Topic: Bible Translations

[Ortho_cat]

I prefer to read Bible translations that are literal, yet consider the entire body of biblical manuscripts available. (Alexandrian text, Masoretic text, etc) Since there isn't an "official" bible for the Orthodox faith per se, is it reasonable/acceptable for Orthodox to read bibles translations such as the NASB or the ISV, in light of the teachings of the church?

[zoarthegleaner]

Your personal reading is one thing, the reading within the Church Services is another.  The former should always aim to supplement the latter and aid you in the development of your Orthodox Conscience. 

[Thomas]

I prefer to read Bible translations that are literal, yet consider the entire body of biblical manuscripts available. (Alexandrian text, Masoretic text, etc) Since there isn't an "official" bible for the Orthodox faith per se, is it reasonable/acceptable for Orthodox to read bibles translations such as the NASB or the ISV, in light of the teachings of the church?

The official Bible for the Orthodox Church is the Septuagint with New Testament. In English there is now an Orthodox Translation of the Septuagint available from Conciliar press, there are also several other independent translations currently in progress in English of the Septuagint and New Testament. In the absence of access to an English version of the Septuagint you should look for a Translation that has both the Old Testament with Apocrypha  and a New Testament translation. I would recommend you discuss this matter with your local Orthodox Priest for his spiritual direction in this matter.

Thomas

[Ortho_cat]

Which version/translational base is correct for the new testament? I noticed that the orthodox study bible used the basis of the KJV textus receptus, while neglecting the alexandrian text type. I found this surprising, since the alexandrian texts tend to be older and accepted by most scholars as very reliable.

[Thomas]

Which version/translational base is correct for the new testament? I noticed that the orthodox study bible used the basis of the KJV textus receptus, while neglecting the alexandrian text type. I found this surprising, since the alexandrian texts tend to be older and accepted by most scholars as very reliable.

Many Orthodox Christians who speak English are rather fond of the KJV amd the textus receptus. I have in the past been advised that it is closer to the texts used in the Greek Language New Testament  published by the EP and as I understand it also those published in russian by the MP. However I am no biblical scholar nor an educated seminarian graduate, a local Orthodox Priest would be the better source to answer your question.

Thomas

[IPC]

Dear Ortho_cat,

The Church has always used the septuagint as the old testament, and it's good to read translations of the bible like the Vulgate, St Gerome's Bible, and the Bible of Ostrog, among others.

The problem of some Bible versions is explained by Ludmilla Perepiolkina, PhD as follows:

" The ancient Church translation of the Old Testament Books into Greek (the so called Septuagint) was accomplished in the 3rd century B.C. by the specially appointed and God-chosen men, and it was done with all possible precautions and reverence, and under the direct protective guidance of the Heavenly Church, as is testified particularly by a well-known episode with St.Simeon's translation of the Book of Prophet Isaiah containing the text of Messianic prophecy about the Savior of the world to be born of the Virgin (Is. 7,14).

Worthy of the original are the canonical translations accomplished by holy men in the New Testament Church: that of Blessed Hieronymus (from the Old Hebrew, with due regard to the Septuagint, into Latin) and of Sts. Equal of the Apostles Methodius and Cyril (from the Greek text of the Septuagint adopted by the Church, into the Church Slavonic).


From the period of Reformation onwards, when the protective efforts of Catholicism suffered defeat, translations of the Bible into ethnic languages appearing in the West already have an imprint of Protestant teaching (like Luther's translation). In the most recent times there are no longer any restrictive barriers to the development of even the most extreme and blasphemous false teachings. The spectrum of translations and transpositions of the Bible has widened accordingly.

With the falling away from God of those who became His killers and called down upon themselves and their descendants the blood of the Son of God Whom they crucified (Mt. 27,25), there began a conscious corruption of the Old Testament books once carefully guarded by the Jewish people. Messianic prophecies were the first to undergo this corruption. "Rabbis corrupted the contents of the Scriptures to suit their own malicious intentions... and still keep modifying it", wrote Euthimius of Chudovo (1705). Such accusations have been heard since the apostolic times. In the period from the 5th to the 10th centuries Masoret rabbis had established the Old Testament text which since then has been adopted as the official one. In this text practically all prophecies about the Savior of the world have been distorted in such a manner that they could not be seen as referring to the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Subsequently all Hebrew copies of the text which differed from the established Masoretic canon were destroyed.

Archbishop Theophan the Recluse made the following comment on the new versions of the bible: "According to our law, when trying to interpret the Word of God we must consult the Church Fathers. The Fathers interpreted the Scriptures as presented in the Septuagint. Consequently, the new translation prevents us from understanding the Word of God from the Orthodox point of view, because it presents us with the text different from the one used by the Fathers.

Discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, at the beginning of the 1950-ies, relating to the 1st century B.C. (i.e. to the pre-Masoretic period) has conclusively, and in favor of the Septuagint, resolved the centuries old controversy of the comparative merits of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament. It has turned out that the manuscripts removed from the Qumran caves contain all the variants of the text which are available in the Greek manuscripts and which seemingly undermined their authority. Nevertheless, these conclusions are hushed up, and publication of the Qumran manuscripts which are at the disposal of "The House of the Bible" in Jerusalem, is stopped completely.

Already in the past century there appeared seemingly innocent alterations in the Bible for children. At first they put out colorfully illustrated cartoons, now they produce animated cartoons, comics and video-games, thus trivializing the Scriptures and inculcating a primitive and distorted idea about it.

In the second half of the 20th century the disrespect for the Bible has reached such a degree that it has become possible to produce a variety of "versions" of the Old and the New Testaments.

At the end of 1995 the Oxford University Press published one more ecumenical translation of the New Testament and the Psalms intended to satisfy not only feminists but all those who, according to the editor of this translation, might be offended by the Word of God in any way. It goes without saying that "God the Father" has been changed by the unprecedented in both the Old and the New Testament Church, "God the Father-Mother". Omitted are all the expressions in which preference is shown to fathers to the detriment of mothers; each time the mention of a biblical husband is accompanied by the name of his wife, if her name is known to the editors. Playing up to the political correctness of today, such "monarchistic" phrases as the "King", "Sovereign", "Lord" and "Ruler" are abolished and the "Kingdom of God" replaced by "Dominion of God".

Accordingly "slaves" have become "enslaved people"; parents no longer "discipline and punish", but "guide" their children who are told to "heed", rather than "obey" their parents.

References to darkness as "evil" and light as "good" are eliminated, so as not to offend people of dark color. Also references to the blind, the deaf and lame are considered insensitive, and are replaced by descriptive expression. No left-handed person should feel discriminated against; the phrase "right hand of God" is replaced by "mighty hand". "

The use of the original text of the bible, is very important, as it's the sole source of the Word of God, while other "newer versions" are falsification of the Holy Scripture, where the father of lies speaks.

[Ortho_cat]

Firstly, thank you all for your time.

I can certainly understand how the interpretation of scripture by the church fathers would be facilitated by remaining with a consistent translation throughout. This may help to lead me in favor of the Septuagint. People have debated for centuries and probably still will for quite some time on the superiority of the masoretic vs the LXX. In actuality, both of them are fairly reliable translations in comparison to the dead sea scrolls, and all 3 are in reasonable agreement. (except for the fact that the LXX contains the deutero's)

One thing however that I noticed from your paragraph regarding the DSS.  You mentioned that the DSS show strong favor towards the LXX vs the masoretic. I've never heard that position...do you have a reference for that?  Also, you mentioned that publication has ceased for the Qumran scrolls.  I believe on amazon they have a recently published copy of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible":

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Bible-Translated/dp/0060600632

As far as the new testament goes, I was wondering if anyone knows of a resource where I can find more information regarding the Authorized 1904 text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? I'm interested to find out which text types were used in the translation. From what i've seen, this translation varies from the Textus Receptus by about 2000 words.

[IPC]

Dear Ortho_cat ,

You're welcome!

Exactly!

To change the text that has been used for thousands of years, and which is the basis for the teachings of the Church, and the writings of the fathers, is something unnecessary, and devastating. If we all used the same original text, we wouldn't have so much problems.

Problems come from innovations and changes in the Scripture and Faith (what is believed).

Not in vain we are warned that whomever changes even a coma from the scripture, let him be accursed.

The LXX  is very reliable, and has been used since the foundation of the Church, by primitive christians. According to tradition (oral testimony preserved by the Church) jews forged the Old Testament and lost some books.

The forgery of the jews is made evident when the masoretic text is compared against the LXX preserved by the Church [1], the mention of Old Testament passages in the New Testament [2], and the DSS.  There are serious distortions in the masoretic text, and other key dogmatical texts, and some booksare simply missing.

[1] In the LXX Is 7:14 we read the prophecy of Isaiah clear and sound, concerning the Virgin giving birth to the Messiah (Christ), our Saviour. In the masoretic text this specific passage is abridged and distorted specifically changing key words, such as "virgin" for "woman" thus, replacing a messianic prophecy with a forged prophecy of the birth of King Hezekiah.

[2] The Apostle of love, Paul, in Hebrews 10:5 recalls Psalm 40:6 as a messianic prophecy.

In the LXX we read: "Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, 'sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me.' "

Following this, the words of Apostle Paul are accurate.

Look what happens if we take the same Psalm segment from the masoretic version, found in most of modern bibles:

"Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened."

We can be mislead to think there is something wrong in the words of the Apostle, How can this be seen as a massianic prophecy? 

An interesting book showing the DSS witness the authenticity and accuracy of the LXX is: John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal. 1956 (London: Penguin, 1980, 2nd ed.).

There are many researches and studies from orthodox, catholic and other sources with similar conclusions.

Here: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Research%20History%20and%20Great%20Links/History_of_the_bible.htm we find the following comment:

" Ancient manuscripts from Qumran suggest that the Septuagint often followed a Hebrew text different from the present authoritative Hebrew text. Thus its value for textual criticism has been enhanced."


In here: http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/jabrams01/translate.html we find the following comment

"Hebrew scrolls found in Qumran (the "Dead Sea Scrolls") which resemble the Septuagint translation in many details."

The book that you mentioned, as well as many other publications on the DSS do not have the original text, it only has some quotes from it, followed by a series of comments and interpretations from the different authors.

The findings of the DSS have been hushed up, and obscured by the jews and those who consider their text as the sole and authentic OT.
 

[xuxana]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

[samkim]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

[Michael L]

For liturgical use, the KJV or RSV.

For personal reading and study, I have recently enjoyed this translation The Orthodox New Testament: Translated Out Of The Original Greek: The Text Of The 4 Gospels, Acts, 21 Epistles, And Revelation, Leatherette<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=traditionalorthodoxy-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0944359256" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> as well as the Douy Rheims.

[Nazarene]

I prefer to read Bible translations that are literal, yet consider the entire body of biblical manuscripts available. (Alexandrian text, Masoretic text, etc) Since there isn't an "official" bible for the Orthodox faith per se, is it reasonable/acceptable for Orthodox to read bibles translations such as the NASB or the ISV, in light of the teachings of the church?

There isn't an official English translation for the Orthodox faith but there is an official Bible - The Septuagint and the 1904 Patriarchal Text, which is a Byzantine text.

As for a translation that takes all Biblical manuscripts into consideration, there is none that I know of, as such a translation would eclectic would contain readings from all available texts with footnotes stating which text it's from (Masoretic, LXX, Peshitta, Targums, Vulgate, ect.).

Which version/translational base is correct for the new testament? I noticed that the orthodox study bible used the basis of the KJV textus receptus, while neglecting the alexandrian text type. I found this surprising, since the alexandrian texts tend to be older and accepted by most scholars as very reliable.

Older yes, more reliable, I don't think so, read this: http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm. IMO the best Greek NT text (which is also closet to the official Patriarchal text) is the Majority Text. Translations of the Majority Text include:

The Eastern Orthodox Bible
Analytical-Literal Translation
World English Bible
English Majority Text Version

[Iconodule]

Michael Asser, who gave us a very nice Psalter, is currently producing a Septuagint translation in the style of the KJV. Everything he's done so far is online here: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm

Please support him in this project- he needs proofreaders for all of the books. If you would be interested in a future printed edition, let him know.

[xuxana]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

[Nazarene]

The EOB editor is also desperate for proof readers & assistant editors: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/

And Peter Papoutsis is yet to complete his translation: http://www.peterpapoutsis.com/

Van der Poole's interlinear is complete, except for the Apocrypha: http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/

[Nazarene]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

Then I'm sure you'll like this Orthodox NT paraphrase translation: http://www.shqiptarortodoks.com/tekste/liturgjike/Noli_1961.pdf

[xuxana]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

Then I'm sure you'll like this Orthodox NT paraphrase translation: http://www.shqiptarortodoks.com/tekste/liturgjike/Noli_1961.pdf

ooh thanx, i like that.  its still too formal tho. but i tend to like a little spice & funk in my bibles.

i read this---> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%206:10-18&version=MSG

[Nazarene]

Spice & funk eh? Check this wacky "LOL speak" translation: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page.

[xuxana]

Spice & funk eh? Check this wacky "LOL speak" translation: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page.

lololololz!!! wow!

thats hilarious. i bookmarked that. on a sort of serious note,  here in hawaii we have the pidgin bible. http://www.pidginbible.org/

ironically, its helping out the huge filipino, tongoan, and okinawan community in waipahu.  they couldn't and wouldn't read the bible in haole (white folks english) language.  pidgin is widely spoken out here.

[Iconodule]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

Well, ADD affects different people in various ways. I have major ADD and I love the KJV (I'm a big literary nerd who has portions of Milton's Paradise Lost memorized). Now, when it comes to practical stuff, like making money or getting work done, well, I'm not so good. 

NLT isn't great but I can understand why someone might need it. The Message on the other hand is an abomination. I had a brief flirtation with a mainline Protestant church (before I became Orthodox) but when the pastor started using quotes from the Message, the utter inanity of it drove me away after 1 or 2 Sundays of it.

Honestly, though, the KJV really isn't that hard to read in general. I think people exaggerate the differences between early modern English and contemporary English. Obviously there are archaic words and usages, but take any sentence from the KJV, at random, and chances are a contemporary English speaker will be able to immediately grasp the meaning.

[xuxana]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

Well, ADD affects different people in various ways. I have major ADD and I love the KJV (I'm a big literary nerd who has portions of Milton's Paradise Lost memorized). Now, when it comes to practical stuff, like making money or getting work done, well, I'm not so good.  

NLT isn't great but I can understand why someone might need it. The Message on the other hand is an abomination. I had a brief flirtation with a mainline Protestant church (before I became Orthodox) but when the pastor started using quotes from the Message, the utter inanity of it drove me away after 1 or 2 Sundays of it.

Honestly, though, the KJV really isn't that hard to read in general. I think people exaggerate the differences between early modern English and contemporary English. Obviously there are archaic words and usages, but take any sentence from the KJV, at random, and chances are a contemporary English speaker will be able to immediately grasp the meaning.

well, simply put KJV doesnt at all all speak to me. the message does. i understand it fully & i imbibe it. i feel the words. i dont get that with KJV and other translations.  before the message, i didnt even read the bible. now i do because of it.

i dont even see it as protestant vs orthodox issue. why is it always a holy war between denominations?  that is so man-made.  i prefer the message bible because i see it as what it is i am drawn to. im just not feeling KJV, NIV, NRSV, or NKJV.   i actually still go to protestant churches with my neighbor coz she's baptist & she takes me to a black church where there is a lot of singing, bible reading,  joyful praising, and crying. i love it.  i love it coz ive never seen anything like it.  and i like it that we all worship our lord Jesus in many different ways.

[jnorm888]

I've been using this for a few years.
The actual text itself:
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/OldTestament.pdf (The Apostolic Bible polyglot)

The people who made it:
http://apostolicbible.com/ (the apostolic Bible polyglot website)

It's based on the Lucian Recention LXX tradition. In Brenton's LXX only about 75% of the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are either the same or similar......you know, detectable.

In Lucian's Recention it jumps to about 90%. The greek numbering is also based on strongs and so it's real easy to use if you were use to using strongs back in your protestant days. Just like with everything there is a bias, and the same is true with strongs as well as with this translation, but I like it.









ICXC NIKA

[LBK]

Some morsels from "The Message" bible:

The Lord's Prayer:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Psalm 22 (LXX numbering)

NKJV:

 1 The LORD is my shepherd;
         I shall not want.
 2 He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
         He leads me beside the still waters.
 3 He restores my soul;
         He leads me in the paths of righteousness
         For His name’s sake.
        
 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
         I will fear no evil;
         For You are with me;
         Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
        
 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
         You anoint my head with oil;
         My cup runs over.
 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
         All the days of my life;
         And I will dwell[a] in the house of the LORD
         Forever.

Message:

1-3 God, my shepherd! I don't need a thing.
   You have bedded me down in lush meadows,
      you find me quiet pools to drink from.
   True to your word,
      you let me catch my breath
      and send me in the right direction.

 4 Even when the way goes through
      Death Valley,
   I'm not afraid
      when you walk at my side.
   Your trusty shepherd's crook
      makes me feel secure.

 5 You serve me a six-course dinner
      right in front of my enemies.
   You revive my drooping head;
      my cup brims with blessing.

 6 Your beauty and love chase after me
      every day of my life.
   I'm back home in the house of God
      for the rest of my life.
Isaiah, 7:14:

NKJV:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.[

Message:
A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us).

Psalm 50:

NKJV:

Have mercy upon me, O God,
         According to Your lovingkindness;
         According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
         Blot out my transgressions.
 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
         And cleanse me from my sin.
        
 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
         And my sin is always before me.
 4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
         And done this evil in Your sight—
         That You may be found just when You speak,[a]
         And blameless when You judge.
        
 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
         And in sin my mother conceived me.
 6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
         And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.
        
 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
         Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
 8 Make me hear joy and gladness,
         That the bones You have broken may rejoice.
 9 Hide Your face from my sins,
         And blot out all my iniquities.
        
 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
         And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
 11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
         And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
        
 12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
         And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
 13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
         And sinners shall be converted to You.
        
 14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
         The God of my salvation,
         And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness.
 15 O Lord, open my lips,
         And my mouth shall show forth Your praise.
 16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
         You do not delight in burnt offering.
 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
         A broken and a contrite heart—
         These, O God, You will not despise.
        
 18 Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion;
         Build the walls of Jerusalem.
 19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
         With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
         Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.
Message:

1-3Generous in love—God, give grace! Huge in mercy—wipe out my bad record.
   Scrub away my guilt,
      soak out my sins in your laundry.
   I know how bad I've been;
      my sins are staring me down.

 4-6 You're the One I've violated, and you've seen
      it all, seen the full extent of my evil.
   You have all the facts before you;
      whatever you decide about me is fair.
   I've been out of step with you for a long time,
      in the wrong since before I was born.
   What you're after is truth from the inside out.
      Enter me, then; conceive a new, true life.

 7-15 Soak me in your laundry and I'll come out clean,
      scrub me and I'll have a snow-white life.
   Tune me in to foot-tapping songs,
      set these once-broken bones to dancing.
   Don't look too close for blemishes,
      give me a clean bill of health.
   God, make a fresh start in me,
      shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life.
   Don't throw me out with the trash,
      or fail to breathe holiness in me.
   Bring me back from gray exile,
      put a fresh wind in my sails!
   Give me a job teaching rebels your ways
      so the lost can find their way home.
   Commute my death sentence, God, my salvation God,
      and I'll sing anthems to your life-giving ways.
   Unbutton my lips, dear God;
      I'll let loose with your praise.

 16-17 Going through the motions doesn't please you,
      a flawless performance is nothing to you.
   I learned God-worship
      when my pride was shattered.
   Heart-shattered lives ready for love
      don't for a moment escape God's notice.

 18-19 Make Zion the place you delight in,
      repair Jerusalem's broken-down walls.
   Then you'll get real worship from us,
      acts of worship small and large,
   Including all the bulls
      they can heave onto your altar!

Ephesians 6:10-17 (the Epistle reading for a warrior-saint):

NKJV:

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

Message:

10-12And that about wraps it up. God is strong, and he wants you strong. So take everything the Master has set out for you, well-made weapons of the best materials. And put them to use so you will be able to stand up to everything the Devil throws your way. This is no afternoon athletic contest that we'll walk away from and forget about in a couple of hours. This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels.   13-18Be prepared. You're up against far more than you can handle on your own. Take all the help you can get, every weapon God has issued, so that when it's all over but the shouting you'll still be on your feet. Truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and salvation are more than words. Learn how to apply them. You'll need them throughout your life. God's Word is an indispensable weapon.

Let readers make of this what they will, as to whether The Message conforms to Orthodox teaching.

[xuxana]

i take my message bible to orthodox bible study w/ me & our deacon says its fine.  to each their own. ^_^

[Nazarene]

Let readers make of this what they will, as to whether The Message conforms to Orthodox teaching.

To it's credit The Message is nowhere near as wacky as this LOL Cat "translation":



Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs (Genesis 1)

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

11 An Ceiling Cat sayed, DO WANT grass! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels. An a Corm. It happen.12 An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish good, so, letz there be weedz.13 An so teh threeth day jazzhands.

14 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the skiez for splittin day An no day.15 It happen, lights everwear, like christmass, srsly.16 An Ceiling Cat doeth two grate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day.17 An Ceiling Cat screw tehm on skiez, with big nails An stuff, to lite teh Urfs.18 An tehy rulez day An night. Ceiling Cat sawed. Iz good.19 An so teh furth day w00t.

20 An Ceiling Cat sayed, waterz bring me phishes, An burds, so kittehs can eat dem. But Ceiling Cat no eated dem.21 An Ceiling Cat maed big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they no mood, An other stuffs dat mooves, An Ceiling Cat sawed iz good.22 An Ceiling Cat sed O hai, make bebehs kthx. An dont worry i wont watch u secksy, i not that kynd uf kitteh.23 An so teh...fith day. Ceiling Cat taek a wile 2 cawnt.

24 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre.25 An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.

26 An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.

27 So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.

28 An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.

29 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.30 For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.

31 An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.

Teh Cat Macro Becamded Flesh (John 1:1-18)

1 In teh beginz is teh meow, and teh meow sez "Oh hai Ceiling Cat" and teh meow iz teh Ceiling Cat.2 Teh meow an teh Ceiling Cat iz teh bests frenz in teh begins.

3 Him maeks alls teh cookies; no cookies iz maed wifout him.4 Him haz teh liefs, an becuz ov teh liefs teh doodz sez "Oh hay lite."5 Teh lite iz pwns teh darks, but teh darks iz liek "Wtf."

6 And teh Ceiling Cat haz dis otehr man; his naem iz John.7 He tellz teh ppl dat teh lites is tehre, so dat teh doodz mite bleev"8 Him wuz not teh lite; he jsut sez teh lites is tehre.9 Teh tru lite ov lotz of lite wuz comes, k?

10 He iz liek, "Oh hai, I mades u," but teh wurld duznt sees him.11 He iz comes to his stuffs, but his stuffs sez "Do not want!"12 And sum guyz did want, and sez "Teh Ceiling Cat pwns," and deez guyz iz liek his kidz—13 But not liek reel kidz, k? Iz liek teh Ceiling Cats kidz.
I can has messiah???

14 Teh cat macro comez dwn frm Ceiling (omg) and he is lives wif us. We is sees teh glorie taht is frum teh one n only; him come from teh dad wif teh grace and teh truth.

15 John is liek "Oh hai" becuz uf him. He sez "OMG tihs guy iz teh one taht is comes after me him iz bettr becuz him comes frst, k?"16 Becuz is a lotz of grayce we can has cheezburgers.17 Moses is liek "Hay I has teh lawz"; Jebus is has teh grayce and teh trooth.18 Ceiling Cat is Invisible, but teh one n only (him is wif Ceiling Cat) is liek "Hay look."



Umm, ok....

[NorthernPines]

oops, replied to the wrong person. Sorry!

[NorthernPines]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

I'm not one to dish out modern day proverbs normally,  but I'm about to give one none the less:

the best bible translation is the one you read!

Seriously if you have a translation you like then use it. Just always be aware of it's weaknesses, flaws, and it's strengths. All translations are interpretations, and so none is perfect. I also do not like the old KJV. For years I've been a NKJV fan, but over the last couple years I've come to like it less and less. It's not that old a translation, but 30 years is a long time and it already seems dated (in part because it was based on KJV). It's beautiful, and poetic without all the 1611 words that make KJV almost incomprehensible to me personally. (especially the O.T. in KJV which is just horrible) For people that grew up with it though, nothing will ever replace KJV in their hearts.

NLT is actually a decent translation IMO, (the 2007 edition) as it is a real translation and not just a paraphrase. If you really want a paraphrase try 'The Living Bible', or the original NLT, both are not too bad. But just realize that those translations are meant purely for devotional reading, and not meant for any type of bible study. (not to mention they ocassionally have an Evangelical spin) I have The Living Bible and enjoy it, and in fact never had until after I was Orthodox. It's out of print though so you'll probably need to find a used copy somewhere. (I got mine at a rummage sale)

I do have to agree with most everyone else here though, The Message Bible is horrible for the most part. If you really want something like that try the Amplified Bible, but again these are seriously Evangelical "translations"....and I use that world loosely. I would definitely recommend The Living Bible or the original NLT WAY before I'd recommend either of those "message" translations.

Have you tried ESV? I've just recently come across that translation and actually find it to be quite good. (though I've not really looked into in depth yet) it seems to have a very good balance between being fairly literal, but using a natural flow to the English language that isn't trying to fit poetry into modern English (NKJV) or isn't so "clunky" (NASB). It might be worth a look. I'm going to get a copy myself and see how I like it. A local LCMS parish (an ultra high church parish) uses the ESV so I doubt it's glossing over important "Liturgical" doctrines like NIV tends to do. (NIV is ok but to me, it always feels like a translation that cannot decide what it wants to be...which is it's strength (half way between word for word and paraphrase) but I never have cared for it.

However all of these translations, NASB, NKJV, KJV, ESV, NLT, NIV all have good points and bad points. If you want a scholarly translation go with NRSV (or the old RSV but NRSV I think is more up to date)...however if you don't like that for devotional use (and I don't personally) just read one that you're going to read. If you really don't like the word for word end of the spectrum, then stick with the NLT. it's not that bad and there is even a Catholic Edition, though the Catholic Church has not given it it's stamp of approval.  However the CE does contain the Apocrypha so that might be something to think about.

In the end no translation is perfect, and so just get one you like and will read. But I think the NLT Catholic edition might be something you should consider strongly. i think it might fit the bill.

[John Larocque]

http://bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html

This is one site's fatwa against "Dynamic Equivalence." The author's background is Reform but there is much here to which one can agree. Here is one random selection:

In my experience, those who have a high view of Scripture are quite willing to put up with difficulties, and they will put considerable effort into understanding the text. They accept the fact that ministers are appointed to help them understand and apply the text correctly; but it is far better in their eyes to have a reliable translation that requires study, than to have an easy paraphrase that is not reliable. This is the attitude expressed by Leland Ryken:

"Having had a quarter of a century to ponder the matter, I have concluded that the criterion of readability, when offered as a criterion by itself, should be met with the utmost resistance. To put it bluntly, what good is readability if a translation does not accurately render what the Bible actually says? If a translation gains readability by departing from the original, readability is harmful. It is, after all the truth of the Bible that we want."

[xuxana]

i like NLT and the message bible.  of course i like the orthodox study bible, too but im not to crazy about the NKJV they use for the new testament.

These are not literal translations. Frankly, they seem like evangelical propaganda.

i have have ADD. i cant read KJV or old school bibles. i like simple, direct vernacular. or else i feel like im reading chinese.

I'm not one to dish out modern day proverbs normally,  but I'm about to give one none the less:

the best bible translation is the one you read!

Seriously if you have a translation you like then use it. Just always be aware of it's weaknesses, flaws, and it's strengths. All translations are interpretations, and so none is perfect. I also do not like the old KJV. For years I've been a NKJV fan, but over the last couple years I've come to like it less and less. It's not that old a translation, but 30 years is a long time and it already seems dated (in part because it was based on KJV). It's beautiful, and poetic without all the 1611 words that make KJV almost incomprehensible to me personally. (especially the O.T. in KJV which is just horrible) For people that grew up with it though, nothing will ever replace KJV in their hearts.

NLT is actually a decent translation IMO, (the 2007 edition) as it is a real translation and not just a paraphrase. If you really want a paraphrase try 'The Living Bible', or the original NLT, both are not too bad. But just realize that those translations are meant purely for devotional reading, and not meant for any type of bible study. (not to mention they ocassionally have an Evangelical spin) I have The Living Bible and enjoy it, and in fact never had until after I was Orthodox. It's out of print though so you'll probably need to find a used copy somewhere. (I got mine at a rummage sale)

I do have to agree with most everyone else here though, The Message Bible is horrible for the most part. If you really want something like that try the Amplified Bible, but again these are seriously Evangelical "translations"....and I use that world loosely. I would definitely recommend The Living Bible or the original NLT WAY before I'd recommend either of those "message" translations.

Have you tried ESV? I've just recently come across that translation and actually find it to be quite good. (though I've not really looked into in depth yet) it seems to have a very good balance between being fairly literal, but using a natural flow to the English language that isn't trying to fit poetry into modern English (NKJV) or isn't so "clunky" (NASB). It might be worth a look. I'm going to get a copy myself and see how I like it. A local LCMS parish (an ultra high church parish) uses the ESV so I doubt it's glossing over important "Liturgical" doctrines like NIV tends to do. (NIV is ok but to me, it always feels like a translation that cannot decide what it wants to be...which is it's strength (half way between word for word and paraphrase) but I never have cared for it.

However all of these translations, NASB, NKJV, KJV, ESV, NLT, NIV all have good points and bad points. If you want a scholarly translation go with NRSV (or the old RSV but NRSV I think is more up to date)...however if you don't like that for devotional use (and I don't personally) just read one that you're going to read. If you really don't like the word for word end of the spectrum, then stick with the NLT. it's not that bad and there is even a Catholic Edition, though the Catholic Church has not given it it's stamp of approval.  However the CE does contain the Apocrypha so that might be something to think about.

In the end no translation is perfect, and so just get one you like and will read. But I think the NLT Catholic edition might be something you should consider strongly. i think it might fit the bill.

yeah i was gonna get ESV but i still wasn't feeling it. it was lacking.

plus the message bible i have is hot pink and it matches the hot pink bible tabs my cousin got me for xmas.  i like for things to match. ^_^

plus i really really REALLY love my message bible.  like i feel as if its talking to me. the other bibles feel like you have to pull out a thesaurus & they have too many footnotes.  for now, since i'm a beginning bible reader, stuff like that bores me & puts me off of bible reading. the message bible never does that to me. it keeps me alert & focused. 

whats the use of people forcing me to read bibles i cant comprehend/have an interest in at gunpoint? 

[John Larocque]

Behold the fatwa against "The Message"

http://bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

The version incorporates a number of interesting but peculiar interpretations that can only be described as homiletic:

Matthew 1:22.
Literal Translation: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet
The Message: This would bring the prophet's embryonic sermon to full term

Matthew 5:13.
Literal Translation: You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
The Message: Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.

John 3:5.
Literal Translation: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The Message: Unless a person submits to this original creation—the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life—it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.

Such 'homiletic' elements of the version are sprinkled here and there on a translation which is for the most part extremely colloquial. Long and formal-sounding sentences in the original are often simply replaced with punchy phrases: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you" is replaced with a jovial "Enjoy the best of Jesus!" Many renderings can only be described as facetious: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" becomes "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." The language is spiced up with slangy and amusing idioms: 2 Corinthians 4:17 "These hard times are small potatoes compared to the coming good times." In Acts 13:6 "crooked as a corkscrew" is used instead of the simple adjective "false."

Often the version portrays things in a more colorful way than the original, and it sometimes takes on a cartoonish quality. For example, in James 4:7 instead of "resist the Devil and he will flee from you" we have "Yell a loud no to the Devil and watch him scamper." This is intended to make us chuckle. In Acts 12:16 according to The Message the disciples were not only "amazed" when they saw Peter, they "went wild," which suggests an amusing scene of commotion that is not indicated in the original text. (At least they didn't go bananas!) Many renderings inject the same kind of breezy slang that provoked Alexander Tytler to ask, "What must we think of the translator, who makes the solemn and sententious Tacitus express himself in the low cant of the streets, or in the dialect of the waiters of a tavern?"

A psychologizing tendency is evident in several places. In Luke 2:34-35 Simeon prophesies that Christ will be "spoken against" or opposed, and that by this opposition "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." Peterson analyzes these thoughts, and says that Christ will be a "misunderstood" figure, whose rejection will "force honesty" upon the opposers. Yet the Bible's own "psychology"—as reflected in its use of the word psyche (soul)—is muted in the version. For example, in Acts 14:22 instead of "strengthening the souls of the disciples" Peterson gives a bodily metaphor: "putting muscle and sinew in the lives of the disciples." In John 12:27 he eliminates Jesus' reference to his own soul. Instead of "Now is my soul troubled" we read "Right now I am storm-tossed." In a similar manner he avoids using the word "spirit" (pneuma), as in John 13:21, where the Greek says that Jesus was "troubled in his spirit (pneuma)" but Peterson says "visibly upset." In Luke 23:46 he writes "Father, I place my life in your hands" instead of "into your hands I commit my spirit." When Stephen is martyred in Acts 7:59 Peterson makes him cry "Master Jesus, take my life" instead of "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." The avoidance of the words "soul" and "spirit" in the version appears to be deliberate and systematic. The same thing is done with the Hebrew word ruach "spirit" in the Old Testament. In Psalm 51:10 where it says "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit (ruach) within me" Peterson gives a very fanciful rendering—"God, make a fresh start in me, shape a Genesis week from the chaos of my life." Here Peterson plays with a concept suggested by the word bara "create" in the verse (same word as in Genesis 1:1), and his rendering may be appreciated as an interesting homiletic development, but it cannot be taken seriously as a translation of the Hebrew.

Sometimes Peterson obscures the main point of a passage by distracting attention from it with a homiletic flourish, as in Romans 9:27-28. Here the apostle Paul is dealing with the question of why the Church has so few Jews in it, and so he quotes Isaiah's prophecy concerning the relatively small remnant that will remain after God has dealt with them in judgment.

Romans 9:27-28.
Literal translation: And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.
The Message: Isaiah maintained this same emphasis: If each grain of sand on the seashore were numbered and the sum labeled "Chosen of God," they'de be numbers still, not names; salvation comes by personal selection. God doesn't count us; he calls us by name. Arithmetic is not his focus.

The reason for the citation is clear in the literal translation, but in Peterson's paraphrase it is strangely opaque. He fastens on the word "number" and he produces a little meditation on the contrast between numbering and naming by importing the concept "he calls us by name" into the passage. In the process of making his interesting homiletic point he neglects the main point of the passage. This sort of thing often happens in the pulpit, where it is quite forgiveable to expound "the right doctrine from the wrong text"—but it is another matter when homiletic excursions supplant the text itself.

There is a tendency in the version to transpose things into a modern context. In Matthew 10:29 Christ's question, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny" becomes "What's the price of a pet canary? Some loose change, right?" Arguably the "loose change" here is actually more accurate than "a penny" as a translation of assarion, but the "pet canary" is completely anachronistic. An item from the experience of the modern American consumer is substituted for the "two sparrows" of the text. Even the Holy Spirit seems to be transformed into a more familiar character in this version, when Peterson gives the word "Friend" as a translation of paraclete (John 14:16).

The Message has found a ready audience among "evangelicals" who are bored with the Bible, and who wanted a jazzy and fun paraphrase to take its place. Its popularity is just one more example of the levity of the contemporary church, and of its unhealthy taste for novelties and fads, which have become so much a part of ministry in evangelical churches in the past thirty years. As Peterson has written in one of his books on pastoral care, American church leaders have been "transformed into a company of shopkeepers with shopkeepers concerns — how to keep the customers happy, how to lure customers away from the competitors down the street, how to package the goods so that the customers will lay out more money." And again, speaking of entertainment-driven ministry he says, "There are others who do not desert the place of worship, but in staying, they do something worse: they subvert it. They turn it in to a place of entertainment that will refresh bored and tired consumers and pump some zest into them." But if there is one thing worse than turning the Sanctuary into a place of entertainment, it is turning the Sacred Page into a piece of entertainment.

This book should be recognized for what it is. It began as a stimulating paraphrase of the Epistle to the Galatians included in a popular devotional book, and it remains a piece of stimulating devotional literature. But it is not the Word of God. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary has put it, "it is freer even than a paraphrase. I think of it more as devotional literature than as a version of the Bible and wouldn't recommend it for any other role."

[xuxana]

Behold the fatwa against "The Message"

http://bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

lawlz!

gosh.... it reminds me of the 1950's fatwa against elvis & rock & roll. or the catholics against martin scorcese for making the last temptation of christ.

some ppl have waaaay too much time on their hands. 

[John Larocque]

In the above extract on the Message, I found the deliberate mistranslations and obscuring of "spirit" and "soul" troubling.


I have made use of some of the more dynamic equivalent bibles. There are places in the REB that make me cringe ("brothers" as "fellow Christians") but the REB has a less sectarian bent than the NIV, and is an excellent English text.. I found scanning through the Pauline epistles in this version especially helpful.

By the way, for those who are interested in the ESV, check out the bible-researcher page on deliberate sectarian readings placed in the story of the Garden of Eden. It is, essentially, an evangelical update of the RSV, which resulted in less departures from the Masoretic text in the OT. The RSV and the NRSV (the latter, more mainstream Protestant/ecumenical translations), often made use of other ancient OT versions, such as the LXX, Vulgate, Peshiita and Targums. The evangelicals were unhappy with so many departures from the inerrant Masoretic Text and found that it was proof of the translators lack of belief in the integrity of the divinely inspired source text (that is, the 1000-year old text preserved by the Jews). Hence among the harshest complaints against the RSV was the extent to which it used these other versions in the OT.

[Nazarene]

Hyper literalism does not make for accurate translation either:

One who translates a verse literally is misrepresenting the text, but one who adds anything of his own is a blasphemer. (An Ancient Jewish Adage)

There is room for paraphrasing, a certain degree is actually necessary as there are many idioms and allegories in the Holy Scriptures.

[arnI]

IMO the best Greek NT text (which is also closet to the official Patriarchal text) is the Majority Text. Translations of the Majority Text include:

The Eastern Orthodox Bible

Analytical-Literal Translation
World English Bible
English Majority Text Version

I enjoy reading The Eastern Orthodox Bible, and the wording seems to be easily understood. I find reading a chapter a night is the appropriate amount for me to "digest".

Free download of New Testament is available.
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/download.asp ( 10MB Bookmarked PDF file available which does not include all of the Appendix pages)

Psalter Download
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/psalter.asp

[Ortho_cat]

I saw that the EOB is now available for purchase in book form. Has anyone done so?

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/purchase.asp

[Shanghaiski]

I like the Revised Standard Version.

[ComingHome]

Just a question:  but is all of this "I'm not feeling it" an Orthodox attitude.  It sounds much more like most Protestants I know.

[Agabus]

By the way, for those who are interested in the ESV, check out the bible-researcher page on deliberate sectarian readings placed in the story of the Garden of Eden. It is, essentially, an evangelical update of the RSV...

This is actually a problem with the ESV; it is beloved by many Reformed Protestants because it is the "conservative alternative" to the RSV, but in truth it was so agenda-driven that some of the NT translations are bad/awkward because the translators were so hellbent on making a conservative translation. That said, the ESV is one of the few mainline Bibles in which you can purchase an edition with the additional LXX books included, so...

From what I understand of textual arguments (and I am no scholar), the Byzantine texts used for the KJV and the NKJV are more or less in line with the 1904 Patriarchal text. I also know that many of the "majority texts" out there are little more than textual archeology and guess-work at what the original manuscripts said. Not that I toss textual criticism out the window, but I acknowledge it for what it is.

I like the RSV-Catholic edition OK; I have a copy of the NRSV with all of the Orthodox books in an appendix to the OT that works in a pinch; I prefer the KJV, which you can buy with the so-called Anglican Apocrypha. This is just a personal preference, but I have also been told Abp. +Dmitri of Dallas endorses the KJV as a translation worth reading for the Orthodox layperson.

Some of the KJV renderings are funny (for example, "new wineskins" is rendered "bottles" in the KJV), but most editions you buy today have a foot- or column-note explaining the anachronistic departures from the texts. I grew up reading the KJV (before switching to the ghastly NIV in my early-teens), and I must admit upfront that part of the reason I like the KJV is my personal literary bent, though this is not the only or primary reason.

[Bob L.]

I was wondering if there is a bible similar to the Orthodox Study Bible but with lots more footnotes describing a variety of Orthodox ideas.  The footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible are just too short to be very useful.

[peteprint]

I saw that the EOB is now available for purchase in book form. Has anyone done so?

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/purchase.asp

Yes, I have the EOB hardcover version which I purchased through Lulu publishing.  I am very happy with it.  It has some good notes and, at least to me, reads more easily than the OSB.  I am trying to read a chapter each night.

[Ortho_cat]

I saw that the EOB is now available for purchase in book form. Has anyone done so?

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/purchase.asp

Yes, I have the EOB hardcover version which I purchased through Lulu publishing.  I am very happy with it.  It has some good notes and, at least to me, reads more easily than the OSB.  I am trying to read a chapter each night.

Thanks! From what i've read online, it seems to be pretty good.

[Shiny]

Is there any way I can obtain a copy of the 1611 KJV that retains the Blackletter font, and not the replaced Roman font? The cheapest one I found is 179. I'd like something cheaper.

[Agabus]

Is there any way I can obtain a copy of the 1611 KJV that retains the Blackletter font, and not the replaced Roman font? The cheapest one I found is 179. I'd like something cheaper.

2011 is the 400th anniversary of the initial release of the Authorized Version, and I know that at least one affordable facsimile copy should become available in the next few months

[Benjamin the Red]

Just a question:  but is all of this "I'm not feeling it" an Orthodox attitude.  It sounds much more like most Protestants I know.

In all love and humility, I would have to say "no." This is not a standard attitude amongst Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy is a very personal religion, but it is not "wishy-washy" as is Protestantism. Orthodoxy is personal in the since that each person is unique and must have their own rules of prayer and the like as determined by their spiritual father (or mother). However, this individual treatment is carried out in obedience to one's spiritual father, and not a "because I want to" kind of attitude.

Orthodoxy is also very corporate. While we all have our individual needs and concerns, we come together in a common state of sinfulness, and all need the same cure (that is Christ). We receive this cure through His mysteries (primarily the Eucharist), but the therapy we receive (such as in confession) is personal. Orthodoxy is very collective, and yet very individual. Both of these aspects, however, are done under love, unity and obedience. To expand on St. Paul's beautiful analogy, I may be a heart and you may be a lung...but we both suffer from cancer. How that is treated is different, because we are different, but the disease is the same, and we are both part of the Body of Christ.


As far as Bible translations are concerned, I encourage those who do not read the original languages to read a variety of translations. There are a number of decent ones out there: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, etc. There are also bad ones that should not be used for devotional use, much less liturgical use. I have to say that among those would be the Message, NLT, ESV and others. These are either so bent towards one particular (Protestant) tradition, or cannot even be considered translations.

To address the use of Bibles such as the NLT or Messsage, I do not believe these should be used. They may be more entertaining and "fast-paced," however, they are not "translations" in the proper sense but are (very) loose paraphrases. The concern with using such Bibles is that the meaning of the original is so distorted that it really is no longer existant. I hesitate to even call them "Bibles" because they so misrepresent the Holy Scriptures. Just look as some of the comparisons already posted here, these looser paraphrases are quite laughable. We may laugh at the KJV, which references "unicorns" and "wine bottles", but we can also laugh at these paraphrases. I believe that one uses the word "telephone pole" in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7 instead of "board" or "plank." I do not remember which one, mind you, but really...telephone pole?

Of course, this should be an issue taken up with ones spiritual father, but at the same time, I could see such paraphrases being spiritual damaging for Orthodox Christians that read them regularly as a serious "translation" of the Scriptures. Use much caution in reading these Bibles. I believe there was complaint about not being able to understand other translations, and so these were easier. Is not everything worth understanding worth working at? If you want to get into a certain sport or hobby, for example, each have their own jargon. That jargon isn't going to change for you, you have to learn that jargon in order to interact properly within that particular sphere. Orthodoxy is this way, as well. We have words that many others, even orther Christian traditions, would not understand. What are "epimanikia"? The "antimension"? Who knows what a "troparion" is? Who is the "Theotokos"? And what's this whole distinction between "engeries" and essence"? The Church doesn't change its terminology to be simplier, nor to be simplify the Liturgy itself to make it more "understandable." If your heart is truly in the Church, you learn her terminology, her ritual, etc. Should it be any different with the Church's Holy Scriptures?

I don't suggest anyone is insincere in their faith, please do not misunderstand, I simply have to ask...isn't Christ worth some effort?

[Iconodule]

Is there any way I can obtain a copy of the 1611 KJV that retains the Blackletter font, and not the replaced Roman font? The cheapest one I found is 179. I'd like something cheaper.

2011 is the 400th anniversary of the initial release of the Authorized Version, and I know that at least one affordable facsimile copy should become available in the next few months

FYI: there's an Orthodox revision of the KJV Old Testament and Apocrypha, available online. He basically took the KJV translation and fixed it where it departed from the Septuagint.

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm