Nazarene Space

In another discussion section of a blog i was asked about recommended Bible translations. So rather than go on a tangent about Bible versions/translations, it seemed best to channel that discussion to one place so people could make a link to here if the question came up again. So if anyone has any recommendations or preferences for which version they use, this is the place.

Views: 307

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Complete Jewish Bible
This was my first one that began opening my eyes to the Hebraic roots of the faith. The translator tends to rely on Greek sources for the B'rit Hadashah, The syntax flows fairly well. It uses the pagan termso of "God" and "Lord" . Lots of Hebrew terms for which a glossary is occasionally needed.

Institute for Scripture Research Version
This was my second step deeper into the restoration of the scriptures. It uses modern Hebrew text for the Name of the Father and the Son. The syntax flows alright. I got this at the same time that i bought the HRV (see below), mainly because i could save on the shipping if ordering 2 bibles at the same time. It was worth it because when the HRV syntax gets too difficult to unravel then this one can help.

Hebraic Roots Version
This one was the real reason i made the order that was mentioned above. This groundbreaking version opened up my mind like a Japanese fan. Lots of important Hebraic and Aramaic adjustments and corrections in the B'rit Hadashah. The Tanakh was a bit disappointing though, I was hoping there would be more corrections and adjustments due to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and was also hoping for some more notes as in the BH. The intro at the beginning explaining the rationale of the translator is superbly written and well worth it. The BH passages from the Old Syriac Aramaic are the real jems. The downside is that occasionally, in a few passages of the BH, the syntax will occasionally get so clumsy (due to the Aramaic and Hebrew word order of the original text) that it is difficult to understand the meaning, but most of the time, it can be deciphered. Tends to be a word for word translation rather than a thought for thought translation far as i can tell. Uses sacred names transliterated. A bit confused on why it sometimes uses "Spirit" and other times uses "Ruach."

RSTNE
This was my 4th version. Lots of good notes all throughout. Lots of good corrections in the Tanakh and B'rit Hadashah. Important corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and Greek. Uses modern Hebrew fonts for the Name of the Father, Yehoshua, and the title of Eloah. Also available on CD as a PDF file. The downside is that there are a lot of Hebrew words sprinkled throughout-- often more than is really necessary. I had to make a cheat sheet with all the terms from the glossary to just have some continuity through where i was reading. (as soon as i find the file, I'll make a PDF to post here). Because of the overuse of Hebrew words, it makes this version somewhat inaccessible for children to read (especially when they are just beginning to read for comprehension. After getting a handle on the Hebrew words (which takes about a year), the flow is about as smooth as the ISRV.

The Original Scriptures
This one i didn't actually purchase, but I found the explanation about the source texts that they used very interesting. The downside is that the particular group that has these manuscripts are unitarian and so they are imposing their bias on their translation and subsequently are not even letting anyone of ability look at scans of the RT01-07 manuscript (gee what are they trying to hide, their bias perhaps?) The most exciting thing is that they claim to have the complete manuscript for the long lost Gospel According to the Hebrews! (which may explain the delay in releasing a translation of it-- how is a unitarian supposed to hide the fact that the Ruach HaQodesh is Yehoshua's Mother?) Anyhow, lots of potential, too bad they are being stingy with the manuscripts.

The Abrahamic-Faith Torah B'rit Hadashah, and Tanakh (to be released in oct '09)
I am very excited about this version! So far the Torah has been completed and the rest of the Tanakh and B'rit Hadashah are scheduled to be released in the autumn (hopefully before the economy totally crashes worldwide) I haven't yet purchased the first release yet (as of 7/9/9) but I will! My friend Simon Altaf (the translator) has many fascinating insights into the Ancient Hebrew Language (i know this from corresponding with him), he has made many important corrections all throughout . A very Nazarene perspective. Many helpful notes. The language flow is way better than the RSTNE, because there's no overuse of Hebrew words, but only when necessary (like when there are no 1:1 Hebrew to English equivalents).
I have found the, Holman Christian Standard (CSB) is the most helpful.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/csb/
dude please buy this one... http://www.aent.org/
it's translated straight from the Original and un-corrupted Aramaic texts of the Nazarean Writings, it's a huuuuuuge difference compared to all the greek translations that translators choose.. (in that it has none of the many mistakes and discrepancies that atheists are so eager to point out when they read the "christian NT")

and as for the Tanakh, you are far better of reading the translation of the Aramaic texts of the Tanakh which are far older and also faaaaar superior then the currently used Masoretic text..
google the "lamsa bible" for this and use the following site to read the texts that were read in the synagogues in the Second Temple era (yes indeed, Y'shua read aloud and qouted from these texts) http://targum.info/?page_id=8

shlama amkun
i'm Aramaic myself so trust me on this one..
Read the Hebraic Roots Version
http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

By the way Nestorians were/are not Nazarenes they signed on at the Council at Nicea and later split from that Roman Catholic Church. They are technically called The Holy Apostolic Assyriac Church of the East with Holy See at Babylon.
I recommend the NASB (New American Standard) or ESV (English Standard)
These are the best and most scholarly translations for a proper English reading experience.

Alternatively, I also recommend the HRV provided here.
For the quality of literary work, I love the HRV. Plus the print size is good, since my vision isn't the best and I lose all my glasses. The footnotes throughout really opened my eyes to how much the "Protestant Bible" referenced the apocrypha- not just the apocrypha, but also the book of Enoch, etc.

For the commentary, I love the RSTNE, but I'm not a big fan of how it actually reads. Too many transliterated Hebrew words, often times despite the presence of a perfectly good English equivalent.

I generally read from the New Jerusalem Bible, though very "Christianized", its use of the name (Yahweh) is refreshing. And it contains most of the apocrypha.
Young's Literal Translation, as you can see, renders the creation story very differently and in my opinion and understanding of Hebrew, much more accurately than most versions, even those who are consciously trying to be literal and capture the original tense.

It may not be a fancy Sacred Name version, but it faithfully conveys what I think can be proven to be higher degree of accuracy, especially in regards to the literal rendition of Hebrew past/future tense, which are used a bit differently in the Scriptures than we are used to from English.

Genesis 1

" In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- "

Notice here, how YLT clearly and in agreement with the Hebrew, shows how Genesis 1:1 is trying to communicate a certain TIME PERIOD to us, and not an action.
We are being told of the time period, during which the Creator began His work of creating the universe, probably occurring soon after the state of affairs of events of John 1:1 transpire.
Although we are later told He rested from creating (stopped creating any more), we are never really told He was finished, which is especially clarified in the text's insistence on decribing the creation in the future/incomplete tense, and NOT the past/complete tense.

" the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters. "

At this point, the text has moved on from the time period, to the setting, much like the introductory notes to a movie/theater script. The YLT also captures the "rambling" tone of the text, as sentences we normally would cut short in modern English seem to go on and on, especially so in the poetic writings of Bereshyt and the books of Shlomo Ha Melek.

" and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is. "

Here it is important to note the word "be" and "is" are rendered by the exact same Hebrew word, which is more or less unsuccessfully communicated through various English versions.
I want to buy this month HRV, but right now I like the RSTNE and the Orthodox Jewish Bible. I think it will be so nice if Nazarene Space starts to sell HRV as an E-Sword module.
The only thing that I don´t like about the RSTNE is that the preface or introduction of the Bible is too poor, there are no solid evidences of why they are using the Aramaic, they don´t even say what manuscripts are using, it just says the Peshitta, but what codex they used?? How old is it? It doesn´t even have any proofs of the Aramaic primacy, I think it is very important to have evidences.
Abrahamic-Faith Renewed Covenant ONLINE FREE

http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/AF%20Online%20Bible/AF-Bible_NT.html
I suggest you read The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

If you want to find out why the HRV is not simply a flat translation from the Peshitta as the AENT is.

Although we can start a dialog on some of the issues here,

Jeremiah Moses said:
Wow thank you for this... I have been wondering about this as i know andrew is working on HIs but it will be some time till it comes out....

Serkan said:
dude please buy this one... http://www.aent.org/
it's translated straight from the Original and un-corrupted Aramaic texts of the Nazarean Writings, it's a huuuuuuge difference compared to all the greek translations that translators choose.. (in that it has none of the many mistakes and discrepancies that atheists are so eager to point out when they read the "christian NT")

and as for the Tanakh, you are far better of reading the translation of the Aramaic texts of the Tanakh which are far older and also faaaaar superior then the currently used Masoretic text..
google the "lamsa bible" for this and use the following site to read the texts that were read in the synagogues in the Second Temple era (yes indeed, Y'shua read aloud and qouted from these texts) http://targum.info/?page_id=8

shlama amkun
i'm Aramaic myself so trust me on this one..
The Mechanical Translation is about as literal as it can get, and almost unreadable - but great for study.
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/
It is unreadable in the sense that it could not be used in church or for public reading - it is meant for private study.

I would also once again recommend the YLT, Young's Literal Translation, for it's faithfulness to the Scriptural use of past and future tense, and for being beautiful and poetic in the English language, without compromising the meaning of the Hebrew.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service