Top 3 Bible versions in: English, German, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Latin to facilitate term acquisition for searching resources.

Page 1 of 1 (20 items)
This post has 19 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, May 21 2019 2:43 PM

Hi power users:

I just finished watching live webinar on Bible searching with Morris Proctor.

He showed a neat trick using right click on a word, we can go to lemma, and select Bible word study, which would give in the translation tab the different meaning in the language of the Bible selected.

One can always go to the settings on the right of the translation tab and pick a different language Bible to see what terms were used in that language. 

Then we can pick one (according to context), or several to search that term in that particular language resources.

So the question is, what would be your preferred Bibles in the different languages?

For me (in a non expert status):

English: LEB, ESV, NASB, NIV, and MEV (for comparison).

Spanish: BTX, La Biblia de las Americas, RV 1909, RV 1960

German: no clue

Portuguese: no clue

French: no clue

Latin: no clue

Even I ask in the title for the top 3, your preferred 5 would be ok, as I think the trick works with those that have interlinear. Even if the one you mention does not have it, it can still be searched using the extra bible box in the verse view.

Of course this trick works only with terms found in the Bible, for other terms, maybe one could search for the words related to the concept using a resource like:

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/167403/handbook-of-basic-bible-texts-every-key-passage-for-the-study-of-doctrine-and-theology

or something like the following:

https://www.logos.com/product/3608/dictionary-of-latin-and-greek-theological-terms

of course it would be great to have something like the following, and at the end had terms in the different languages added for reference:

https://www.logos.com/product/46349/lexham-glossary-of-theology

Thanks for useful input ahead of time.

Posts 2194
Jan Krohn | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 21 2019 3:44 PM

Hamilton Ramos:
German: no clue

As far as I know, there are only 3 German Bibles that have reverse interlinear tagging, which is required for this kind of research:

1. Luther 2017 (formal equivalence translation of critical text, mostly NA, loosely based on Luther's translation)

2. Luther 1984 (predecessor of the above)

3. Schlachter 2000 (formal equivalence translation of TR, from Switzerland, Protestant/Evangelical)

4. Einheitsübersetzung 2017, currently in pre-pub (formal equivalence translation of critical text, Roman-Catholic)

My personally preferred version is the Zürcher Bibel. It has no interlinear tagging though. It's a translation from Switzerland (sponsored by the Swiss Reformed Church), based on the critical text, and uses a modern language while being very accurate to the original text.

Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Future Seminary Student.
Why Amazon sucks: Full background story of my legal dispute with the online giant

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 21 2019 4:20 PM

Thanks Jan for your answer and guidance.

I still have to find ways to make passage lists out of the results of parts of the pie chart.

But there are ways one can compare versions to see if similar words are used:

Blessings.

Posts 24568
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 21 2019 4:37 PM

Hamilton Ramos:
Even I ask in the title for the top 3, your preferred 5 would be ok, as I think the trick works with those that have interlinear.

The bible needs a Reverse Interlinear, and they will be listed in Settings for the Translation section. You can get results in Latin with the Clementine Vulgate, but it is far from being a favourite of mine!

Hamilton Ramos:
Even if the one you mention does not have it, it can still be searched using the extra bible box in the verse view.

Correct. When you Search for the lemma, the "extra bible box" (Resources) will list resources that can be used because they may have passages listed in the Results. The corresponding word(s) will only be highlighted in Reverse Interlinears.

Hamilton Ramos:
Of course this trick works only with terms found in the Bible, for other terms, maybe one could search for the words related to the concept using a resource like:

You could consider other tools like Topic Guide and Theology Guide; each of which will provide a list of related bible verses. From those, you can conduct a bible word study and see how the terms are translated in different languages.

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, May 21 2019 6:09 PM

Thanks Dave, great tips.

Do you know a way to know what the best French Bibles are and that are available in Logos 8?

And how about your favorite Greek NT?

Thanks ahead of time for any guidance.

Posts 1231
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 1:17 AM

Hamilton Ramos:

Do you know a way to know what the best French Bibles are and that are available in Logos 8?

You can search the website for all available Reverse Interlinear Bibles: https://www.logos.com/products/search?Resource+Type=Interlinears&Resource+Type_Interlinears=Reverse+Interlinears+ 

French - At this moment only the Louis Segond 1910 has reverse interlinear tagging. 

German - 1.Lutherbibel 1984; 2.Lutherbibel 2017; Schlachter Bibel 2000 (see Jan's post)

Chinese - Chinese Union Version

Korean - New Korean Revised Version

Portuguese - Bíblia Almeida Revista e Atualizada

Edit:

Spanish - Reina Valera 1960

Posts 24568
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 5:09 AM

Hamilton Ramos:
And how about your favorite Greek NT?

1. The Greek New Testament: SBL Version (SBLGNT)

2. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Version (LGNTI:SBL)

Dave
===

Windows & Android

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 5:20 AM

To do the job you are trying to accomplish fully you need to use ones that use different base texts. Otherwise you may not be seeing differences in the text but differences in the minds of the translators.

In Old Testament studies you need to use both the Hebrew and the Greek texts.
That is Bibles based on: for example LHB or BHS SESB 2.0 for the Hebrew text and LXX Swete for the Greek text. Most are based on the Hebrew but ones based on the Greek are available [LXX].

In New Testament studies you need to use for example: the BYZ The Majority text, the SBLGNT the Critical text and the Scrivener 1881 the TR text. Both the Critical text translations and the TR translations are available but what Majority text translations are there? [I know of one but it is not in Logos]

[[And as others note: the translations need to be in a language you read, be in Logos, and have a Reverse Interlinear]]

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 7:48 AM

Thank you HJ for the info.

I have been trying to get web pages that list the best Bibles in French and Portuguese, and what comes up is interesting.

You are totally right about the interlinear capability, they are the ones that can faster yield wanted results.

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 7:52 AM

Thank you Dave.

I have to also look at how I can work with Theological Lexicons to aid in the gathering useful terms under a common concept thrust.

In Morris Proctor webinar, he also mentioned the capability of doing "phrase concordance" search doing right click, selecting the phrase and then selecting "search this resource" in the particular Bible.

Do you know of any resource that has "theological significant phrases" listed? 

In another thread, someone mentioned that by typing a word in Factbook, many times there are suggested phrases that can then be chosen for study.

Is there a "Theological significance Phrasebook" anywhere?

Thanks for your guidance / input on this ahead of time.

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 8:05 AM

Thank you David Arnes.

Excellent observations. To your knowledge is there any resource that clearly shows in a table the different base texts that each version is based on?

Differences in the mind of the translators may not be too bad, if what they touch upon is a different angle of the same concept.

I am no expert, but comparing in my native language (ES) the BTX with the RV1960, I find the BTX to be more exact in what I consider some key theological thrusts taking into consideration the "whole Counsel of God".

Majority text is good for comparison, but I do not know of a resource that compares key Biblical-systematic themes in light of the different base texts, to have a better appreciation of which aligns better with the whole.

https://www.logos.com/product/43990/modern-english-version

https://www.logos.com/product/2390/the-greek-new-testament-according-to-the-majority-text-with-apparatus

Have you had any experience in comparing key Biblical-systematic thrusts on different base texts, and Bible versions?

If so, what have you noticed?

Theoretically one could use something like:

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/167403/handbook-of-basic-bible-texts-every-key-passage-for-the-study-of-doctrine-and-theology

and then check the different versions of GNT, and the different Bible Versions in different languages to get a more rounded view.

 

Thanks ahead of time for your input. 

P.S.: I am not into polemics, I really enjoy encountering and trying to understand other angles in different key topics, I just believe that some of the standards as depicted above have to be met, to make a particular construct more of a correct conjecture given the available evidence than others.

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 2:00 PM

Hamilton Ramos:

Theoretically one could use something like:

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/167403/handbook-of-basic-bible-texts-every-key-passage-for-the-study-of-doctrine-and-theology

and then check the different versions of GNT, and the different Bible Versions in different languages to get a more rounded view.

Yes, and then look up each verse in all of the bibles in your library. That resource states that: "The text used is the highly readable and modern New International Version" Which is a translation of the Critical Text.    [Thanks for the link - bought a copy]   

[Now to see if I can digest the rest of your reply]

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 2:12 PM

Hamilton Ramos:

To your knowledge is there any resource that clearly shows in a table the different base texts that each version is based on?

To the best of limits of my knowledge:

The KJV, the NKJV, and the MEV are from the Hebrew OT and the TR NT  [but neither exactly follow the KJV text]

The ones that use the letters LXX have the Greek OT and may not have the NT 

The, not in logos, Apostles Bible has the Greek OT, same as the LXX and the Majority Text NT

Most, if not all, of the modern Bibles, after 1950, use the Hebrew OT and the Critical NT

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 3:07 PM

Hamilton Ramos:

Have you had any experience in comparing key Biblical-systematic thrusts on different base texts, and Bible versions?

If so, what have you noticed?

Back in December 2005 our pastor suggested that we read the Bible in a year. Having done that a few years before I decided to do it again.  [[Many do that every year and use a different version if they can find one that they have not used before]]

But I decided to bite off more, hopefully not more than I could chew.  So I read three at once.  KJV (Hebrew /  TR), NASB (Hebrew /  Critical), and the Apostles Bible (Greek LXX / Majority). [not in Logos]  I copied the text of all three into a word document file - side by side. I flagged every place where there was a difference.  I am still working on studies that started with my finding a difference.  May finish all the studies around 2099 or so so I do not yet have firm conclusions.    I have not even thought of performing the tests that you have listed.   

[[by the way I found that Exodus 36 to 40 does not line up between the Greek and Hebrew.  They basically say the same thing but not in the same order.  Someone's master scroll fell apart and they did a good job putting it back together. I printed out both versions one line per verse, cut them up, and matched every verse to the other version. After inputting the verse numbers that matched into a spreadsheet I can now read Ex 36 - 40 in either order: Greek or Hebrew.]]  

[[One side project that I am trying is to compare Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.  My very preliminary conclusion is that if the two do not agree and one agrees with the TR then the "scholars" take the other, the one that does not agree with the TR, as the correct reading.]]

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 22 2019 5:07 PM

Thank for your answers David Arnes.

Good info, will have to do some projects based on what you have described. Great ideas.

There is an article (a little long) but interesting in case you are interested:

Bible, Textual Criticism of the

 Weigelt, M. A. (1988). Bible, Textual Criticism of The. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 314). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

I am not sure how accurate it is, but seems to be informative enough to think about some issues.

Never thought of reading many Bibles at the same time, maybe I can try to do that with ones in other languages in addition to one that I can understand.

Or even better just go over the verses suggested in the Handbook of Basic Bible texts to have a more doctrinal approach.

Thanks for sparking my mind.

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 24 2019 2:17 PM

I have a problem with Textual Criticism.  

From Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible

 “Scholars agree that the Alexandrian is the best ancient text, on the whole, and that it reflects the original NT text from early in the 2nd century” 1

[1] Weigelt, M. A. (1988). Bible, Textual Criticism of The. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 318). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

 

I have read some of the books on Textual Criticism and searched others and found nothing on the effects of book burning.

 And have noticed that they talk a lot about getting the OLDEST that can be found.

 And then they pick as the top readings some that have been found in the care of the biggest book burner in history.

 But I have not yet been able to locate anything that an expert in Textual Criticism has said on the book burning and the availability of old manuscripts nor on the crusades that burned a city where very old manuscripts that that biggest book burner did not like might have been found.

 I don’t think there is such a writing.  One of the KEY assumptions of Textual Criticism seems to be that all readings that did exist would still be found today in very very old copies. [not copies of copies but the old ones themselves]  That is that the oldest found must be the first written,

 And as they do not seem to like the ones that were most likely to be burnt they do not want to admit that there was a selection being done by the deliberate burning of some texts that were unliked.

 Also the ground that very very old texts might have been buried in might have made a difference, the dry sand of Egypt or the wet ground of Constantinople. Dry sand preserves while wet ground rots all in it.  Nothing on Textual Criticism that I have seen covers the survivability rates of things buried in different places. [dry sand 3000 years.  wet ground ??? years.]

Just some of my personal problems with Textual Criticism. 

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 26 2019 5:28 PM

Interesting David Arnes, thanks for sharing.

Did you ever read of the supposed Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew? I think I read that a copy of it was found in a Jewish book, and they were trying to check it for inaccuracies, inconsistencies in relation to the OT, (as apologists), and found no contradictions with the thrusts of the OT?

There was a resource in Logos that had Gospel parallels, and the Gospel of the Ebionites (supposedly based on Hebrew Matthew) was there. And then all of a sudden without warning in an update, it disappeared.

Strange.

Note from the Net Bible Mt 28:19 follow:

28 tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275–88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.

 Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Mt 28:19). Biblical Studies Press.

It seems that some persons studying this have come to certain conclusions:

Taking into consideration Internal evidence:

1 no one was baptized in the Bible using the long formula

2 It is improbable that Peter disobeyed Jesus 10 days after the supposed long formula was prescribed.

3 none of the other Apostles in the Pentecost event voiced objection in he form of: "Yo Peter, that ain't what the Master said" [see Acts 2:38]

4 the long baptismal formula is of a liturgical type jargon, a style not used by Jesus.

5 no parallel passages in any of the other Gospels.

Then we have external evidence:

1 supposedly only the Didache and Justin Martyr mention the long formula (extra biblical sources do not make a doctrine binding).

2 Supposedly Eusebius was concerned that Athanasious was changing Scripture. (combatting Arianism at the time).

3 The Catholic Church has old baptismal records, and up to a time, the baptism was all as per Acts 2:38, then all of a sudden without explanation they switched to the long formula.

4 supposedly the Hebrew Matthew read: "... baptizing them in my Name"...  [which would jibe perfectly with Acts 2:38].

Based on the internal and external evidence, some persons studying this have thought that the long formula is spurious.

Not to polemicize, just to provide a venue for further research, reflection and comment as necessary.

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2019 6:23 AM

Quotes from prior post by:

Hamilton Ramos:
[[Comments on by me]]


Did you ever read of the supposed Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew?
[[Have seen reference to it somewhere but did not follow up on that]]


Note from the Net Bible Mt 28:19 follow:
[[Have seen this. The Net Bible is one on my list of must use Bibles for the notes within]]


Taking into consideration Internal evidence:
1 no one was baptized in the Bible using the long formula
[[The name Jesus may have been seen as the most important and that was the main difference from the baptism of John and was the rest assumed to have been said even though not mentioned?]]


Then we have external evidence:
1 supposedly only the Didache and Justin Martyr mention the long formula (extra biblical sources do not make a doctrine binding).
[[Nor does misinterpreting Biblical sources make a doctrine binding]]


3 The Catholic Church has old baptismal records, and up to a time, the baptism was all as per Acts 2:38, then all of a sudden without explanation they switched to the long formula.
[[See my comment on “no one was baptized” above. Were they saving ink or space on the page? We were not there at those baptisms. And the videos do not exist. ]]


4 supposedly the Hebrew Matthew read: "... baptizing them in my Name"... [which would jibe perfectly with Acts 2:38].
Based on the internal and external evidence, some persons studying this have thought that the long formula is spurious.


[[Arguing from lack of evidence? As is when did Mary’s Joseph die? He did not get much text when we know that he was alive.]]


[[All of the Greek texts that I have access to, Scrivener 1881, BYZ , SBLGNT , Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, list three persons although Google Translate shows Codex Sinaiticus as reading “in the name of Priest and Divine and Holy Priest”.]]

Not to polemicize, just to provide a venue for further research, reflection and comment as necessary.
[[Will have to add this to my long list of studies. But I think, based on all of the Greek Texts, that we are safe when we use the three names in a baptism. If we are wrong we can say that we saw that some few disagreed with what we were doing but we, wrongly, did not see their arguments as conclusive and God in his infinite mercy will forgive us.]]

[[Also found this: Epiphanius quotes the gospel used by the Ebionites a total of seven times. Most of his citations are of reasonable length, permitting us some insight into the nature of the document. It appears to have been harmonized, woven from traditions found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Johannine parallels are not found. Because of these characteristics, which distinguish it from the other Judaic-Christian gospels quoted by the Fathers, scholarship appears justified in positing a distinct document and designating it the “Gospel of the Ebionites.”1

[1] Petersen, W. L. (1992). Ebionites, Gospel of the. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 2, p. 262). New York: Doubleday.

Leading to the Question: did they have a different Matthew or just one that they shortened?]]

Posts 536
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2019 8:36 AM

Interesting points David Arnes.

Thanks for sharing.  If you find further relevant information please share.

Now I will post an excerpt for you to have more info so you can investigate better:

From Baptism in the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia:

"1. Origin and Practise

Conybeare has tried to prove that the original text of Matt. 28:19 did not contain the baptismal command or the Trinitarian formula, which were interpolated, according to him, at the beginning of the third century. But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary reading may be considered the original. Jesus, however, can not have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13–15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19 and then only again Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol., i, 61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord, which it otherwise considered the highest authority. Occurrences like those of Acts 19:1–7 ought to have shown that the prescribed formula of baptism could not have been shortened to “the name of the Lord Jesus,” if the character of baptism was to be retained as commanded. Judging from 1 Cor. 1:14–17, Paul did not know Matt. 28:19; otherwise he could not have written that Christ had sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Moreover, had it been known at the Apostolic Council, the missionary spheres could not have been so separated that Peter was recognized as the apostle of the circumcision, Paul and Barnabas as apostles of the heathen (Gal. 2:7–8); rather would the original apostles have claimed the universal apostolate for themselves. Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt. 28:19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. Nevertheless this baptismal command contains the elements which constitute Christian baptism; for the activity of the Son in baptism implies the immediate cooperation of the Father; and from the beginning Christian baptism has been considered the mediating agency of the Holy Spirit. Therefore while the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed, it must still be assumed that the later congregations recognized as the will of their Lord that which they experienced as the effect of baptism and traced it back to a direct word of Jesus."

 Jackson, S. M. (Ed.). (1908–1914). In The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge: embracing Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology and Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical biography from the earliest times to the present day (Vol. 1, p. 435). New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls.

According to certain groups, the importance of the Formula, is that being a pre-requisite to enter the New Covenant, God made clear that Peter was the authorized spokesperson for the birth of the new institution: The Church. 

If it is so, Acts 2:38 is the way God wants it done.

 Kind regards.

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 27 2019 11:24 AM

Search “baptize NEAR Jesus“ in Everything
Library: 17,345 hits in 5,231 articles in 1,533 resources
Personal books: 262, 91, 54
This may take a while.

Page 1 of 1 (20 items) | RSS