Your preferred Bible Translation

The point of emphasis to the OP remains: the revised NAS'95 is a faithful translation of the original languages and the more refined in contemporary English. The sideswipe theological objection and the observation by others to this fact notwithstanding.

The New Century Version (NCV) is by far the easiest to read. Check it out free online. read the book of Romans to see how awesome it is

New Century Version (NCV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

If I could only have one Bible it would be the King James Version.

Allen1901 said:

The New Century Version (NCV) is by far the easiest to read. Check it out free online. read the book of Romans to see how awesome it is

New Century Version (NCV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

If I could only have one Bible it would be the King James Version.

Click to expand...

This begs the question: What makes a translation "good"? Some would say word-for-word accuracy. Others would say low difficulty in reading and understanding. Easy to read usually means that accuracy has to be compromised. I would say that for most people, the "ideal" translation is one that is the balance of these two features (which is why I suspect that the NIV is so popular). For people who struggle with reading, an easy to read translation, the NCV or the NIrV might be best. For people who are strong readers and who are very detailed oriented, a very accurate version like NASB might be ideal. But, realistically, most people will find the best translations are those that best balance accuracy with readability. But, it really i a subjective question.

The only translations that I would say are just not good are those that are heavily paraphrased, such as The Message, NLT, Amp, TLB, and so forth. These are the ones that I think Christians most need to be careful of. But, even these are fine if they are treated as what they are: paraphrases of the Bible, rather than as the Bible per se.

dies-l said:

This begs the question: What makes a translation "good"? Some would say word-for-word accuracy. Others would say low difficulty in reading and understanding. Easy to read usually means that accuracy has to be compromised. I would say that for most people, the "ideal" translation is one that is the balance of these two features (which is why I suspect that the NIV is so popular). For people who struggle with reading, an easy to read translation, the NCV or the NIrV might be best. For people who are strong readers and who are very detailed oriented, a very accurate version like NASB might be ideal. But, realistically, most people will find the best translations are those that best balance accuracy with readability. But, it really i a subjective question.

The only translations that I would say are just not good are those that are heavily paraphrased, such as The Message, NLT, Amp, TLB, and so forth. These are the ones that I think Christians most need to be careful of. But, even these are fine if they are treated as what they are: paraphrases of the Bible, rather than as the Bible per se.

Click to expand...

This is a thoughtful post that i can't disagree with.

If I were a new Christian buying my first Bible, I would choose the version my pastor read aloud from, simply to aviod any confusion during Church.

If cost is an issue, a parallel Bible could be a good choice.

The only version of the Bible I don't enjoy reading for long periods of time, is the Amplified Bible.

Allen1901 said:

This is a thoughtful post that i can't disagree with.

Click to expand...

Thanks

If I were a new Christian buying my first Bible, I would choose the version my pastor read aloud from, simply to aviod any confusion during Church.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. Especially if someone already struggles with comprehension, trying to read from two Bibles at the same time can be tricky. And, besides, most pastors teach out of one or more of the more respected translations, such as the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, or NRSV, which are all perfectly acceptable for normal Bible Study.

If cost is an issue, a parallel Bible could be a good choice.

Click to expand...

The thing that I have found about parallel Bibles is that they generally don't put very good translations. Most of the newer ones I have see usually have something like the NIV (which is good, but less accurate than most other good translations) with the NLT (which is virtually a paraphrase) and either the Message or the Living Bible (which are definitely paraphrases). When they do pair up two or more decent translations, they tend to be translations that share a similar theological bias (such as NIV paired with NASB). So, my preference is to read out of two or more separate volumes, so that I can cater the translations to my own Bible Study needs.

There are, however, some older parallels from back in the RSV days that are pretty good, but I believe most of those are out of print.

The only version of the Bible I don't enjoy reading for long periods of time, is the Amplified Bible.

Click to expand...

I can understand that Brother.

I use the NKJV and sometimes the KJV. My husband seems to prefer the ESV.

Esv

I use the NIV because that is what my church uses. I also find it easier to read. I use the Amplified to complement my studies.

I use the New Internation Version with commentary from Zondervan Study Bible. I used to like how everything Jesus said is in red, but now I wish I had a bible that didn't do that.

Right now, the NRSV. It reads very easily, but is still useful for study. I had primarily used the NKJV previously, because that's what I was raised on. When reading simply for pleasure, I like the Elizabethan English of the KJV.

Jeffwhosoever said:

Why is that?

Click to expand...

Personally, I am not a fan of anything that blurs the line between translation and interpretation. This is why I am not a fan of subject headings in, e.g., the NIV and why I do not like certain translations that take significant liberties to make the text more readable. I would also put red lettering into this category as there are some passages in which the text does not make clear who is speaking but which many people attribute to Jesus. Red lettering, in these instances, is a product of the publisher's interpretation, rather than a faithful translation of the actual text. Just my thought on the topic.

I can't speak to whether the red letters always faithfully indicate who was speaking, Christ or someone else, but I've always disliked them because they single out the words of Christ as if they're something special to pay attention to above and beyond all the black letters, which are of course the words of the Holy Spirit.

Epiphoskei said:

I can't speak to whether the red letters always faithfully indicate who was speaking, Christ or someone else, but I've always disliked them because they single out the words of Christ as if they're something special to pay attention to above and beyond all the black letters, which are of course the words of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

You bring up a good point. Although I disagree with you to the extent that I believe the words of Jesus are worthy of special consideration, I agree with the larger point: Red-lettering places an emphasis on text that is regarded as important according to the mindset of the publisher. I prefer to be able to read Scripture that is as faithful to the original languages as possible and make up my own mind (with the help of the Spirit) as to what is worth noting in a passage. Red-lettering detracts from this goal.

To be clear, I am not against commentaries and Study Bibles that clearly delineate what is the Biblical text and what is commentary and opinion. It is the more subtle commentary and interpretation that I prefer to shy away from wherever possible. Although I do own and read from Bibles that have red-lettering and Bibles that have subject headings, these I find to be more distracting than helpful. But, that is just my opinion and preference.