What translation, or versions of the bible do you like to use and why?

[Trusting in Him]

Different people prefer to use different bible translations as those which they find most appropriate for them. I realise that not everyone is necessarily going to agree with each other about there own personal likes, dislikes and doctrinal understandings, but please be nice to each other and allow each other to have our differences and respect those differences. I am a someone who uses a number of different bibles, but not always for any reasons, which might be all that obvious. Some of my bibles have cross references, or study aids, which I find helpful. Some are particular translations, which I like and there are other translations which I choose not to have as I even dislike certain translations.

I don't like translations where the translators have added their own doctrinal bias to them. I guess that some might even call me a bit old fashioned in my thinking and theology, but I still have quite a fair number of modern bible translations as well. I like the king james version, but I am not one of those, who is from the king james only persusion. I also like some literal translations, but not all are particularly enjoyable to read. Some of these literal versions may be considered by some as being technically advantageous, but I can find some of these very dry to use for just reading God's word. I need to be inspired by what I read and some translations just don't do that for me. So what are your preferred translations and why?

This does not need to be too theoretical. personal preferences and likes are dislikes are good enough. I hope the everyone will feel free to just be themselves and express their own feelings, if that's what feels right! Thanks.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Sorry I mistyped the title and the system won't let me edit it. I did not mean to type translation twice. One of them was ment to say versions.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I realise that some will prefer something more modern than the kings james, but I like the way that it is written in a way that often adds a degree of emphasis. I also do not particularly like the westcott and hort text very much! I don't like somebody else deciding what to leave in, or take out of my bible, although I do have a few bibles based on this text. So called textural critiicism and dynamic equivalence seen to me to take away much of what is God breathed in the words of the bible.

I ofen like to look up the meaning of specific words in the king james from their original languages. I don't necessarily do this all that often, but there are times when it is helpful to my understanding. The king james is useful for this as it is the version which was choosen for the strongs concordance and some of my concordances and lexicons which are less easy to refer to in english are also coded to the strongs numbers.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I tend to read Good News, Message, English Standard - the easy to read ones.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Both the Good news and the message are paraphase versions and as such are not actual direct translations from the orignal languages using directly equivalent words. They only give you access to the word chosen by whoever wrote the paraphrase. His, or her understanding may, or may not be correct.

A true translation comes from other sources, where more is known about them. If you are using these paraphrase versions for scriptually meaningful bible study, it is not easily to be sure about how authentic the paraphrases may, or may not necessarily be.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Both the Good news and the message are paraphase versions and as such are not actual direct translations from the orignal languages using directly equivalent words. They only give you access to the word chosen by whoever wrote the paraphrase. His, or her understanding may, or may not be correct.

A true translation comes from other sources, where more is known about them. If you are using these paraphrase versions for scriptually meaningful bible study, it is not easily to be sure about how authentic the paraphrases may, or may not necessarily be.

If I read the bible like that - I wouldn't even bother with translations. I'd learn the languages, the culture and study it properly - academically. ;-)

When you translate word for word - isn't it possible for the author's meaning to get lost?
What if you can't translate word for word because the word doesn't exist in english, or concepts have changed and the author wrote one thing that today means something totally different?
You would have all the same words but you would be changing the meaning.

Anyway - I think when you're talking about translations - going word for word or by meaning, both have pros and cons.

 

[Gregorikos]

Different people prefer to use different bible translations as those which they find most appropriate for them. I realise that not everyone is necessarily going to agrue with each other about there own personal likes, dislikes and doctrinal understandings, but please be nice to each other and allow each other to have our differences and respect those differences. I am a someone who uses a number of different bibles, but not always for any reasons, which might be all that obvious. Some of my bibles have cross references, or study aids, which I find helpful. Some are particular translations, which I like and there are other translations which I choose not to have as I even dislike certain translations.

I don't like translations where the translators have added there own doctrinal bias to them. I guess that some might even call me a bit old fashioned in my thinking and theology, but I still have quite a fair number of modern bible translations as well. I like the king james version, but I am not one of those, who is from the king james only persusion. I also like some literal translations, but not all are particularly enjoyable to read. Some of these literal versions may be considered by some as being technically advantageous, but I can find some of these very dry to use for just reading God's word. I need to be inspired by what I read and some translations just don't do that for me. So what are your preferred translations and why?

This does not need to be too theoretical. personal preferences and likes are dislikes are good enough. I hope the everyone will feel free to just be themselves and express their own feelings, if that's what feels right! Thanks.

I prefer the New Revised Standard Version for my personal reading, and the NIV2011 when I am teaching.

The NRSV is more literal than the NIV. It's preferred by academics over all translations. That's an important fact. It is elegant, graceful, and often says things in a more compelling way than the NIV. And it is extremely readable.

But since I am probably the only guy in my church that uses the NRSV, I switch to the NIV for teaching, because that's what most people are used to. It's a great translation as well.

Both the NRSV and the NIV2011 are accurate in regards to gender. Many translations act as though the Bible was written to men only, but that is not the case, and that is clear in the original languages, but not so clear in many of our Bible translations. So I try to stick with those two for their accuracy in gender matters. (The CEB is another good one I am learning to like.)

 

[JosephZ]

I prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1995 Edition. It's the most accurate word for word English Bible translation available and my go to Bible 90% of the time.

Translation Comparison Charts

 

[GreekOrthodox]

One of the challenges for Eastern Orthodox is finding Bibles that includes our additional books which are slightly more extensive than Catholic Scriptures. RSV with the Deuterocanonicals is one of the few that has 3rd and 4th Maccabees as well as a few other odds and ends for Orthodox.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Thanks Joseph,

That's very interesting chart. I'm much more in favour of the word for word translations. I don't much like the NIV myself, it is a reduced vocabulary bible to simplify translating it in other languages and as a result to me it lacks a lot of content compared to other versions that I am used to.

I am quite interested in how old testament types, antitypes and foreshadowings of coming prophecies appear in the text of the old testament, but many modern translations are not helpful for studying these.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

hi the manuscripts for the various Bibles are generally two sets of manuscripts so there are differences in the manuscripts themselves on which words are being translated. The King James comes from the Textus Receptus and the NIV and others comes from textus Siniaticus. This is a good place to study to see which texts you trust more. I am KJV and NKJV with a concordance is hand.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If I read the bible like that - I wouldn't even bother with translations. I'd learn the languages, the culture and study it properly - academically. ;-)

When you translate word for word - isn't it possible for the author's meaning to get lost?
What if you can't translate word for word because the word doesn't exist in english, or concepts have changed and the author wrote one thing that today means something totally different?
You would have all the same words but you would be changing the meaning.

Anyway - I think when you're talking about translations - going word for word or by meaning, both have pros and cons.

The paraphrases, AFAIK are not translations of any kind they simply take a translation and reword it. If that is correct than the paraphraser has no real idea what the original meaning was supposed to be and might well read into the translation something entirely different than was in the original document. Any reliable translation does not go word for word but does attempt to convey the actual meaning of the original document as closely possible. Translating something word for word would be unreadable.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I have at one time read an english translation of the pashetta, which is probably Eastern Authodox in origin. I was at the time getting very interested in how much we have lost in the newer translations compared with the early translations. I still have an english vs greek translation of the septuigint which also contains the apocryphal books including all four books of maccabees.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Hi Brian,

I'm pretty much textus receptus oriented my self, although I do have a later copy of Rotherham's Emphasized bible which derives from the westcott and hort text, but it does still have it uses!

 

[Davy]

Different people prefer to use different bible translations as those which they find most appropriate for them. I realise that not everyone is necessarily going to agrue with each other about there own personal likes, dislikes and doctrinal understandings, but please be nice to each other and allow each other to have our differences and respect those differences. I am a someone who uses a number of different bibles, but not always for any reasons, which might be all that obvious. Some of my bibles have cross references, or study aids, which I find helpful. Some are particular translations, which I like and there are other translations which I choose not to have as I even dislike certain translations.

I don't like translations where the translators have added there own doctrinal bias to them. I guess that some might even call me a bit old fashioned in my thinking and theology, but I still have quite a fair number of modern bible translations as well. I like the king james version, but I am not one of those, who is from the king james only persusion. I also like some literal translations, but not all are particularly enjoyable to read. Some of these literal versions may be considered by some as being technically advantageous, but I can find some of these very dry to use for just reading God's word. I need to be inspired by what I read and some translations just don't do that for me. So what are your preferred translations and why?

This does not need to be too theoretical. personal preferences and likes are dislikes are good enough. I hope the everyone will feel free to just be themselves and express their own feelings, if that's what feels right! Thanks.

I refuse to trust any... modern Bible version that used Wescott and Hort's personal Greek New Testament translation from corrupt Greek texts. Even the NKJV uses their corrupt New Testament translation.

For a more in-depth reason, see the documentary Bridge To Babylon.

 

[Gregorikos]

I refuse to trust any... modern Bible version that used Wescott and Hort's personal Greek New Testament translation from corrupt Greek texts. Even the NKJV uses their corrupt New Testament translation.

For a more in-depth reason, see the documentary Bridge To Babylon.

No, the NKJV does not use the "Westcott and Hort" text, nor anything in that family. It uses the Textus Receptus and the MT, just like the KJV.

Also, the Westcott and Hort text isn't a translation. It's Greek. The NT was written in Greek. WH didn't need to be translated. You have sadly been misinformed by KJVO people.

 

[GodLovesCats]

When you translate word for word - isn't it possible for the author's meaning to get lost? What if you can't translate word for word because the word doesn't exist in English, or concepts have changed and the author wrote one thing that today means something totally different? You would have all the same words but you would be changing the meaning.

Anyway - I think when you're talking about translations - going word for word or by meaning, both have pros and cons.

I was taught in church Jesus spoke many languages so different people could understand him. The pastor talked about a Bible being written for people who did not have one because their language was only oral - no letters, punctuation marks, symbols, or digits. So it is pretty obvious to me, especially considering the fact 2.4 billion people from around the world are Christians, we should choose versions based on how well we can understand the text (as long as they are not paraphrased like Good News and The Message.) Why worry about what an English word meant centuries ago if a Bible version is available that uses words how I understand them? When I find out which Bible version is the best at doing this without losing accuracy I will read it every time because there is no reason the most important book ever written should confuse all the Christians without college degrees in the subject.

 

[Torah Keeper]

My favorite English versions are the OSB, NKJV, and ESV. Obviously nothing is as good or accurate as the original languages, so I have the Hebrew MT and Greek TR as well Although my Hebrew is better than my Greek. And I haven't seen anything blasphemous in the Peshitta, but I have yet to read all of it.

 

[Davy]

No, the NKJV does not use the "Westcott and Hort" text, nor anything in that family. It uses the Textus Receptus and the MT, just like the KJV.

Also, the Westcott and Hort text isn't a translation. It's Greek. The NT was written in Greek. WH didn't need to be translated. You have sadly been misinformed by KJVO people.

From V.9. Is the New King James True to the Hebrew and Greek Texts? | Bible Questions and Answers – Heritage Baptist Bible Church

"The NKJV uses a multiplicity of references that they state do not appear in the “NU.” Most people have no idea what “NU” stands for. The “N” is referring to the 26th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. The “U” is referring to the 3rd Edition of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament. Remember, the “NU” New Greek Testament is based largely upon two corrupt manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vaticanus. These two manuscripts disagree with each other in hundreds and hundreds of places."

Those editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament are works BASED on Wescott and Hort's translation from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The 1611 King James Version Bible does NOT use those Greek texts, the KJV translators used the Textus Receptus, or Majority Texts for their New Testament from the Greek manuscripts. The NKJV promoters and publisher simply try to hide this fact.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I have at one time read an English translation of the Pashetta, which is probably Eastern Authodox in origin. I was at the time getting very interested in how much we have lost in the newer translations compared with the early translations. I still have an English vs Greek translation of the Septuigint which also contains the apocryphal books including all four books of Maccabees.

All four Maccabees books? The current Catholic Bibles only have 1 and 2. I take it you have all 14 of them despite the fact some were removed permanently centuries ago (including Maccabees 3 and 4).