Question:
Christians, What is the best easy-to-read, thought-for-thought translation Bible for a Christian - CEV or NLT?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Christians, What is the best easy-to-read, thought-for-thought translation Bible for a Christian - CEV or NLT?
Sixteen answers:
anonymous
2011-01-24 19:18:50 UTC
You need a study bible to truly understand what you are reading and to be able to refer to the bottom text to understand each chapter. best of luck and it is refreshing to find people who actually want to learn and not just assume.
oldandtired
2011-01-24 14:35:12 UTC
No version of the Bible will do you any good unless you understand what the Bible is trying to teach us, which is something the clergy lies about. The very first lesson in the Bible, the story of the garden of Eden, is about authority, that NO ONE has the right to impose their will on others. As a matter of fact, ALL rule, power, and authority, is defined as the enemies of God at 1st Corinthians 15:24-25. While the clergy tells us of talking snakes, apples, and sex, Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for becoming "as gods." The word god is synonymous with authority. If you keep this purpose of the Bible in mind, any version will be much more informative.
?
2011-01-24 14:30:16 UTC
The NIVr (Reader's Version) is the best IMO since it has minimal paraphrasing.
Illuminator
2011-01-24 14:17:32 UTC
There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.



Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.



The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):



The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."



The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."



Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."



The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.



For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.



The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."



If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.



Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.



more at http://www.catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp
?
2011-01-24 14:16:11 UTC
both, if you want to read the bible they have pdf file versions you can read on adobe reader that are easily downloadable and you dont have to support the deforestation.
anonymous
2011-01-24 15:18:44 UTC
You want the "Companion Bible" by Kregel

It's a King James Bible with all the facts, tons of references and references and notes on translation.
anonymous
2011-01-24 14:34:02 UTC
There is one very good translation that doesn't differ at all except to translate into the the most accurate english word from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The best part about this translation is that it adds to the sanctification of Jehovah's name. It uses Jehovah in it's original places in the Greek and Hebrew scriptures over 7,000 times. It's understandable and this is important if we are to “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations" - Matthew 28:19,20



"The New World Translation adds further to the sanctification of Jehovah’s name by presenting his inspired Scriptures in clear, understandable language that brings the intended meaning plainly to the reader’s mind. It uses simple, modern language, is as uniform as possible in its renderings, conveys accurately the action or state expressed in the Hebrew and Greek verbs, and distinguishes between the plural and singular in its use of the pronoun “you” and when using the imperative form of the verb where the context does not make it apparent. In these and other ways, the New World Translation brings to light in modern speech, as much as possible, the force, beauty, and sense of the original writings."

"The older Bible translations contain many obsolete words that belong to the 16th and 17th centuries. Though not understood now, they were readily understood then. For example, one man who had much to do with putting them in the English Bible was William Tyndale, who is reported as saying to one of his religious opponents: ‘If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you do.’ Tyndale’s translation of the Greek Scriptures was easy enough for a plowboy to understand in his time. However, many of the words he used have now become archaic, so that ‘a boy who drives the plow’ can no longer clearly grasp the meaning of many words in the King James and other older versions of the Bible. Thus, it has become necessary to remove the shrouds of archaic language and to restore the Bible to the ordinary language of the common man."

"The New World Translation is a fresh translation from the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By no means is it a revision of any other English translation, nor does it copy any other version as to style, vocabulary, or rhythm. For the Hebrew-Aramaic section, the well-refined and universally accepted text of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, the 7th, 8th, and 9th editions (1951-55), was used. A new edition of the Hebrew text known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, dated 1977, was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World Translation—With References. The Greek section was translated principally from the Greek master text prepared by Westcott and Hort, published in 1881. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other Greek texts, including Nestle’s Greek text (1948).



The translation committee has made a vigorous and accurate translation of the Bible, and this has resulted in a clear and living text, opening up the way to a deeper, more satisfying understanding of the Word of God.

30 Note one critic’s evaluation of this translation: “Original renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures into the English language are extremely few. It therefore gives us much pleasure to welcome the publication of the first part of the New World Translation [of the Hebrew Scriptures], Genesis to Ruth. . . . This version has evidently made a special effort to be thoroughly readable. No one could say it is deficient in freshness and originality. Its terminology is by no means based upon that of previous versions.”"

If you would like a copy of one you can request a visit from Jehovah's Witnesses at www.watchtower.org and receive one for free, we only accept voluntary donations, or even read it online here http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm
planner
2011-01-24 14:17:58 UTC
i would recommend the new king james verison. it is written in modern english and is very true to original scripture. after many centuries of bible translations, the king james version still stands as the closest to original and the new king james is a modern english version of that.
?
2011-01-24 14:16:19 UTC
I personally do not like any of the thought for thought translations. Stick with your ESV. It is a good translation and pretty easy to read...........>



And definitely stay away from any and all paraphrase bibles.....they will just jumble your mind....>
anonymous
2011-01-24 15:54:02 UTC
OK - my amateur, subjective but very well-researched opinion is that the CEV is superior to the NLT2. Both are written at about the 6th-grade level

http://www.bibleselector.com/reading_level.html

but the CEV has won awards for "clarity of language" and has a much broader approval among churches than does the NLT2 (most particularly: even the picky, picky Roman Catholic Church approves the CEV New Testament). The CEV is also available with the Apocrypha, while the NLT2 is not.



However, you should also definitely consider the Good News Translation. While the CEV is a translation (which is good) intended to be very easy-to-read, the GNT strives for an easier reading *experience* rather than easier language. Usually, reading a Bible is a whole lot like reading a history text book. Reading the GNT is more like reading a novel. Many readers of the GNT swear by it.



Usually, I recommend the GNT for adults or for people who don't really *like* to read, and the CEV for young people and for people who have *difficulty* reading. I think that's a good way to decide between them.



Here are the GNT (also known as the GNB) and CEV online - choose for yourself.

http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi

I recommend comparing a very difficult chapter such as Romans 7 (compare with your ESV).

http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bible=Bible&m=Ro+7&id32=1&id33=1&pos=0&set=3&l=en&idp0=33&idp1=34



- Jim
† Covered Glory †
2011-01-24 14:23:53 UTC
Personally, I stick withe the KJV, I know that wasn't a part of your choices however. Be aware of what version of the Bible you decide to read. When you water things down too much you really lose the significance of how it was intended to be read and some things are just outright changed! God warns not to add anything to the Bible! See Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:5-6, Rev. 22:18-19, Gal 1:6-12 about that!



I am by no means a Bible scholar but if you get a Study Bible (my personal favorite being the Ryrie Study Bible) that can really help you get a leg up in not only daily reading but in study. You can really get a grasp on what the Bible said in Hebrew and Greek as they are both wonderful languages that can convey so much more than English. The KJV was written in 1611 and is as close as you can get without having to learn Hebrew or Greek!



If that doesn't appeal to you, I would suggest either reading portions of your selected translations either online to compare or check at your local library. I know mine has several translations that are able to check out so you can see them before you buy them.
anonymous
2011-01-24 14:15:40 UTC
I like NLT. But for me, I understand the Bible the most when it's applied with a Bible Study or a preacher. They make the verses much more clearer. There are lots of free online Bible courses. Try one and see if it helps.
Dr. Eric vonAnderseck
2011-01-24 14:23:51 UTC
The KJV is what I have used for over 35 years and I have had no problem understanding it. But only the Holy Ghost can unlock the mysteries of Christ to the soul, and that requires teaching from those that are called of God, and lots of prayer on your part.



Why do We Need to Study the Bible?

http://www.second8thweek.org/content.php?id=46

How to Approach the Bible

http://www.second8thweek.org/content.php?id=47

The Purpose of the Bible

http://www.second8thweek.org/content.php?id=48

How to Avoid Private Interpretation of Scripture

http://www.second8thweek.org/content.php?id=49

What the Bible Cannot Do

http://www.second8thweek.org/content.php?id=50
?
2011-01-24 14:16:59 UTC
The Message! It reads like a story and is seriously easy to understand. It doesn't "differ" from the scripture- it is scripturally sound!
imrod
2011-01-24 14:15:59 UTC
I prefer the NLT. It is really smooth and the narratives are fabulous. The Message is OK, but it is rough (of course that is part of the intent). The NLT is also the product of committee which I think is positive.
gambit020480
2011-01-24 14:15:23 UTC
Neither, Try the NKJV. That is what I read and it is easy to understand.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...