Yesterday our rector recommended the Oxford Study Bible with Apocrypha. Evidently the annotations are really great.
Redwolf
Isn’t that an English Language version of the Vulgate?
IE. . .if “accurate” means an accurate translation of the Latin text used in the middle ages (And seveal versions removed from the original Greek/Aramaic) then that’s yer ticket.
EDIT: I just realized that my tone could come off as a bit trollish - apologies. AFAIK the Douay is in fact an English version of the vulgate!
Interesting! It seems I shouldn’t have been assuming 
Yes, the Douay Rheims is the English version of the Clementine Vulgate, which was then revised by Chandler in the late 1700s. From what I have found, despite it’s past of revisions, it is the most accurate out there in English. If you can read Latin, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is supposed to be even more accurate. He compiled it in the late 300s and supposedly had many of the original transcripts with which to do it. Unfortunately, there is no English translation of his Vulgate.
Interesting. . . I own the Vulgate because I was trying to learn how to read medieval Latin in grad school. The conventional wisdom floating around in history departments was that the Vulgate is really quite corrupted compared to the originals (whatever those are). During the renaissance, a bunch of humanists come around, (E.g. Luther, Erasmus) and “corrected” it. My profs didn’t really have an axe to grind in the pro-protestant or Catholic camps - most were agnostic, one was a Buddhist. 
Sometimes pictures speak better than words!
That is a riot!
I use the Authorized (King James) Version.
I don’t care for the New International Version, neither its style nor its methodology.
Another version I sometimes have used for comparison is The Emphasized Bible, which gives added clarity to the English reader, by indicating which word is emphasized in each phrase. This version, as well as many others, can be downloaded for free at http://www.ccel.org/olb/
I like the style of the English in the Revised Standard Version, but ithe translation, itself, strongly reflects the theological bent of its translators, in certain passages, which I may not be in agreement with. I would say the same of the New Revised Standard Version, except that I don’t like the style of the English in the NRSV.
My favorite, at least for the first 5 books, is Etz Chayyim (Tree of Life). This is Hebrew, with a superb English translation and extensive footnotes. It’s put out by the Jewish Conservative movement and naturally comes at it from a Jewish point of view, with lots of explanations of holidays, etc. However, even for non Jews, the English translation is worthwhile.
It’s divided into the weekly Torah portions, and includes each week’s Haftorah too. This is a selection from various Prophets which is read along with the Torah reading, generally on a related theme. There are many excellent essays at the back of the book too, on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology, women’s role in the Bible, ecological issues, biblical wars, etc. As if that were not enough, there are also beautiful maps of the region at various times in biblical history. All in all a wonderful work, worthy of the attention of anyone interested in the Bible.
Okay, I have to have a copy of this, Paul. Amazon doesn’t list it, and a short google search didn’t show any for sale. Do you have a link to a website where I can buy one? (much to everyone’s surprise, I’m sure)
Why i like The Message:
- Done by one person, instead of a committee
- The most readable English translation that i know but
- not condescending
- Better than average handling of Hebrew poetry
- Not stuck on keeping the exact numbering of the verses.
The down side, for me, is that the guy may have done too good of a job; it loses the beautiful weirdness of the King James version, and really, sounds American, if you can believe it. But don’t let that discourage you; if you want to pick up a Bible and read, i think this is a great choice.
The NIV (New International Version) is not bad either. RSV (Revised Standard) is OK, but i find it awkward for reading. I still like the King James, because i read it a lot when i was learning English; the New King James is nice too, it keeps the diction of the KJ without the archaic words.
My favourite Portuguese translation is the Jerusalem Bible, but i was disappointed with her English cousin the New Jerusalem.
[quote="blackhawkOkay, I have to have a copy of this, Paul. Amazon doesn’t list it, and a short google search didn’t show any for sale. Do you have a link to a website where I can buy one? (much to everyone’s surprise, I’m sure)[/quote]
My mistake: I mistakenly transliterated the Hebrew into Etz Chayyim, instead of Etz Hayim. The Hebrew begins that second word with that throat clearing ch sound, as in yech…
Here’s a copy on Half.com at a VERY good price, since this normally sells for about $70 in hardcover. This one is soft cover:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4525091181&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V
My mistake: I mistakenly transliterated the Hebrew into Etz Chayyim, instead of Etz Hayim. The Hebrew begins that second word with that throat clearing ch sound, as in yech…
Here’s a copy on Half.com at a VERY good price, since this normally sells for about $70 in hardcover. This one is soft cover:
Thanks, Paul!
I like the one where Jesus’ words are in red type.
The KJV wasn’t the first version of the bible translated into English. it borrowed heavily from earlier versions, but it was the first officially approved version. I don’t have the facts at my fingertips, but I know that many of the phrases we use today (e.g. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), first appeared “officially” in the KJV, and the language is so rich and colourful, it has stood the test of time
The KJV “borrowed” almost wholesale from two sources. The New Testament, the pentateuch (first five books) and the psalms were mildly edited versions of the ground-breaking bible translation of William Tyndale, who was burned at the stake for his pains in about 1534.
Tyndale was a literary genius of the first water, and was the first english translator to skip the vulgate and to translate directly from the original greek and hebrew. He learned hebrew for this purpose.
In his day, putting the word of God into the hands of the common man was a revolutionary act, and he paid a high price for it. He is reported to have told the Bishop of London that he wanted every ploughboy to know as much scripture as the Bishop.
His genius, however, lay both in his ability to craft a memorable phrase–almost all the great sayings of the KJV were his, from “signs of the times” to “salt of the earth” to “eat, drink and be merry”. As these show, he took care to use simple, clear language so that all might understand. If you look, where the KJV committee varied from Tyndale, it was almost always to change his clear, simple language to something more “impressive” and generally latinate.
As well, Tyndale was the greatest and most influential prose stylist in all of English Literature. His sentences roll off the tongue with impeccable rhythm, in a manner that no other translation has been able to recapture. He had a great “ear”. You could write a thesis based upon a study of where and how Tyndale varies between using “to” and “unto” purely for rhythmic effect.
Although specifically instructed by King James NOT to use Tyndale as a source, the committee which put together the KJV adopted his work almost wholesale. Because of this (and because he’d been burned as a heretic) his work was for centuries largely unacknowleged by the church.
The balance of the old testmant was mostly sourced from Matthew Coverdale’s translation of the bible, a few years after Tyndale’s death.
~~
So while the KJV does have some language which is difficult these days, it also has the most music. It is a bible made for reading aloud; particularly from the pulpit.
Nowadays the rhythms and language aren’t familiar to those who haven’t studied early modern english, so people’s tongues trip on the words, but if you know how to read it, nothing sounds as fine.
~~
Some of the “modern” translations sound brutal to me, as if they were composed by someone with a tin ear and no facility at all for the english language.
The KJV has jewel-like diction and rolls gracefully like dancing a reel; the RSV sounds like someone building a shed out of corrugated sheet metal with a ball-peen hammer.
I just wish I had taken Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Then I could have a better opinion on this. I am just starting my “solid food”, since I am only 7 months old now.
Great liberties were taken with the KJV, but most members of my church prefer it. I usually read/listen to several translations in my attempt to understand
I hope soon to have a good Bible reference page written.
And, God’s Church will not even have to pay for these kinds of sins!
After all, any church that claims to be God’s chosen church is doing God a favor in killing people who dare to stray from the standards of it’s so-called prophets and authorities. Nowadays, churches (in civilized countries) don’t actually kill the body (the State won’t let them get away with it), so they are reduced to killing or injuring the person inside, or at least making them feel sick.
double double post post
Test thy Bible knowledge: