New Year's Resolution: Bible read through
I assume that many of you who visit this blog read the Bible faithfully. Perhaps many of you read it through each year. I think that one of the best New Year's resolutions one can make is to read the Bible through in a year. Several plans are available, including ones recently described on the ESV Bible blog.
Today Lingamish blogged on his adventures in reading the Bible through in a year.
I'm curious: IF you resolve to read the Bible through in 2007, which version will you mostly likely read? I'll post a new survey for you to answer that question.
Today Lingamish blogged on his adventures in reading the Bible through in a year.
I'm curious: IF you resolve to read the Bible through in 2007, which version will you mostly likely read? I'll post a new survey for you to answer that question.
posted by Wayne Leman at 9:57 AM
16 Comments:
Howdy, Wayne.
The last year has been interesting as I have read through the Bible devotionally. I have switched versions about six times during the course of the year. For a long while I used ESV, then GW, then NAS, then back to ESV, back to GW, and now NRSV... Some days I would read it in one version then read 2-3 others just to compare.... You think I could make up my mind????
Anyway, I recently purchased a TNIV Bible, so I will begin the new year with that. My goal is to stay longer with it, and supplement it with other translations as time allows.
Rich
Thank you for encouraging others to read the Bible through this coming year. It is an item I have done for many years, and encourage all my students to do simply to maintain their walk. Many have related to me that growth in their relationship with the Lord and the strength of His Spirit in their lives to be obedient has multiplied through reading through. His Word is alive and brings life to us.
I read your blog faithfully -- rarely leave a comment. I am a Bible teacher but not a linguist. So I read and learn.
Thank you for your diligence to blog.
Blessings,
Iris
Somewhat irregularly I follow a yearly reading scheme. I always intend to do it every year and have even planned which translation to use in which year. Unfortunately events sometimes prevent me from getting on with the scheme. The thought has been on my mind for several months that 2007 is one of those years when I commit to following that plan. Until reading this blogpost I hadn't given any thought to which translation I would read from; maybe God's Word, which I bought recently, or CEV, which I prefer, or NLT, which I've only dipped into, or even NJB, which has good typography. Looking at my plan I was annoyed to find that I'd selected the ESV for 2007. Those who know me from other translation discussions will be well aware of my complete dislike (utter hatred) of literal translation. However, I'll go with the ESV; many many years I read the RSV text through in one year.
The yearly reading scheme I use is from Campaign for World Revival and based on The Chronological Bible edited by Edward Reese. It is similar but not indentical to the chronological scheme sugested on teh ESV blog. CWR has published some other yearly schemes: one featuring major characters and another on the life of Christ. I had them on my plan (using the NLT and JB respectively) wasn't going to use them but now I will to give some savour against the ESV.
I'm going to try to do this in 2007. I'll be using NRSV.
The list of translations, while likely not intentionally chosen this way, says a great deal about the weltschaung of this blog's community.
No Catholic translation (unless one considers the NRSV a Catholic translation, which is a bit of a stretch).
No Jewish translation.
No Septuagint (Orthodox) option.
No translation before 1960 (except for the KJV.)
No non-US translation (except for the KJV) -- some translations, such as the NIV, claim to be "international", although they are clearly US-dominated.
And needless to say, no option for original languages (or any non-English language).
The list of translations, while likely not intentionally chosen this way, says a great deal about the weltschaung of this blog's community.
You're right and it's my error. I should have listed others such as those you suggested. I grew up in an evangelical environment but have been chafing at some of the boundaries which have been set within it. So I've been trying to widen my boundaries without giving up what is precious to me.
At least I did get a Jewish translation and two Catholic ones in the list of translations in this blog's margin when I set up this blog. I should remember that I can't trust my memory to remember more complete lists. I forget, therefore I am. Sigh! Sometimes it is difficult to be human.
Actually most of the Bibles listed have been published in an Anglicised edition, and there were British scholars on the translation committees for most of them. And the list includes almost all the versions currently popular among British evangelicals. So as an evangelical Brit I don't feel left out by this selection.
NIV
Happy New Year!
I've been reading The Bible in 90 Days (NIV) and have been enjoying a bit brisker read ... done in 2 more months.
I'll be using the TNIV, although I'll probably switch editions part way through the year as I'll be on a three-month sabbatical leave in England from mid-April and will be hoping to find an Anglicised edition, if such a thing exists yet.
Oh, the plan I follow is here.
Anonymous wrote:
The list of translations, while likely not intentionally chosen this way, says a great deal about the weltschaung of this blog's community.
No Catholic translation (unless one considers the NRSV a Catholic translation, which is a bit of a stretch).
No Jewish translation.
No Septuagint (Orthodox) option.
No translation before 1960 (except for the KJV.)
No non-US translation (except for the KJV) -- some translations, such as the NIV, claim to be "international", although they are clearly US-dominated.
And needless to say, no option for original languages (or any non-English language).
Since the question was about translations, I did not mention that I use the Greek (NT and LXX) and Hebrew in my studies and preparation for preaching/teaching, and therefore it didn't seem germaine to the topic at hand.
Also, regarding the other translations, I also have and use many others: TNK (1985 from JPS), Rheims, KJV, Moffatt, Beck, REB (including Apocrypha), RSV (including Apocrypha), Williams, NLT, NLT2, Vulgate, NET, New Jerusalem Bible, TEV, CEV, etc.
Because I teach/preach in several contexts, I have to adapt to what the local congregation uses. My devotional reading of translations reflects my desire to expand my translation horizons within that context. That does not mean that I (or I suspect others, as well) do not appreciate or read the other translations.
I've recently added the HCSB and NLT2 translations to my bookshelf and will probably choose one of those for a new read-through of the Bible. Our church has standardized on the NLT2. I'm looking forward to reading through the HCSB after years with the NASB.
I'm currently reading through the NT of the TNIV and the OT of the HCSB (whose NT I have already read). But the way the poll is worded, it asks what I'd read straight through, and if I had to do that I'd pick something that I haven't yet started to read systematically. That would probably be the NET.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Does anyone know where a person could get the yearly reading scheme that Trevor mentioned. He said it was from from the Campaign for World Revival and based on The Chronological Bible edited by Edward Reese. I Googled this and can't find it. I already have a KJV so don't want to purchase the Reese Chronological Bible. Please e-mail me at bob@academicsupport.net. Thanks!
Bob, the reading scheme I sugested can be purchased from CWR (as they now call themselves) as Cover to Cover: Through the Bible as it Happened
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home