Sunday, December 29, 2024

What Bible Version Should I Use?

The one you will read. Maybe that seems like an oversimplification of a complex topic, but it doesn't matter if you have the most perfect translation ever if every verse feels like a chore to read and understand. Find a version that feels readable to you, get an audio version, a video version, have someone tell you the stories, whatever it takes to be able to personally get the stories so you can learn from them (and from now on, when I say read the Bible, this is what I mean.)

The best advice I ever got about reading literature in translation (and generally speaking we read the Bible in translation) was from the student assigned to show us around for Freshman orientation who took us on a brisk tour and then got us on a bus to the big used bookstore downtown and helped us shop for the many source texts required for graduation. He told us not to worry about getting the exact translations that the professors called for, but instead to look for a translation that we found readable and understandable so we would actually do the reading. He also pointed out that if we read different versions from others in our discussion sections, we might have different insights and that would give us something to talk about. This applies well to Bible versions. Translation is almost always a compromise between accuracy to the original text and readability in the target language and accuracy has a couple of different aspects, sometimes a translator has to choose between using words that best fit the the style of writing (particularly with things like poetry or a pun, but it could also be formal versus informal language) and words that best fit the meaning.

That said, the Italian proverb "Traduttori, traditori" (Translators are traitors) applies to Bible translation as well. Even the most well meaning translators bring their own assumptions to the table. It is useful to be aware of those assumptions and most translations have notes, either in the published Bible, or online, where the translators explain their process and what they used as their base text. At this point, you are probably thinking, wait, a minute, isn't there just an original text, don't we just translate from the oldest version? Not always, and the King James Version in particular did not. And while that sounds bad, it can sometimes be justified - for example, at the time of Christ, many Jews and thus the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called LXX or the Septuagint for the 70 (or 72 depending on which history you believe) rabbis and scholars involved in the translation, so if we want to know how Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians saw these texts, we might want to start from that translation ourselves. However, Jews went back to using Hebrew scriptures and translating from them due to inconsistencies in the translation of the Septuagint, including the fact that some books were more retellings than translations. If you don't ever use the Septuagint for translation, you will miss some places in the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted and possibly some important information about how Jesus, the Apostles and early Christians saw the scriptures. If you do use the Septegent, you will risk getting further from the original meaning by using a translation of a translation. Again, how this issue is handled is usually included in the translators notes. If your Bible version doesn't have translators notes and you can't find them on the internet, looking up the translation on Wikipedia often will provide at least some of the same information. 

Why you are reading the Bible may also impact which version you use. You might want a different version for daily reading than for study. You might want a different version for reading the poetic parts like the Psalms. 

Here are a couple notes on some English Bible versions and why you may or may not want to read that one:

New Revised Standard Version

This is the version used in a lot of seminaries as well as the basis for many study Bibles that are well regarded in academic circles. It is in modern English and reasonably readable, but it always chooses accuracy over readability.

Common English Bible

This is a very readable Bible and aims at a middle school reading level. My personal experience is that almost every word in it is in my active vocabulary - words that I would use every day and that that really causes me to focus on the text.  It's a good version to use in worship situations because children and English language learners are likely to find it understandable. Despite using simpler language, it also usually gets good marks for accuracy.

The Brick Bible

This is more of a novelty Bible, but it does an excellent job of presenting the stories of the Bible in an accurate and engaging format. If  you are a highly visual person, this is an excellent addition to your understanding.

The Message

 A single author translation intended to focus on presenting the story in conversational English. It's great for reading (or listening too), the poetic parts are excellent, but it's probably not great as a study Bible.

King James Version - KJV (also known as the Authorized Version)

Some people believe this is the only version to use, don't listen to them or anyone who says to only use one translation. Because it was translated in 1611, it uses an older version of English that is harder to read and understand and I don't recommend it as a main reading and study Bible particularly for this reason. Some of the poetry in particular is translated in a beautiful and poetic way, so it can be worth reading, particularly in excerpt version. Because it is out of copyright, you can freely quote from it without worrying about copyright (although most translations have generous quoting policies), and it is sometimes used for this reason alone and KJV Bibles are cheap - the dollar store usually has a full shelf of them. (By the way, the reason copyright  became a thing for Bible translations was not an effort to recoup the cost of translation, although that is an issue, but because people were writing in their own changes to prove their point and passing them off as original.)

 




Saturday, June 29, 2024

A Rest Retreat

 I'm declaring this week a rest retreat. I'm not sure what that's going to look like, but I'm at the next step in my lymphadema treatment and it's tiring and I need extra rest.  I figure my options are to be upset about it or accept it and make it holy. (Is not rest always holy?)

I'm not entirely sure what that will look like but I have some ideas:

  • acknowledge and drop thoughts rooted in the heresies of the the prosperity gospel, hustle culture, the Protestant work ethic, capitalism, and using productivity as a measure of value or worthiness.
  • lower my expectations for doing anything.
  • get plenty of rest.
  • stop or skip unnecessary things that are feeling like too much.
  • read more of Rest Is Resistance as long as it feels enjoyable and not like a chore.
  • fun reading.
  • knitting (always!)
  • naps
  • possibly get food or grocery delivery (this is complicated by the fact that most of the places I like don't deliver here.)
  • breathing exercises
  • written commentary and reflection if it feels right.
Note that this does not include obligations, check offs, or requirements. There is no failure, only progress toward rest.

Also, I'd like to include some lectio devina type reading (not necessarily of scripture) but I find it stressful to manage the time keeping parts and keep track of what I am supposed to be doing when I do it on my own. I might look for some apps or ways to use Alexa routines to manage this.

Sunday, February 18, 2024

What are you giving up for Easter? A Lenten Reflection

Years ago I was very much struck by the idea that anything we give up for Lent should be something we will take back up with joy when our period of sorrow ends at Easter. I find a lot of value in that, particularly since the idea of "giving something up for Lent" has expanded into mainstream culture and often gotten mixed up with mainstream ideas that don't embrace loving ourselves as part of God's good creation. For instance, I regularly hear "giving up" suggestions that seem more rooted in diet culture than faith. And then intertwined with ideas about our not being acceptable human beings at our current weight or "good" and "bad" foods. I don't want to debate whether weight loss is helpful or possible, that's a question for doctors and researchers, but I absolutely stand on the fact that God loves us flaws and all and that God made the sugar cane just as much as the spinach leaf. That said, if we want to give up something for Lent, it needs to fall in the category of 'nice to have' not necessity and if we choose a food, for many of us that is treats like candy, soda, and alcohol. And, if it's a struggle for us to give those things up, there's usually at least minimal social support for the struggle to stick to what you gave up for Lent. Or at least less social pressure to take it up again - "I gave it up for Lent" is often a conversation ender for why you aren't having a drink or dessert in a way "I don't feel like it" should be but often isn't.

But I don't think Lent is actually the ideal time, liturgically, if we want to give up something bad for us or take up something good for us (individually or communally) permanently for our faith. Of course, if you feel ready now or feel called now, whenever now is, now is the right time. But, I think there is a value in providing communal support for long-term changes (or trying on changes to see if they improve our lives and help us better care for God's creation) and encouraging us to consider long term changes. We have two celebrations of new life annually in the liturgical calendar, Christmas when we celebrate the birth of Jesus and Easter when we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and the continuation of the world-changing movement he started despite his death at the hands of the authorities. Easter seems like a good fit for encouraging long-term changes both on the secular and liturgical calendar. It allows those who find it helpful to use Lent for that purpose to get continued support, extra support for those who find that their life improved when they gave up some extra for Lent and want to do it permanently, and a reminder and encouragement for all of us to look at how we can better live our faith (and ACT on it) whether by making a change for our collective good or to treat ourselves with the care we deserve as a child of God.

So what are you giving up for Easter?

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Staying in My Lane

One thing I strongly believe but have struggled to fully express is my belief that while other faiths likely have just as important and valuable lessons about God and the nature of the holy as Christianity, we should stay in one lane amd not mix and match. We can learn from other people of faith but piecemeal attempting to determine where those holy lessons are is likely to result in losing more than we gain. Today, I was reading a blog post from Bob Rossi where he expressed this very well. From his post Some cautious notes about my universalism:

On the other hand, a test for my universalism is in believing that other religions---most notably Islam in this case---have something good to say about the attributes or qualities of God. ... The main difficulties that we have here are that grafting religions or divergent expressions of faith on to one another rarely works well, many cultural and religious appropriations can and should be offensive