for 300 years) and put it out so that non specialists can understand it. In the course of it Ehrman has let it be known that he used to be a fundie and is now an agnostic because of his research. This is treason to jesus freaks and they will never forgive him.

My only complaint with Ehrman is that he seems unable to take the next step. Having shown that the new testament is a heavily edited pile of shit he still insists on seeking a historical "core" to it instead of facing the reality that it was a concoction meant to fill a specific niche.
And things got out of hand.

BTW, Finkelstein also goes off the track a bit at the end because he abandons his own metholdology. There is no more archaeological evidence for "Josiah" than there is for "Solomon" yet he insists upon treating this story as real rather than as more fiction. It becomes a bit like someone citing King Arthur as real.