Featured Reading the Bible next year

My favorite parphrase is J.B. Phillips' New Testament and Minor Prophets. But his reworked 1972 version is rarely cited which is unfair.

According to most biblical New Testament scholars the NIV is certainly not in the dynamic-equivalence category; much less a paraphrase slot.

But in a very real sense all Bible translations are paraphrases of the original. They are approximations of the original.

 

Question: What is an "optical translation" evan? Answer: It's all in the way you look at it. ;-)

You mean the marketing arm of the HCSB says it is an optimal equivalent translation. And of course, that boils down to the same philosophy as the NIV. Both translations steer a middle course between overly dynamic and overly literal.

 

In a sense, this is good advice. But what happens with most people is they never read through the Old Testament. Every believer should strive to have a good overview of the entire Bible. In the Bible Explorer's Handbook, John Phillips gives an account of a preacher who didn't have a summary understanding of the Old Testament and what resulted from it.

It is unlikely that someone who only focuses on quality will actually walk away with quality. Every believer needs to have quantity and quality, not just one or the other. It makes me wonder how people come to doctrinal conclusions when the don't have a basic understanding of the entire Bible.

As to your comment about the KJV, I would agree. I use the NIV 1984, KJV, and NASB for study, but I always go to the KJV for memorization. The NIV just doesn't seem to flow, which can make it very difficult to memorize.

 

You need to inform Max Mclean. He has memorized from the NIV all of Genesis and Mark among other sections of Scripture.

He has recorded the entire NIV,ESV, and KJV. I don't know if he has memorized sections of the latter two. The NIV remains his personal favorite.

 

The preface of the NIV states:

Thus call it Dynamic Equivalence, "optical translation", or "brief paraphrase "the "translation" includes the "thoughts of the translators" rather than the Words of Scripture. Some would call that a commentary!

 

The preface to the HCSB states:

Therefore both the NIV and the HCSB substitute to some degree the thoughts of the translators for the Words of Scripture.

 

And I should care, why? I don't even know who that is, nor do I care. I am a member of a church that the pastor only uses the NIV, that doesn't make me think it is easier to memorize.

 

My wife and I will be reading through the Bible using Robert Murray M'Cheyne's Bible reading plan. We're looking forward to it. We will be using the HCSB.

http://mcheyne.info/calendar.pdf

 

Brother, normally I agree with you, but here I must dissent. What the HCS says in it's preface is true of any tranlsation. There is not, can not, be a perfect one to one translation and still be readable. The HCSB is a great translation and IMO superior to the NIV and the ESV.

 

GREAT post. Your OP reminded me of a story about reading the Bible....

A pastor got a request to visit a family member's elderly aunt who resided in a rest home. As a pastor, he felt the duty to visit with her, and stopped by one afternoon.

After the introductions and small talk, the lady told the Pastor, "You know preacher, I've read the Bible from the front to back every year of my life on earth!"

The pastor was truly impressed with her commitment and dedication to reading the Word of God, and complimented her by saying, "Ma'am, that is impressive. I don't know many people who can claim to have read the Bible from the front to the back every year of their lives since being saved?"

"Saved?" she said, "who said anything about being saved, young man? I don't even know what 'being saved' is. I just said that I read the Bible through and through every year, because I thought it was the right thing to do!"

A little embarrassed, and somewhat confused, the pastor apologized for the assumption, and followed up his apology by reassuring her, "Well a lot lot of people don't know much about the terminology I use, like 'saved' so let me say this .... having read the Bible through each year, you must know a lot about God and His Son, Jesus?"

The lady, starting to get frustrated with the young preacher, pulled herself up in the bed, and looked him square in the eye, and said, "Listen hear sonny! I never said I knew God or that fictional Son of His .... I just said, I had read the Bible from the front to back every year of my life!"

:flower: This story always reminded me of the fact that many folks have read the Bible and probably know it and can even quote it, backwards and forward. But, if they don't know the God of the Bible and have a personal relationship with His Son, it is nothing more than a reading assignment! :wavey:

 

Why is it important to read through the Bible in a year?

I certainly have nothing against it, but why not read through the NT-3 times, or the OT-2 times, or spend the whole year reading through the Gospels?

BTW, I would encourage everyone to read through the Bible at least every 2-3 yrs.

Grace and peace

Romans 5:1

 

I have read through the Bible a number of times in past years. I believe I always learned something and was always greatly blessed by certain Scripture. However, in my opinion, simply reading through the Bible is not sufficient when it comes to Bible study. That requires time prayerfully studying a passage in context and also considering other relevant Scripture.

 

I agree OR!!

 

It's not "important" per se, but it is a goal as are the other options you listed. All are good choices.

But, IMO, reading through the Bible, even a couple chapters a day, is not an adequate substitute for careful, thorough study. Both should be done IMO, the one for brief devotion and getting your mind fixed on God, the other to learn more deeply the things of God.

 

:thumbs: :thumbs:

It's the version I mostly read from this past year (when I did read). It will be my version of choice in the coming new year.