Recommend Bible Version

strelok0017

_______
Sep 23, 2011
4,760
225
✟13,640.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) is teaching some wrong things. I still stand with ESV and KJV of course. KJV is faithful to the heart and ESV mostly also but fits my taste more. Thou shalt have at least one ESV Bible! And all the people said: "Amen!" :muahah:
 
Upvote 0

bach90

Evangelical Catholic
Feb 4, 2011
446
19
USA
✟8,183.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I always end up back at the KJV. Easy to read (short sentences, monosyllabic words...once you get past the thees and thous which aren't that tough and a few vocab words). The prose in Luke is unmatched in the KJV.

Charlton Heston on the KJV King James Bible - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

ZaidaBoBaida

When do I stop being a Newbie?
Jul 17, 2012
1,962
631
Right Here
✟50,680.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) :muahah:

Exactly what do you think that NLT and NIV got wrong? I'm not saying they didn't get anything wrong (especially NLT), but I'm just wondering. Or do you just object to who some of the translators are?

I used NASB from when I was in college until just a couple of years ago. Then, I learned about the deliberate mistranslation of the person mentioned in Romans 16:7. NASB and ESV both mistranslate to make the person of Junia appear to be male - even masculinizing her name into Junias a form of the name that did not exist at the time of Paul. You won't often hear me say anything nice about King James, but at least they translated her name correctly. Anyway, when I learned about the mistranslation I started wondering what else did they mistranslate to try and make scripture fit their doctrinal stances instead of fitting their doctrine to what scripture actually said?

Then, I read an article where NT Wright said there was actually a big dust-up during the translation of the 2011 edition of the NIV over whether or not to correctly translate Romans 16:7 (the 1984 edition mistranslates it) , and that they finally did the right thing. So, I briefly switched to NLT while I waited for the 2011 NIV to become widely available. So far, I'm pretty happy with it.
 
Upvote 0

bach90

Evangelical Catholic
Feb 4, 2011
446
19
USA
✟8,183.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) is teaching some wrong things. I still stand with ESV and KJV of course. KJV is faithful to the heart and ESV mostly also but fits my taste more. Thou shalt have at least one ESV Bible! And all the people said: "Amen!" :muahah:

I will occasionally consult the ESV. I think it's accurate, but very flat and stilted. There's also a tendency to focus on obedience and there's some inclusive language (which is not always bad...it's just that the ESV tries to make the claim that they avoided inclusive language). When I don't use the KJV, I'll have the NKJV or NRSV. Even though the NRSV has inclusive language, the footnotes will at least tell you the original Greek translation and the language of the NRSV is pretty nice. Also like the KJV, there isn't one overarching theological bias, the ESV has a definite reformed slant with all the obedience language and the NASB has a different dispensational slant. (The KJV has a tendency to insist on an Episcopal polity which I don't see as a major issue).

To me the ESV seems more like a touch up job of the RSV rather than a new translation.
 
Upvote 0

ZaidaBoBaida

When do I stop being a Newbie?
Jul 17, 2012
1,962
631
Right Here
✟50,680.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The first time I saw ESV I actually wondered if it was NASB re-released with a new name.

As for any other glaring mistakes, I've got some little nitpicky ones. But, the Junia thing was big enough to make me wonder what else they'd mistranslated that I just don't know about it.

My issue with King James is more that the biggest most obnoxious, take scriptures out of context, hateful, bibilically ignorant loudmouths all seem to use King James. The folks at Westboro Baptist Church use King James as an example. I have a co-worker who thinks there's a gospel of Paul - she uses King James. I know someone else who honestly thought that King James was the original language scripture was in.

Re: Inclusive Language - I don't have a problem with it because language changes. As long as they're not doing silly things like changing it to "Our parent...." instead of "Our father..." Besides, always using the masculine form is a real stumbling block to some women coming to faith, and the scripture says not to stumble other people in their faith.
 
Upvote 0

L0NEW0LF

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
Jul 20, 2012
298
9
✟8,018.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The only English Bible translation that I can and will recommend for primary use is the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Version.

The following 12 point test and correct spellings will tell whether or not you have a PCE KJV:

1. "or Sheba" NOT "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2
2. "sin" NOT "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Job 33:4
4. "whom ye" NOT "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16
5. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24
6. "flieth" NOT "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16
7. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Matthew 4:1
8. "further" NOT "farther" in Matthew 26:39
9. "bewrayeth" NOT "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73
10. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Mark 1:12
11. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in Acts 11:28
12. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8

Correct spellings such as "inquire" and not "enquire," "rasor" and not "razor," "expences" and not "expenses," "counseller" and not "counsellor," and "ancle" and not "ankle" should be present. Also, "Geba" and not "Gaba" in Ezra 2:26 and "spirit" and not "Spirit" in Acts 11:12.

The Pure Cambridge Edition is widely considered the final and true edition of the King James Version. For more information on the PCE KJV, you can visit a website called bibleprotector.

Now, as my signature states, not to be confused as a King James Version "Onlyist," I'm a King James Version "Mainlyist." I use, recommend, and trust the PCE KJV above all others, but I do think it is a good idea to use other translations, such as the 1995 NASB, 2011 ESV, 1989 NRSV, and 1966 JB. All of these translations are good to consult with. I would completely and utterly avoid translations such as the NIV, CEB, and The Message.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What version would you recommend that is easier to read but yet very accurate?
If you're a protestant then the Revised Standard version or the New King James Version will suit you as far as precision is concerned. For ease of reading the Good News Translation or the New Living Translation will probably do. Use both.

If you are Orthodox then try the Orthodox Study Bible.

If you are Catholic and in the USA use the New American Bible.

If you are Catholic and live in Canada use the New Revised Standard Version.

If you are Catholic and English, South African, Australian, New Zealander, etc then use the CTS New Catholic Bible or the Jerusalem Bible.
 
Upvote 0

WayneinMaine

Regular Member
Dec 9, 2006
351
39
Maine
Visit site
✟11,244.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
The most conservative Anabaptists use the Luther Bible of 1522/1534 based on Erasmus' original majority text rather than the corrupted Stephanus "received text" (received from whom?!?!).

As far as the Authorized KJV, what true Anabpatist would accept a translation in English "authorized" by an English king, translated by the Anglican church - a church that was hostile to and willing to martyr the Anabaptist?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

L0NEW0LF

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
Jul 20, 2012
298
9
✟8,018.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If you're a protestant then the Revised Standard version or the New King James Version will suit you as far as precision is concerned. For ease of reading the Good News Translation or the New Living Translation will probably do. Use both.

If you are Orthodox then try the Orthodox Study Bible.

If you are Catholic and in the USA use the New American Bible.

If you are Catholic and live in Canada use the New Revised Standard Version.

If you are Catholic and English, South African, Australian, New Zealander, etc then use the CTS New Catholic Bible or the Jerusalem Bible.

I'f you're Protestant the KJV, NASB, and ESV are all far superior. The RSV? Really?
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
"far" is a grotesque overstatement, and of the ones mentioned the past 4 days the Good News Translation is superior in many ways.
If you're Protestant the KJV, NASB, and ESV are all far superior. The RSV? Really?
If you're a protestant then the Revised Standard version or the New King James Version will suit you as far as precision is concerned.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bach90

Evangelical Catholic
Feb 4, 2011
446
19
USA
✟8,183.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The ESV is just the RSV doctored to suit Evangelical tastes.

And the RSV that Roman Catholics use is just doctored to suit RC taste :D.


Listen, the KJV is a great version. I like it for my devotional life and for memorization. If I'm doing serious Bible study I use the NRSV. It tends to not interpret too much. The gender inclusive stuff I think is overplayed. It's been done in every version (Matt 5:9 KJV). Also English does have a bias in that sense. In German for example you can use die Menschen to mean all mankind without any overtone of it referring only to men. 1 Tim 2:5 is often used to say the NRSV doesn't call Jesus a man. It just uses humankind and "himself human" to keep the typology that Paul was making...he was pretty big on typology. The NRSV is written pretty well too, it uses a nice style of language unlike the RSV/ESV which was a bit choppy. The NIV is readable, but it's at a middle school level. I like how the NRSV tries to emulate the original language too. The OT is written in a much higher style than the NT (for the most part) and the translation reflects this. The NRSV has the advantage of being used by many churches too. I've even seen it in a couple of LCMS churches.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
And the RSV that Roman Catholics use is just doctored to suit RC taste :D.
But I recommended the Protestant RSV for Protestants :p And it is the Protestant RSV that J I Packer and others doctored to suite evangelical tastes by removing antiquated English from those sections in the RSV that used the language of prayer and using propitiation (because evangelicals love propitiation and more or less detest expiation) and changing Isaiah chapter seven to say virgin where young woman was used in the RSV and so forth.

of course, those saintly Catholics who produced the RSV-CE and its successor the RSV-CE 2nd Ed only made changes that were holy and just and good :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrJim
Upvote 0

JTornado1

Newbie
Sep 13, 2009
337
11
Indiana
✟15,542.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I recommend the Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version. It's easy to read and accurate. It's my favorite translation. I also like the NASB, NIV 1984, the ASV of 1901, and the Ronald Knox Version. :preach::amen:

I have a copy of the CEB, and I don't care much for it. It's too informal and I don't like some of the renderings. I definitely wouldn't use it for public reading.
 
Upvote 0

bach90

Evangelical Catholic
Feb 4, 2011
446
19
USA
✟8,183.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
But I recommended the Protestant RSV for Protestants :p And it is the Protestant RSV that J I Packer and others doctored to suite evangelical tastes by removing antiquated English from those sections in the RSV that used the language of prayer and using propitiation (because evangelicals love propitiation and more or less detest expiation) and changing Isaiah chapter seven to say virgin where young woman was used in the RSV and so forth.

Propitiation is used because that's the Greek term used (with the exception of 1 John 2:2). I believe Roman Catholic scholars worked on the RSV committee, although I think Presbyterians made up the majority of translators (Dr. Metzger, the committee head, was a Presbyterian). The ESV in a different vein is largely the result of conservative Bible scholars from a wide range of denominations. The were no Roman Catholics on the ESV committee to my knowledge, it was largely Protestant. There was one translator from CUA on the ESV committee, a few conservative Lutherans, and a hanful of Presbyterians...but it's largely non-denominational. This is in contrast to the NRSV which is overwhelmingly liberal, even with non-Christians (a Jew) on the OT committee. One just needs to be aware of the faults behind a translation, the NRSV is a good translation but it has a liberal bias. The ESV is a good translation, but it has a reformed bias. The RSV is in between the two, closer to the ESV though for sure. The RSV was before Metzger lost his marbles and went completely liberal.

of course, those saintly Catholics who produced the RSV-CE and its successor the RSV-CE 2nd Ed only made changes that were holy and just and good :D

Well, obviously... :scratch: ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Propitiation is used because that's the Greek term used (with the exception of 1 John 2:2). ...

....)
The Greek word is in fact ἱλαστήριον which, as one can see by translitering it as hilasterion, does not spell 'propitiation'. If one checks up its definition in any of the free online dictionaries for Koine Greek the defitions will be something along these lines:
ἱλαστήριον
hilastērion
Definition:
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation
1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory
1b) an expiatory sacrifice
1c) a expiatory victim​
Part of Speech: noun neuter
So, it seems that the word means expiation and that one can use propitiation if one wants to but there is nothing superior about propitiation from a linguistic point of view. The reason for choosing propitiation in the ESV is theological more than linguistic.
 
Upvote 0