Excellent Bible Translations


#1

J. B. Rotherham Emphasized

https://studybible.info/version/Rotherham

Weymouth N.T.

http://www.htmlbible.com/weymouth_nt/index.htm

Concordant Literal

Jonathan Mitchell N.T.

http://www.greater-emmanuel.org/jmt/

The Message

James Moffatt

https://studybible.info/version/Moffatt

Youngs Literal

Farrar Fenton

https://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/ferrar_fenton/pdf/

Emphatic Diaglott

https://studybible.info/Diaglott

Twentieth Century N.T.

https://studybible.info/version/Twentieth_Century

J.B.Phillips

http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPNT.htm

Compare Passages

Blue Letter Bible tool

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Fo-bW56YJOHSjwTp8bWQDg&q=blue+letter+bible&oq=blue+letter+bible&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i131k1j0l9.2383.10329.0.14856.17.10.0.7.7.0.267.1458.2j6j2.10.0…0…1c.1.64.psy-ab…0.17.1564…0.gq0Kqb5pyb4


#2

#3

I mainly use the ESV.


#4

I like the ABP interlinear (LXX/Greek NT with interlinear English – their LXX is missing the deuterocanon): https://studybible.info/interlinear/Genesis%201

Also Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims Challoner: http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/01001.htm


#5

Qaz; I love them all, but do your homework.

ESV


#6

Douay-Rheims Bible

http://drbo.org/


#7

Please forgive my pedantry, but I must point out this is actually the Douay-Rheims-Challoner – Bishop Richard Challoner’s revised version from circa. 1750, not the original Douay-Rheims (1582 NT, 1609 OT). Challoner removed a lot of the more obscure Latinisms, modernised the spelling and in general adjusted the text to more closely resemble the KJV (while still trying to be faithful to the Latin Vulgate)

The original Douay-Rheims is hard to come across. Nobody appears to have produced a proper electronic version, but a scan of most of it can be found on Google Books:

NT – https://books.google.com/books?id=kofWAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover
OT vol 1 – https://books.google.com/books?id=WI7WAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover
OT vol 2 (incomplete scan, missing pages) – https://books.google.com/books?id=yobWAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover


#8

“The Message” is not a translation; it is a paraphrase.


#9

The boundary between paraphrase and translation is not always clear. There is a continuum with interlinear translations at one end, followed by formal equivalence translations, then dynamic equivalence translations, then true paraphrases at the other end. I’m not sure any of these transitions are sharp, and there is always the potential for debatable cases where reasonable people will disagree about exactly where to draw the line; I think the continuum may well be smooth. Given all of this, I’m not sure if we should put “translation” and “paraphrase” down as mutually exclusive categories, or if we should instead view paraphrases as a type of translation.


#10

Dear Paidion, so is J.B. Phlilips but both grasp the Spirit of the word,


#11

Dear Simon: I appreciate what you indicate. Do you have an original copy?. If so, can you tell me how the koine translation is in both versions of Phil. 2.10.of ἐν en?


#12

What’s the “koine translation”? Koine Greek is not a translation; it is the language in which the New Testament was written. The Greek word “ἐν” means “in.”


#13

I think the boundary is clear.

A good translation of a passage is the translator’s attempt to write the content of the passage in a different language without inserting his thoughts into the passage. A paraphrase is largely an interpretation of the passage as the paraphraser understands it.


#14

Phillipians 2:10

Vulgate: ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum,

Challoner: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:

1582 Douay-Rheims NT: that in the name of IESVS euery knee bovve of the celestials, terrestrials and infernals

So, we can see both the Challoner revision and the original Douay-Rheims use “in the name”, as opposed to the “at the name” used in the KJV and the majority of subsequent translations. Possibly, the Latin “in nomine” is influencing this decision – the Douay-Rheims tends to try to make the English as close to the Latin as possible. (It is also worth noting “in nomine” is used heavily in the Catholicism’s Latin liturgies/rites, as part of the Trinitarian formula “in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti”, which in English is almost always translated “in the name of…” – and that liturgical use likely also influenced this translation decision).

This verse demonstrates the two main differences between the original Douay-Rheims and Challoner: antiquated spelling (IESVS instead of Jesus, euery instead of every, bovve instead of bow), and the original Douay-Rheims preferred Latinate vocabulary which in many (but not all) cases the Challoner drops, e.g. “the celestials” became “those that are in heaven”, “terrestrials” becomes “on earth”, “infernals” becomes “under the earth”.

The 1582 Douay-Rheims NT has copious footnotes. However, they don’t have much to do with the text, the ones on this verse are just attacking John Calvin and responding to various accusations he is claimed to have made against Catholicism. (They attribute these accusations to Calvin but don’t actually cite him, so I can’t judge whether they are presenting his views fairly.) This sort of old Catholic-vs-Protestant polemic is rather tiresome and boring, in my opinion, so I will say no more about it.


#15

I’m not convinced. Translators translate based on their own ideas of what the words of the original language mean, and what the translator thinks the original author meant may or may not be what they actually meant. Consider a debate I’m sure most people on this site are familiar with – Matthew 18:8, the phrase “into everlasting fire” (KJV), in Greek εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον – did the original author mean “everlasting fire” by πῦρ αἰώνιον? Or “eternal fire” as (among others) the NIV translates it? (It isn’t clear whether “everlasting” and “eternal” mean the same thing or not–sometimes they are treated as synonyms, other times a distinction is drawn between them.) I think Weymouth’s “into the fire of the Ages” and Young’s “to the fire the age-during” are much better translations. Couldn’t we accuse the translators of the KJV, NIV, etc, of projecting their own beliefs and thoughts into the text?


#16

As for Phil 2:10, the Greek word is “εν” (en) which means “in.”
Other translations which have it “in the name of Jesus” are:
The Diaglott, Weymouth, Williams, and Young’s Literal Translation.


#17

If a “translator” does that, then he is not translating; he is paraphrasing.

A true translator will get the meanings of words by looking at many contexts in which the words are used. He will also consult several lexicons. And he will have spent several years studying the Hellenistic Greek language.


#18

Paidion replying to Simon

The Message bible is the work of one man. And it is considered a paraphrase bible. Bibles like the NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV and KJV - are all the work of committees, of Protestant scholars. And since they have scholars from different denominations (not sure about the KJV)…then they reduce the chance of bias. Unlike bibles that are the products…of either the Roman Catholic Church or the Baptist Church.


#19

Dear Simon: much thanks. It is amazing how one wee word can point in such different directions. For me it is one of the first verses I consider in the Bible translation considered.

“That IN the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow…” This is not perfunctory genuflections, but bowing and worship in union with the Name of all names!


#20

I would agree with you that the Message is more paraphrasing than anything else since it is down to the interpreters thoughts and views as he is “translating” it. You said that we should be going into the greek for the new testament however I would disagree with that bit. Up until recently I would have said that we should do that, however I realised that Jesus and the apostles were Jewish and would have taught completely in Hebrew at the synagogues. Their idioms, figures of speech, and ideas that were specifically jewish could have been, and are distorted with every new translation. Im quite new getting into the Hebrew perspective, but it doesn’t make sense to me to study the NT in greek with a hellenistic mindset when 90% is in Hebrew.