What do think of the Amplified Bible? Good or Bad and why you think that.

I have an Amplified Bible which was given to me to evaluate. When I evaluate a bible I look at certain "index" verses to see how they are translated. There are several different groups of verses which tell me several different things. The first group tells me which text-form the bible is based on, the second group tells me what translation technique was used, and so on and so on.

The first group of "index" verses includes Mark 1:2. The Amplified Bible uses the word "Isaiah" vice "prophets." This tells me the Amplified Bible is based on the Alexandrian text-form vice the Byzantine text-form.

A second "index" verse would be 1 Timothy 3:16. The Amplified Bible reads, "And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth - the mystic secret - of godliness. He (God) was made visible in human flesh . . ." The word "he" comes from the Critical Text, but the editors added the word "God" (albeit in parenthesis) which occurs in the Byzantine text-form, as well as in most of the Alexandrian text-form.

So, in most cases, it appears the editors were trying to do a good job and be helpful, and seem not to have been so over burdened by their bias that they would exclude Byzantine text-form readings, but for the most part, they follow the Alexandrian/Critical text-form. For that reason alone, I would be very cautious in using this bible. It may be a study help, but don't rely on it alone for your reading and study.

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

for the most part, they follow the Alexandrian/Critical text-form.

Sounds like a recommendation to me. I should go get one.

 

It's not a bad study tool. But I'm not wild about the variety of word definitions provided for many verses. In some verse cases, it's almost like you can pick your definition cafeteria style. That's not the way it works. Not every word can have every possible lexical definition in every single instance.

Am I off base here? Maybe the AMP doesn't do what I'm alleging to the degree I think. If some of you who are more proficient in the AMP can correct me, please do.

 

Dr. Cassidy wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When I evaluate a bible I look at certain "index" verses to see how they are translated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do that, too I try to evaluate on a totality basis, but I can't help but start out by saying "Alright, how did they translate.........."

 

See also The Amplified Bible

 

Would like a list of your "index verses" Dr. Cassidy! Thanks.

 

I'd be happy with a even a small list of the errors in the Amplified.

 

I grew up back in the fifties in a Baptist church that used the KJV only. As the years have passed, despite my terribly backslidden lifestyle, I bought and read six or seven new translations. Now I have come full circle and for me, the KJV is all I want or need. Just my two cents worth. The Amplified Bible is fine for using as a cross reference as far as I am concerned.

Agape,

Mike

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Manstrom ]

 

Love the Amplified Bible. I highly recommend it!

 

Never really read the amplified. Although what I am curious about is the ESV. I've never even since this version on the bookshelves of my local Christian bookstore. Is this a new version?

UNP, Adam

 

I like the Amplified version as a companion to my KJV very much.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although what I am curious about is the ESV. I've never even since this version on the bookshelves of my local Christian bookstore. Is this a new version? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is a new version and a pretty good one. Though as many of my other posts point out, I still don't like several of the weakened phrases (my opinion), but overall a great translation to help me when I studt with my KJV.

You notice I like my KJV alot.