Which version of the bible?

For me the Authorised version takes a lot of beating but it's always good to have a paraphrase alongside.

I often joke that I am an ESV-onlyist. I would stay away from paraphrases and pick a translation that is written for a more basic reading level. Paraphrases are necessarily imprecise. I am also not a big fan of dynamic equivalence, especially at the cost of all literal rendering

When going through Greek and Romans classes, my Romans prof was an avid NIV user (Greek prof was ESV). But the NIV prof often stopped to say, this would be better rendered this way. He always said something almost identical to the ESV. I found that to be true repeatedly as I studied.

Part of its rendering was a joint effort of translators and English/literature professors working in conjunction. So while I have not found one that caused me pause, I would think the joint effort of these two groups might be a partial explanation for any stranger renderings.

It can be helpful, sort of

Its like a concordance. You can look up a word in Strong's and it lists all these ways the term is rendered, but some of them are contradictory. That's because the concordance lists terms in their lexical form. Its the root word. Like English, Hebrew and Greek have prefixes and suffixes that can affect term meaning and sometimes quite drastically. Unlike English, suffixes and prefixes are a little more common.

So, I would rather have an actual lexicon of original language and a commentary that addresses the original language than an AMP.

For folks who don't have the background in language, there are books like Mounce's Greek For the Rest of Us that can be handy to read and learn more about the word use.

Also, Vine's Expository Dictionary does a better than a concordance and is more approachable than a true lexicon.

Sorry - Looooong answer to a short question

There is an ambiguity in the original texts that Western minded folks don't generally think of or appreciate. Often, instead of an either/or situation, it is a both/and situation.

Unfortunately, translations into English do not handle this ambiguity well.

Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and I believe is a work of the Holy Spirit and does not well up within the individual. Faith of Christ sounds like an ideal, but ultimately unattainable until we are glorified and the Image of God fully restored.

Rather than the preposition alone, it would make me wonder if Christ's faith is completely analogous to ours? And what is the definition of faith? The English term implies an uncertainty to the word. Many have faith in many things.

Can we possess the same type of faith as the eternal Son? We walk by faith and not by sight, but he has seen the eternal Father and the glories of Heaven.

Thoughts to ponder and more fun than the monthly paperwork I must get done today.

I'm not sure I follow.

Give me some Scripture references. I want to follow your thought process from the Scriptures that describe this. I ask because usually I think of the Spirit living within me as opposed to the Son. So I want to follow your train of thought to better comprehend your point.

No worries. I fully appreciate how busy things are. I have a funeral this weekend. I am prepping to have my office insulated. And we are in the midst of hunting season which many families need to get by in the inter. Add to that I am prepping for my district rep to come, a missionary to visit and a ministry retreat for my family.

So you may respond in a timely fashion and find me late in reply.

Getting back to versions of the Bible for a moment, does anyone else have problems with the American version of the NIV? I keep trying to source a new copy since giving my old, much loved Hodder & Stoughton one to a work colleague recently and it seems the only ones available are written in American text. Nothing against Americans, but I find the use of words like "vault" instead of "expanse", in Genesis 1 and "rooster" instead of "cockerel" grate on me somewhat. Hope this doesn't make me sound like a snob or a racist...