The Amplified Bible

In an attempt to be all things to all people, this version does nothing well. Highly lamentable.

This is no critique of the Bible as such: the Word of God is great and powerful.

The Amplified Bible would attempt to be a generally formally equivalent, word-for-word translation, with many expansions of meanings and explanations written within the text itself.

There are a few times when this process genuinely works: the expansion/explanation works well within the text and provides some more clarity and extra dimensions where a straight formal translation might lead to vagary.

But for the most part the expansiveness creates complications. It is not always immediately apparent when the text is expanding and where it is not. It makes for a show more very hard to read translation: there is no flow or symmetry in the translation because of the expansions.

Most of the translation is defensible and the expansions and explanations within the text at least understandable. There are a few times when the translator makes highly questionable choices: preferring strange variants or choosing definitions more by preference than lexical likelihood. It is apparent that this was a New Testament version that later decided to append an Old Testament; the OT has far fewer expansions in many of its books, even in places where it might have been more helpful to have some. Certain Dead Sea Scroll notes are made; others are not; it is possible this is due to the fact that a lot of the information about the DSS was coming out around the same time as the translation itself.

If the translation itself is questionable, its notes, at least in this particular edition, are even more so. Most of the OT notes provide very little background to the text but seem to project a certain kind of mid-20th century anxiety about whether the reader is going to be able to really accept the inspiration of the text or not. To this end most of the notes are really quotes from various 19th and early 20th century expositors seeking to commend the historicity and inspiration of the text. The notes are very much a creature of that time and place. Some of them, as on the Kushites in Amos, are clearly prejudiced and of that time and place. The NT notes tend to reference the various lexical and exegetical sources the translator is using, and they very much are of that time and place, overly reliant on pre-20th century resources.

Perhaps this version had its time and place before the age of computing and easy access to multiple translations and other resources. It does fulfill one purpose: it demonstrates that a Bible translation/version cannot, and should not, try to be all things to all people. A Bible translation/version should not try to provide every or even many nuances of translation for any given verse or passage; it should give a straightforward reading, make notes about important variants, critical explanations, or certain idiomatic tendencies, and then leave the craft of nuance and providing greater depth and definition to the text to exposition. Consider, in contrast, the NET Bible with full notes: it is Mishnaic/Talmudic in perspective, with the notes well exceeding the text itself, in its attempt to provide that depth and definition.

This version should not be one's primary study Bible. This version might be a reference work to consider at times, but whatever one would gain from it can be seen by consulting a multiplicity of other versions. Not quite sure where the Amplified has value in our present context. show less

Note: The copy I read is the 1965 edition of the text.

First sentence: In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned,) and created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving, (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

This was my first time to read through the Amplified cover to cover. I read the New Testament last year. I skimmed the New Testament this time around. This is not the newest edition of the Amplified, but the first edition that published both Old and New Testaments together. I do not how know how this text edition differs to those published in the show more 80s and beyond.

The Amplified translation turned out not to be my favorite or best. I found it awkward at times--going a little too far. However, I tried to keep in mind the original audience(s) that would have only had the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version. I thought about how the translation might have helped bridge the gap in terms of understanding and comprehension. Probably most readers were not looking for a total and complete replacement, just an additional resource or aid for helping understand difficult passages. Maybe. That is pure speculation on my part. At the very least, I am reminded that translators wear the second hat of COMMENTATOR as well. It isn't always super obvious in most translations, but in the case of the Amplified that becomes clearer and clearer.

From the foreword: "Its intent is to progress beyond the point where the others have stopped. Its purpose is to reveal, together with the single word English equivalent to each key Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of translation. Now, possibly for the first time the full meaning of the key words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible....In a sense amplification merely helps the English reader comprehend what the Hebrew and Greek listener understood as a matter of course."

I do think as a resource on the side, it has its place. I found it tiresome to read Genesis to Revelation. show less

A useful tool for comparative study, no doubt. Still, there is the bent on translating original language terms so as to not upset traditional doctrine(s), rather than "amplifying" the fullest use of the word (appropriate to context). Having read the introduction I am convinced that in all sincerity this translation was conceived as an act of faith to promote Bible reading and comprehension.

a good "go to" bible, more than just a read threw like the NIV, but with actual and correct words that can correspond right back to the greek and hebrew. which helped (me at least) get an Ideal of what was originally written (unlike the JKV which i grew up with and now can not stand)

The Amplified Bible's approach of clarifying and expanding upon details of the translation using parentheses, brackets, dashes, italics, etc. should be taken up by publishers of other classic texts. This is the version of the Bible I've read more than any other. (I wore out a paperback copy of the Amplified New Testament before buying this copy, which has likewise been well-used and ill-treated.)

A fundamentally dishonest translation that, for example, doesn't indicate that the Gospel of Mark originally ended with verse 8 and that the rest was tacked on later.

beautiful bible, March 17, 2007 By William Ekhardt (Gamaliel, KY)

If you don't already know the Amplified Bible expands on regular English translations, by giving the full meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words from the original text. It's a great study tool, and helps the reader to better understand the exact meaning of the text.