What is your favorite version of the Bible, and why?

[Osage Bluestem]

I tend to use the NRSV (the exact version I use is 'The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha')

as it's one of the more accurate translations, and comes with lots of handy notes etc.

Just a warning in case you care, the notes in that bible are based on a very sketptical approach to the bible and are written under the umbrella of the historical critical hermeneutic, which is the method of interpretation used by those "christians" who do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God It is also the hermeneutic used by athiest college professors to threat the bible as literature instead of the Word of God. The notes in that bible focus on the human side of the creation of the bible instead of the Divine side. If you want to see good God centered notes look into an NIV study bible or an ESV study bible.

 

[sunlover1]

As far as I'm concerned, it is!

Amen bro!
Every time i read the Bible i get so blessed LOL

 

[Mr Dave]

Just a warning in case you care, the notes in that bible are based on a very sketptical approach to the bible and are written under the umbrella of the historical critical hermeneutic, which is the method of interpretation used by those "christians" who do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God It is also the hermeneutic used by athiest college professors to threat the bible as literature instead of the Word of God. The notes in that bible focus on the human side of the creation of the bible instead of the Divine side. If you want to see good God centered notes look into an NIV study bible or an ESV study bible.

Thanks I was aware though. Biblical studies is half of my uni degree, so I'm used to this and reading the Bible in a religious light as well as a secular light (not atheist or agnostic, but without any such mindset, only an academic one).
The notes help explain some of the more obscure terminology, explain when the original languages are employing literary devices (puns, rhymes etc...) and post different verses which link various passages. I think this stuff is fascinating, but I would cos I choose to study it
One of the reasons I like this version is that it doesn't present the notes from any theological perspective but allows me to use what there is to think these things through for myself.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Thanks I was aware though. Biblical studies is half of my uni degree, so I'm used to this and reading the Bible in a religious light as well as a secular light (not atheist or agnostic, but without any such mindset, only an academic one).
The notes help explain some of the more obscure terminology, explain when the original languages are employing literary devices (puns, rhymes etc...) and post different verses which link various passages. I think this stuff is fascinating, but I would cos I choose to study it

Ok. I was just worried that you might be a new believer searching for God. I think that that particular version wouldn't be well suited for the spiritual well being of a new believer or any non academic person really.

 

[Mr Dave]

Ok. I was just worried that you might be a new believer searching for God. I think that that particular version wouldn't be well suited for the spiritual well being of a new believer or any non academic person really.

No worries, thanks for concern Nothing like a good bit of Christian fellowship and looking out for each other is there

 

[dies-l]

The Living Bible, and New Living Testament?

The Living Bible and the New Living Translation. Both take huge liberties in their "translation". The Living Bible is marketed as a paraphrase, so I don't mind it so much. The NLT is marketed as a viable translation, but is essentially still a paraphrase by committee, and I think that it is dishonest in calling itself a translation.

 

[dies-l]

Just a warning in case you care, the notes in that bible are based on a very sketptical approach to the bible and are written under the umbrella of the historical critical hermeneutic, which is the method of interpretation used by those "christians" who do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God It is also the hermeneutic used by athiest college professors to threat the bible as literature instead of the Word of God. The notes in that bible focus on the human side of the creation of the bible instead of the Divine side. If you want to see good God centered notes look into an NIV study bible or an ESV study bible.

Personally, I think people should stay away from all commentaries and "Study Bibles" until they are well versed in Scripture enough to apply a critical eye to the comments of the editors. I have the NOAB, the Harper Collins Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible, and I have found serious flaws and biases in each. All three have their strengths as well, especially for people who are critical enough in their thinking to understand the underlying biases.

Rather than a Study Bible or commentary, I would recommend for people who are delving into Scripture for the first time to find a basic hermeneutics book and learn the basics of interpretation before consulting any outside references.

Even for well-versed believers, I would never recommend using something the ESV Study Bible without also using something like the NOAB (or vice versa). When relying on outside sources to assist in the interpretation of Scripture, we should know the biases of the our sources and consult other sources with opposing biases (and know that all outside sources represent the biased opinion of a person or committee).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
Personally, I think people should stay away from all commentaries and "Study Bibles" until they are well versed in Scripture enough to apply a critical eye to the comments of the editors. I have the NOAB......

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the NOAB

 

[dies-l]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the NOAB

Sorry for the confusion. It's the New Oxford Annotated Bible. I used the abbreviation, because another poster had already mentioned it and it was the topic of the post I was responding to.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sorry for the confusion. It's the New Oxford Annotated Bible. I used the abbreviation, because another poster had already mentioned it and it was the topic of the post I was responding to.

Ahhhh.....thanks.
I did a google search and here is what one site had to say about it ....not that I put much credence in it

New Oxford Annotated Bible - Google Search=

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

The New Oxford Annotated Bible
(New Bible Translation Is Hit With Homosexual Activists)​

Summary: The New Oxford Annotated Bible reinterprets key portions of the Bible involving homosexuality and is now recommended reading by the promoters of sodomy in our culture.

 

[andross77]

I like (in order): HCSB, NASB, ESV, NKJV, NLT

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Even for well-versed believers, I would never recommend using something the ESV Study Bible without also using something like the NOAB (or vice versa). When relying on outside sources to assist in the interpretation of Scripture, we should know the biases of the our sources and consult other sources with opposing biases (and know that all outside sources represent the biased opinion of a person or committee).

I am extremely biased towards the Divine perspective of scripture and I will advocate that people read the bible as the Word of God and not the word of men.

 

[dies-l]

Ahhhh.....thanks.
I did a google search and here is what one site had to say about it ....not that I put much credence in it

New Oxford Annotated Bible - Google Search=

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

The New Oxford Annotated Bible
(New Bible Translation Is Hit With Homosexual Activists)​

Summary: The New Oxford Annotated Bible reinterprets key portions of the Bible involving homosexuality and is now recommended reading by the promoters of sodomy in our culture.

I don't put much credence into anyone who's main argument boils down to "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Mind you, I am not expressing an opinion on a certain controversial topic, just showing the lack of depth of argument of these people. Keep in mind also that this website is also devoted to tearing down all other translations that are not the KJV.

 

[dies-l]

I am extremely biased towards the Divine perspective of scripture and I will advocate that people read the bible as the Word of God and not the word of men.

I agree with that bias, but with all due respect, you are biased in other ways as well. So, am I. So, are the editors of every commentary and Study Bible known to man. It is part of being human (which is exactly why it's important that the Bible is not the mere words of man). The biggest problem that I see with the ESV Study Bible (as opposed to the others that I mentioned) is that, in many places, it treats its own biases as the definitive interpretation of the Word of God. OTOH, it does a very good job of presenting its own viewpoint along with opposing viewpoints, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each. This is helpful to a well seasoned believer who is able to apply critical reasoning. However, it can be confusing and even potentially deceptive for a new believer or an uncritical reader. I would suggest that the NOAB, Harper Collins, and other "liberal" Study Bibles have similar shortcomings, which is why I recommend that new and unseasoned believers stay away from all of them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't put much credence into anyone who's main argument boils down to "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Mind you, I am not expressing an opinion on a certain controversial topic, just showing the lack of depth of argument of these people. Keep in mind also that this website is also devoted to tearing down all other translations that are not the KJV.

I actually avoid the KJperV myself

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree with that bias, but with all due respect, you are biased in other ways as well. So, am I. So, are the editors of every commentary and Study Bible known to man. It is part of being human (which is exactly why it's important that the Bible is not the mere words of man). The biggest problem that I see with the ESV Study Bible (as opposed to the others that I mentioned) is that, in many places, it treats its own biases as the definitive interpretation of the Word of God. OTOH, it does a very good job of presenting its own viewpoint along with opposing viewpoints, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each. This is helpful to a well seasoned believer who is able to apply critical reasoning. However, it can be confusing and even potentially deceptive for a new believer or an uncritical reader. I would suggest that the NOAB, Harper Collins, and other "liberal" Study Bibles have similar shortcomings, which is why I recommend that new and unseasoned believers stay away from all of them.

I understand. However, I recommend them because I believe the notes are good and serve to instruct a new believer in Godlieness.

 

[sunlover1]

I actually avoid the KJperV myself

lol ... one of my favs

I understand. However, I recommend them because I believe the notes are good and serve to instruct a new believer in Godlieness.

How bout this: read em all.. enjoy the meat and spit out the bones!

I say this because God is so amazing in that He can even take 'bad' commentary
just as He can take secular ideas, and use them as a means to HIS ends.

 

[sunlover1]

Wait, I'm sorry LLOJ.
I think I misunderstood you to say KJV
(Thought you were playing on words
because of the "colorful" rumors about
King James.. and so the perV )
The version I was referring to was KJV
and NKJV... I have a feeling you meant
something else?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wait, I'm sorry LLOJ.
I think I misunderstood you to say KJV
(Thought you were playing on words
because of the "colorful" rumors about
King James.. and so the perV )
The version I was referring to was KJV
and NKJV... I have a feeling you meant
something else?

I was referring to the original KJV sis.
It does not render hebrew/greek words consistantly as does other versions.

For more accuracy, I would prefer the NKJV [or YoungLT].
Sorry if I wasn't clear

Edit to add:tho I wish the NKJV would have used the ye's, thou's, thine, etc...since it would show the singular and plural of words better me thinks.


http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

KJV) Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

NKJV) Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what [will be] the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Textus Rec.) Matthew 24:3 kaqhmenou de autou epi tou orouV twn elaiwn proshlqon autw oi maqhtai kat idian legonteV eipe hmin pote tauta estai kai ti to shmeion thV shV parousiaV kai thV sunteleiaV tou aiwnoV

 

[dies-l]

I understand. However, I recommend them because I believe the notes are good and serve to instruct a new believer in Godlieness.

And, I disagree with that belief, and I think that a Bible with a minimal amount extra material is far superior to a Study Bible for that purpose. But, hey, we aren't going to agree on everything and we've both said our peace. God bless you.