Choosing a bible translation?

Reep said:

Thanks for the link, I'll have a bit of reading to do later.
I think what I was stuck on, is tradition vs. modern. I would prefer something more traditional, but also I would rather have something (at this point) that is easier to understand, which means a more modern translation.

Click to expand...

You could just get a Parallel Bible: they have 4 translations in one and it's side-by-side so you can compare.

Is there a book in the bible you are stuck on?
I find it helpful, when I was first starting to get into reading the bible, to read the childrens versions. To have a general idea of the gist of what I was reading.

Theres some good sound ones around esp with pictures in them so you can see what it was like in bible times.
I would always go back to KJV though cos its the easiest to memorize. The actual words. For example, the Lords prayer, when we recite it as most churches do together, i find myself always saying the words to the KJV version even though others might say it differently according to their translation they are using.

I think the issue with modern versions is for people that probably lisp and cant actually say 'thee' or 'thou'

Reep said:

Thanks for the link, I'll have a bit of reading to do later.
I think what I was stuck on, is tradition vs. modern. I would prefer something more traditional, but also I would rather have something (at this point) that is easier to understand, which means a more modern translation.
Thanks again.

Click to expand...

This is what leads people to use more than one, and also leads to liturgy using a different translation than you use for private reading. It depends upon what you mean by traditional. With Catholics it could be D-R, but if King James strikes you as traditional, the RSV 2nd Edition (probably in the form of the Common English Bible, since it includes the D-C books) isn't a bad compromise. The scholarship is relatively recent (though not the same as NRSV), and it is a bit closer to the KJV tradition -- particularly in treatment of gender.

Reep said:

Thanks for the link, I'll have a bit of reading to do later.
I think what I was stuck on, is tradition vs. modern. I would prefer something more traditional, but also I would rather have something (at this point) that is easier to understand, which means a more modern translation.
Thanks again.

Click to expand...

The older versions such as the King James tend to follow the original more closely and are more helpful for careful study.

Some ppl prefer newer versions for the flow of narrative, to get the general idea of events described.

Reep said:

A few of the thrift stores nearby give bibles away, so I have a few translations now. I'm reading the NIV currently and don't feel as guilty by using a highlighter and pen on it (since it was free), but also have a rather beautiful looking NKJV.

I was getting hung up on tradition vs better understanding what is said. For now I'll stick with the more modern versions, however I'm also constantly on bible gateway comparing translations.

Click to expand...

If you can read the small typeface in the thrift store versions, you do well! I have to read a larger print edition these days.

Reep said:

The NIV I picked up is actually large print. They had about 20-30 they received from a church, all large print. The NKJV isn't too bad either but not large print. The bibles really vary here at the thrift stores (especially our bible thrift store). They even receive ones in Ukrainian, German, Dutch and Polish.

Click to expand...

Oh good. I do struggle with the smaller print these days, anyway. Maybe I was thinking of the dollar store versions.
So do you read any of those languages as well?

Reep said:

I do quite a bit of reading so I suspect sooner or later I'll need glasses for reading.
I only read in English. I only know a understand certain words in German, French, Croatian and Polish but cannot actually speak them.

Click to expand...

I think if a passage such as John chapter 1 (particularly the first 18 verses) is read, the language is very clear and familiar in any case and in another language, when read over and over you would be surprised at how quickly the word patterns can be followed and absorbed.

I find that if a person from overseas hears a verse in his or her language they will often open up to conversation.

hedrick said:

This is what leads people to use more than one, and also leads to liturgy using a different translation than you use for private reading. It depends upon what you mean by traditional. With Catholics it could be D-R, but if King James strikes you as traditional, the RSV 2nd Edition (probably in the form of the Common English Bible, since it includes the D-C books) isn't a bad compromise. The scholarship is relatively recent (though not the same as NRSV), and it is a bit closer to the KJV tradition -- particularly in treatment of gender.

Click to expand...

I do appreciate the King James for many reasons, anyway.

Reep said:

I've spent the past couple of weeks trying to figure out which bible translation I should read, as I want to start reading the bible daily, but I'm still stumped! While I am a Catholic, I have also been questioning if I'm one for the right reasons (another post for another day I suppose).

Currently at home I have KJV, RSV and RSV-CE (missing pages though). My Catholic friends I've talked to say without question, Douay-Rheims is THE bible to read, although I'm uncertain as others claim it's difficult to understand. I've contacted a few Catholic churches who have suggested the NIV (which they use), another suggested either the NRSV-CE or the New Jerusalem Bible Catholic Edition to start off with. According to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the NRSV (non-CE?) is the approved version in Canada.

I won't ask which is the best translation (as that is subjective, and prone to long debates), however I am curious as to which translation(s) you read (Catholics or non-Catholics) and why/how you chose it. (I'm not overly crazy about modern translations, simply because of the inclusive language).

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, I wasn't quite sure where it belongs.

Click to expand...

Try looking at the Orthodox Study Bible. As a Catholic, you will like it because it contains all of the Deuterocanonical books. The Old Testament translation is based on the Greek Septuagint, which is also accepted by the Catholic Church (the Douay-Rheims is based on Jerome's translation of an old Hebrew text and should be complementary for you). The New Testament is NKJV.

There is also a new compendium out called The Classic Orthodox Bible, which has the same books but uses the KJV for the New Testament and a 19th century KJV-style translation of the Septuagint by Brenton. I haven't bought it yet myself, but would like to.

You will find all of the books in the Roman Catholic canon in either of these. The only difference will be that the Orthodox Old Testament contains a couple more books than the Roman Catholic (e.g. 3 Maccabees). To my knowledge, all of the footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible pertain to pre-schism patristic writings, so I don't think you would find anything theologically objectionable.

Personally, I think the NRSV and NIV are terrible, for the reasons you cite and more. To my knowledge, they are not recommended in the Orthodox Church at all. In the U.S., most clergy will recommend the KJV first, then maybe the RSV, mostly for the New Testament; and then the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament.

Goodbook said:

Haha well archaic words dont bother me. God can be archaic if He wants to be.
The worst translation Ive come acrosss is The Message, which is not even, a real translation just a paraphrase and got all sorts of hokey americanisms and new age fluff in it. It was trying to be modern.
Then theres LOLcat bible.

Youd have to know a bit of lolcat to make sense of it.
I found NIV had bits missing, or they put it in tiny footnotes at the bottom.

Best advice is ask God which one to read and He will show you. He will.

Click to expand...

I agree,

the message, and others should be called paraphrases, which is what they are. Not Translations, or Holy Bibles. They are simply commentary on what a translation is interpreted as and the interpretations of such legitimate translations.

Reep said:

I've spent the past couple of weeks trying to figure out which bible translation I should read, as I want to start reading the bible daily, but I'm still stumped! While I am a Catholic, I have also been questioning if I'm one for the right reasons (another post for another day I suppose).

Currently at home I have KJV, RSV and RSV-CE (missing pages though). My Catholic friends I've talked to say without question, Douay-Rheims is THE bible to read, although I'm uncertain as others claim it's difficult to understand. I've contacted a few Catholic churches who have suggested the NIV (which they use), another suggested either the NRSV-CE or the New Jerusalem Bible Catholic Edition to start off with. According to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the NRSV (non-CE?) is the approved version in Canada.

I won't ask which is the best translation (as that is subjective, and prone to long debates), however I am curious as to which translation(s) you read (Catholics or non-Catholics) and why/how you chose it. (I'm not overly crazy about modern translations, simply because of the inclusive language).

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, I wasn't quite sure where it belongs.

Click to expand...

I would stray from RSV, and go with ESV.

I personally like the majority text translations, like the KJV, and NKJV. But ESV is actually one of the better literal translations from the alexandrian families. And it's a worthy translation with many great scholars behind it. I simply think the alexandrian texts are questionable as to their authenticity, such as the fraudulent claims of some of the texts behind codex sinaiticus.

I use the ESV these days

I use the New American Bible and the Douay Rheims
have you read the KJV? if you can understand that style of writing then you can understand the Douay-Rheims translation, they came out about the same time
I think the New Testament of the Douay Rheims came out even before the KJV

I use the ESV for multiple reasons. One, it's the translation used in the Divine Service for the LCMS. Two, it is largely word for word rather than thought for thought. Third, it is conservative and doesn't seek to change the Scriptures in order to be gender inclusive. The ESV, as far as I'm aware, is used in the Catholic Liturgy in Australia. There is a version containing the Deuterocanon printed by Oxford University Press.

Ashes of Eden said:

The ESV, as far as I'm aware, is used in the Catholic Liturgy in Australia. There is a version containing the Deuterocanon printed by Oxford University Press.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was not aware a Catholic edition ESV existed.

Patrick Bateman said:

I use the NASB as it's the most accurate and literal word-for-word English translations. ESV is a close second.

Click to expand...

I really like my ESV for every day reading, I am also a big fan of my NASB.

abysmul said:

I really like my ESV for every day reading, I am also a big fan of my NASB.

Click to expand...

I started out on a KJV. Bought an ESV Study Bible and preferred the translation to read before even considering accuracy.

The NASB, I feel, reads quite similarly to the ESV.