Which Bible Translation is Best?

[Shropshire Anglican]

Thoughts?

 

[crishmael]

I tend to think the one people will read is best for them. My own personal preference if for either NIV and NRSV, though I have been reading the NIV less and less.

 

[DailyBlessings]

My preferred edition, and the one I most often used when in seminary, is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's NRSV, but loaded with useful commentaries and explanations, and includes the apocrypha revered by all of the various Eastern and African churches in addition to the Western canon.

 

[Jase]

I'm not particularly a fan of any of the English translations, as I believe they all have corruptions in them. Maybe the NRSV, although I usually read the NIV even though I disagree with much of it.

 

[Merlin Athrawes]

I'm a bit of an Anglogeek so my favorite version is the New English Bible (the original 1970s version; I had a REB for a few years but it got lost in one of my moves). (eta: @DailyBlessings: I have a New Oxford Annotated NRSV too and like reading it sometimes, for the same reasons you do.)

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

In general I favor the ESV and the TNIV. (Maybe the new 2011 NIV will be a worthy successor to the NIV and TNIV -- we shall see.) For study, I like to balance the ESV and TNIV against each other. For casual reading, I like the NLT and The Message. I hear nothing but good about the New Jerusalem Bible, but I don't have one yet.

I'm a bit of an Anglogeek so my favorite version is the New English Bible (the original 1970s version; I had a REB for a few years but it got lost in one of my moves). (eta: @DailyBlessings: I have a New Oxford Annotated NRSV too and like reading it sometimes, for the same reasons you do.)

I also have a REB and NEB, and I like them a lot. NRSV too, also good, very similar to the ESV.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I tend to favor the NIV. I went to a Christian elementary school growing up and they requested that each student had their own copy of that version. So that's what I grew up studying and naturally held onto it after elementary school. I appreciate just about any translation that's in contemporary language. For me, the KJV feels a bit pretentious in our post modern culture.

But as someone already said, it's kind of a "to each their own" situation. If you benefit the most by reading the KJV, then more power to you. If you prefer the NASB, NLT or TNIV—anything really, then that's great.

 

[rayodeluz]

I posted the following on another forum and though it applicable for this thread:

In a perfect world we’d all be fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and we’d all have copies of the original scriptures rather than translations. But the vast majority of us rely on some form of translation, and sometimes it’s not entirely accurate or is confusing in regards to the original scripture. I don’t have the links here, but I’ve seen sermons where the preacher goes back to a specific scripture of the original Greek or Hebrew, compares it to the KJV translation, and then shows how and why the KJV is not exactly precise in interpreting the original scripture. There are no doubt plenty of sources out there where persons who’re interested in this can check it out for themselves. I’m not saying the KJV is bad by any means, and it’s the best English translation we have, but there are times I’ll be confused after reading certain passages because they’re not that clear to me, and as we’ve discussed earlier people will interpret scripture differently. I can give an example of each case; a scripture that caused me confusion from the KJV itself, and the other of changing the meaning of scripture from the KJV to newer English versions.

Below are two version of Romans 3: 21 – 22.

King James Bible: But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference

New International Version:But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Note that the KJV says faith of Jesus Christ, while the NIV says faith in Jesus Christ. These are two entirely different things, and has sparked some debate about what it should really be (check out this site http://www.holybible.com/resources/Trinitarian/article_474_8.htm). Faith of Jesus means we’re talking about Jesus’ faith, not ours. Faith in Jesus means we’re talking about our faith. It’s a great example of how the Bible get interpreted differently, and in this case it’s all because the word “of” was changed to “in.”

As for scripture not being exactly clear, let’s go to verses 5 and 6 Psalm 84: Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

Most Christians, especially new ones, will have no clue what is the valley of Baca, and I understand it has been interpreted in different ways. What I’ve been taught is that the valley of Baca means “valley of sorrow.” The word “Baca” means nothing to me, but I can understand “sorrow.” I wouldn’t have had a clue about that using the KJV unless someone explained it to me. Spanish speakers probably wouldn’t have a problem though. I have a Spanish version of the Bible, and it uses “valle de lagrimas.” Lagrimas is the Spanish word for tears, as in crying, so in this case the Spanish version is more accurate and very clear.

Maybe somebody may have a different interpretation, but basically what I learned what these verses are saying is that the valley means the trials and tribulations we go through in life. We are blessed and God will always get us through them if we put our strength in Him. It's very hard to come to that understanding using the KJV.

The Bible is truly an amazing book, and we can’t read it like we do a newspaper, magazine, or novel. If we do then we miss a lot. We need to go a lot deeper into what’s really being said, and there is so much to it that it’s impossible to get to know it all in this lifetime. And we’ll continue to debate and discuss what’s the true meaning of certain scripture and what isn’t. I’m not going to worry if I don’t get everything right because I know I won’t. It’s not possible. To this day debates continue. We can and should discuss and debate scripture as we will all have our own opinions, but the one clear thing, the one that’s most important, the one that every Christian can and should agree on, and the one that saves us and ensures eternal life, is faith in Jesus Christ. If nothing else that’s the one message that needs to get out about our faith. Spread the message.

 

[hedrick]

For people who read this group, I'd think one of the choices would be clear: For serious study you want a formal equivalent translation, and the normal one for scholars is the NRSV. Conservatives might prefer one of several others, such as NIV or ESV, both of which are fine translations. But the NRSV follows principles that would typically be more congenial to readers here. I will say however that the use of gender-neutral wording can be a disadvantage at times. I don't think it makes sense to seriously reword a passage just to avoid using a generic 'he". I don't think the NRSV gets the meaning wrong in those places, but I think it's a mistake to resort to looser translations for ideological reasons in a formal equivalence translation, whether it is maintaining consistency between OT and NT (NIV) or gender-neutral language (NRSV). (From it's description it looks like the next edition of the NIV may combine the disadvantages of both.)

The NET translation is also worth considering, particularly for the footnotes, although the Oxford Annotated Bible has fairly useful notes for the NRSV. Despite coming from a conservative group, the principles behind the translation seem more consistent with my views than other conservative translations.

Many people find that it's also useful to have a less literal translation, when you are trying to read for the sense and not looking at detailed wording. There are a number of good translations of that kind. I like the REB and TEV, but others will have other preferences.

 

[hedrick]

IFaith of Jesus means we’re talking about Jesus’ faith, not ours.

If you read it this way, a better translation would probably be faithfulness of Christ.

 

[chrisnu]

For the New Testament and the Apocrypha, I prefer the NRSV, and often compare passages with the ESV. For the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, I prefer the New Jewish Publication Society translation (in the Jewish Study Bible).

 

[DailyBlessings]

My favourite Greek version is the Nestle-Aland, incidentally. I wish I knew Hebrew, so I could read the OT the same way.

 

[Ramy Louis]

I read the Arabic one and some verses and topics from a one called the new American Bible, it was the same meaning, I just read the Arabic one as a habit.

 

[Shropshire Anglican]

Some great choices! I like the NRSV, the ESV, NIV and the KJV. I also look at the Good News and NCV sometimes.

 

[JTornado1]

My personal favorite is the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version. I also like the Ronald Knox version, the ASV of 1901, and the NASB 1977 edition.

 

[eyeofthestormministries]

The two main translations that I use are the NIV and the Amplified Bible. The NIV bible I preach and study from the most. The Amplified Bible I enjoy for study as well as it brings extra meaning to scriptures.

God bless,

Pastor Michael

 

[lismore]

I like the NIV. I sometimes read the Wycliffe version, I love Ye Olde English

 

[dbakerman76]

I use the NET and the JPS translation of the Tanakh.

 

[hedrick]

I'm a bit surprised at the prevalence of NIV usage in this group. Of course I'm aware that it is very widely used in general, with good reason. It's got fairly good textual criticism behind it, and is in general a good quality translation. But there are definite conservative preferences in the translation, particularly in conforming the OT to the NT, such as Is 7:14. I'm curious why a liberal would use it in preference to the NRSV, which has similar advantages but tends to take liberal preferences in the few cases where it matters. Is it because of the slightly freer wording in the NIV? (Using JPS for the OT is less surprising.)

I'm disappointed in how little use the REB seems to get. It's just as scholarly as the NRSV, but I think is a better read. I wonder if part of it is lack of publicity, not to mention that fact that a lot of the editions seem to be out of print.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm a bit surprised at the prevalence of NIV usage in this group. Of course I'm aware that it is very widely used in general, with good reason. It's got fairly good textual criticism behind it, and is in general a good quality translation. But there are definite conservative preferences in the translation, particularly in conforming the OT to the NT, such as Is 7:14. I'm curious why a liberal would use it in preference to the NRSV, which has similar advantages but tends to take liberal preferences in the few cases where it matters. Is it because of the slightly freer wording in the NIV? (Using JPS for the OT is less surprising.)

I'm disappointed in how little use the REB seems to get. It's just as scholarly as the NRSV, but I think is a better read. I wonder if part of it is lack of publicity, not to mention that fact that a lot of the editions seem to be out of print.

Well, you can discount me from the sample if you want since I don't self-indentify as a liberal. I'm conservative, even fundamentalist, on core doctrines, but liberal on some less central matters, with strong Emergent sympathies. It just happens that I've been a WWMC member for years and years, mostly because I like the company.

The ESV is my main Bible, and it's very similar to the NRSV, just with a slight conservative evangelical and Reformed slant, both of which I know well and can easily mentally compensate for.

I prefer the TNIV over the 1984 NIV. Haven't made up my mind yet about the 'new and improved' 2011 NIV.

I do like the REB, and its predecessor, the NEB. But those British editions are not well known in the USA.

P.S.: I carried an NEB to church today.