If the OP wanted to buy a history book on a certain subject or period of time, it would make sense to take the advice of a historian on which book would be more accurate as opposed to someone who has a read a few books and making opionions based on what they think is correct.

So it cant really be possible for a non-believer or an athiest to have a legitement recommendation on which bible to buy.

lets ask an athiest which Bible a Christian should read.

I suppose many of the poster's ITT will not see the irony this.

First, the OP is not a christian.

Second, You thought that the KJV was 1800 years old, which is pretty insane.

Third, you thought that the Gideons would have a problem with you taking a bible from the hotel room, which is pretty hilarious considering their whole operation is pretty much to give bibles away.

First, I disagree. But, before I get to why, you're incorrectly assuming that all the people who are telling you that you are wrong are non-believers.

That being said, a non-believer can have a better understanding of the history of Biblical translations and which version was based on direct translations from earlier materials as opposed to ones that are translations of translations of translations. Its not a question of 'belief', its a question of which books most closely reflect the original texts. Its a scholarly question, not a question of faith.

I aslo Second everything that Melcher said above (demonstrates a surprising amount of information YOU are misinformed on, that alone, should make you question your authority on the subject. I mean... you're telling people a 400 year old edition has been around 1800 years?)

+1. I guarantee that there are many atheists out there that have a much greater understanding of the history of the bible.

No. This is why I have about 8 in my home and often do translation myself.

Not to worry, the Holy Spirit speaks all languages and will enlighten in the true study of any version.

I like the NAB because it was done from the most ancient manuscripts where possible directly into modern vernacular American English and the New Jerusalem because it has kick-ass footnoting and scholarship.

Praxising have you ever come across any major discrepancies?

Not sure what you mean. Do you have an example?

I have done a little translating and i have come across two bibles that have said something completely opposite of one an other. It wasn't a major one, it was like clothes on / clothes off type of thing and most the words were the same. It might have been a typo or something. Just wondering if you have ever come across something like this but on a bigger scale.

lol nvm i realize were talking two different things. i meant comparing, not translating. sorry.

OK, here I am , what is the question about Qur'an here?

why is there only 1 version.

According to the Islamic tradition, Muhammad was illiterate. So, as he was receiving the revelations in a piecemeal fashion (over 23 years), he was telling them to his companions. Some of these companions took the task of memorizing and/or writing the verses. After the death of Muhammad, in the immediately following period of the first Caliph Abu Bakr (who was the best friend and the most trusted companion of Muhammad), Muslims got worried about the possibility of losing the revelations when a large number of original companions lost their lives in a battle.

So, Abu Bakr ordered the companions to collect the revelations. These collected revelations were later edited and produced in the book form during the time of the third Caliph Uthman (another companion of Muhammad). If I am remembering correctly there were four identical Qur'ans produced in this fashion originally, and Uthman ordered these copies to be sent to the major administrative centers of the Empire. After that, these books were copied and reproduced further, and these books are essentially identical to the Qur'an which Muslims read today.

Since there are actual verses in the Qur'an saying that Qur'an is an "Arabic Qur'an", only the Arabic versions are considered Qur'an (meaning that although for Muslims who do not know Arabic, it is permissible to read it in translation to understand what it says, for liturgical purposes and for the ritual prayers all the Muslims still have to recite the Arabic original, which did not change in the past fourteen centuries).

Cheers