Bible translations

[Anonymous Individual]

Which Bible translations do you like to read (and why)?

 

[faroukfarouk]

I do appreciate the King James. It's a tried and trust version; and the archaisms can easily be overcome. It's been translated in a fairly formal way which means that the God fearing translators tried carefully, generally speaking, to reflect what the underlying Biblical languages actually say, rather than to be 'reader friendly' or supposedly 'relevant', pathways which can become highly interpretive.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Which Bible translations do you like to read (and why)?

.

Definitely not any version based on the work of Hort and Westcott

They followed the teaching of Darwin

"Admitted to in their own writings Westcott and Hort dabbled with occultism, Darwinism, secret Societies, Mariology and were totally opposed to the NT and Reformation theology on the atonement. They hated the RT calling it “villanous” and “vile”, and yet it is they that were entrusted with this great work of creating a Modern Greek text of the Bible."

Bible Versions, Does It Really Matter Which? | Bible translations

 

[GospelS]

I prefer translations that give a Jewish/Hebrew perspective such as CJB, Complete Jewish Bible. They mostly translate the Scripture through the lens of Israel background and culture and through in-depth understanding of the Old Testament which I think is better.

 

[Andrewn]

Which Bible translations do you like to read (and why)?

Thank you for asking. Every month or so someone asks this question, so it may be helpful to look through older threads. But this may not be easy.

The answer really depends on your background and personal preferences. I wouldn't use KJV as a 1ry translation but you can use it for comparison.

Someone suggested CJB, and this happens to be one of my favorites. A lot of young people like NLT. It is an idiomatic translation. If you're serious about understanding what the Bible teaches, I'd choose CSB or MEB. The former is a very well-balanced translation. The latter is more literal.

I chose relatively recent translations. You'll hear from people who like popular translations like NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and NKJV. The choices I made above are superior and nicely cover the spectrum of translations. Ultimately, the best translation is the one you feel attracted to read.

 

[Anonymous Individual]

Thank you for asking. Every month or so someone asks this question, so it may be helpful to look through older threads. But this may not be easy.

The answer really depends on your background and personal preferences. I wouldn't use KJV as a 1ry translation but you can use it for comparison.

Someone suggested CJB, and this happens to be one of my favorites. A lot of young people like NLT. It is an idiomatic translation. If you're serious about understanding what the Bible teaches, I'd choose CSB or MEB. The former is a very well-balanced translation. The latter is more literal.

I chose relatively recent translations. You'll hear from people who like popular translations like NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and NKJV. The choices I made above are superior and nicely cover the spectrum of translations. Ultimately, the best translation is the one you feel attracted to read.

I've never heard of the MEB. What is it?

 

[Andrewn]

I've never heard of the MEB. What is it?

The Modern English Version (MEV) is an update of the KJV based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. It was published only in 2014, so not too many people are familiar with it. But the Gideons are starting to distribute this translation. It capitalizes pronouns referring to God, which is something I like. It is quite accurate and more readable than NKJV, NASB, and ESV, in my opinion.

Modern English Version - Wikipedia

NJAB - Comparison Chart of Bible Translations showing style or type of translation and readability or grade level

 

[robycop3]

NKJV, NASV, ESV.

I use the older versions for study only, as they're not in OUR language, & not the best versions for witnessing in our time.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

ESV and I'm really looking forward to being able to afford the ESV-CE! The RSV-CE isn't a lot different, but some part of me prefers the ESV.

 

[Andrewn]

ESV and I'm really looking forward to being able to afford the ESV-CE! The RSV-CE isn't a lot different, but some part of me prefers the ESV.

ESV-CE is got to be quite similar to the RSV-2CE. Talking about Catholic Bibles, I'm wondering why you didn't mention NABRE and NJB?

 

[Julian of Norwich]

ESV-CE is got to be quite similar to the RSV-2CE. Talking about Catholic Bibles, I'm wondering why you didn't mention NABRE and NJB?

Actually, I used to have a JB and I didn't care for it. I've not paid much attention to the NJB because of that. The NABRE is not at all what I think a bible should read/sound like (I grew up since kindergarten reading the KJV). I've heard a number of people praise the NABRE's scholarship, but that's only one important part of a bible version to me. It needs to sound/read dignified, lovely and smooth, too.

 

[ap_Earwood]

You can't go wrong with the King James, I use KJV and NKJV if I ever have trouble understanding the KJV. I also use a concordance, which shows the word that was originally used (either hebrew or greek) and the definition of the word, it helps me to get sound doctrine and really understand what the verse is meaning.

I would recommend everybody at least check out the HalleluYah Scriptures. I won't explain into detail, but there website is here: Home : HalleluYah Scriptures

I stay away from any other versions, like the NIV or NLT as I feel they pervert the word of Elohim. Some verses have even been completely removed from the NIV! It's really not a good translation, stay clear of it.
By far the worst translation I know of, is the Message. (MSG). It's not even a translation, it is a man's paraphrasing of the bible. It might make it easier to understand, but you get the writer's doctrines confused into Elohim's word. I stay clear of it.

Shalom brothers!

 

[tampasteve]

You can't go wrong with the King James, I use KJV and NKJV if I ever have trouble understanding the KJV. I also use a concordance, which shows the word that was originally used (either hebrew or greek) and the definition of the word, it helps me to get sound doctrine and really understand what the verse is meaning.

I agree, they are solid translations.

I would recommend everybody at least check out the HalleluYah Scriptures. I won't explain into detail, but there website is here: Home : HalleluYah Scriptures

I am not sure we need another "translation" of the scriptures along these lines. The "features" listed are found in other translations like the Tree of Life version and the Complete Jewish Bible, which have verifiable translators and text. Who are the translators in this project? What manuscripts did they use? In general I stay away from Hebrew Names movement, there is a lot of bad theology there.

I stay away from any other versions, like the NIV or NLT as I feel they pervert the word of Elohim. Some verses have even been completely removed from the NIV! It's really not a good translation, stay clear of it.

NIV is OK, verses are "removed" because they are not in the manuscripts used in the translation. It is fairly agreed that the "missing" verses are actually added to the text in later manuscripts. That is not to say they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they are likely later additions to the text.

I also do not care for the NLT for a number of reasons.

By far the worst translation I know of, is the Message. (MSG). It's not even a translation, it is a man's paraphrasing of the bible. It might make it easier to understand, but you get the writer's doctrines confused into Elohim's word. I stay clear of it.

I have one....it's ok. Very basic English and the paraphrase is clumsy in places. I would not consider it a translation of the Bible, but rather a novelization of the Bible, which is good to read, but should not be relied as Scripture.

 

[ap_Earwood]

I agree, they are solid translations.

I am not sure we need another "translation" of the scriptures along these lines. The "features" listed are found in other translations like the Tree of Life version and the Complete Jewish Bible, which have verifiable translators and text. Who are the translators in this project? What manuscripts did they use? In general I stay away from Hebrew Names movement, there is a lot of bad theology there.

NIV is OK, verses are "removed" because they are not in the manuscripts used in the translation. It is fairly agreed that the "missing" verses are actually added to the text in later manuscripts. That is not to say they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they are likely later additions to the text.

I also do not care for the NLT for a number of reasons.

I have one....it's ok. Very basic English and the paraphrase is clumsy in places. I would not consider it a translation of the Bible, but rather a novelization of the Bible, which is good to read, but should not be relied as Scripture.

The TLV is not a good translation.
For me personally, I judge every translation by whether or not it uses the word "begotten" in John 3:16. I stay clear of translations saying "one and only son," since we are all sons of God. The word "begotten" much better represents the original word used, monogenes, and it helps display the Messiah's relationship with God, as being directly from him.

Another thing is, NLT and CSV all of the like, I stay clear of because they remind of modern churches (specifically AOG churches like Hillsong) and I do not like those churches. Even though I go to an AOG church myself, I sometimes disagree with their doctrine and definitely disagree with the versions they teach from.

The 'Tree Of Life Version' (TLV) EXPOSED!
NIV Exposed!

 

[tampasteve]

The TLV is not a good translation.
For me personally, I judge every translation by whether or not it uses the word "begotten" in John 3:16. I stay clear of translations saying "one and only son," since we are all sons of God. The word "begotten" much better represents the original word used, monogenes, and it helps display the Messiah's relationship with God, as being directly from him.

I don't have any issue if that is how you desire to interpret the passage, but it does not mean it is wrong to translate it the other way. The translation is not the issue, it is the interpretation of said translation.

Another thing is, NLT and CSV all of the like, I stay clear of because they remind of modern churches (specifically AOG churches like Hillsong) and I do not like those churches. Even though I go to an AOG church myself, I sometimes disagree with their doctrine and definitely disagree with the versions they teach from.
The 'Tree Of Life Version' (TLV) EXPOSED!
NIV Exposed!

OK, that is certainly your prerogative, but it is a bias that is tainting why the translations are not as good. I agree, NLT is not a great translation. But it is also along the lines of the Message and similar paraphrase novelizations. Not bad for a story or the base knowledge, but not good for scripture. The links are wildly biased to the point of near uselessness in a scholarly discussion non translations.

 

[Andrewn]

I have one....it's ok. Very basic English and the paraphrase is clumsy in places. I would not consider it a translation of the Bible, but rather a novelization of the Bible, which is good to read, but should not be relied as Scripture.

In a Bible study just before Social Isolation, the pastor was reading from something horrible called The Passion Translation. First, the title is a lie bec it's not a translation. Second, it's paraphrase is even worse than The Message. And the pastor liked it.

There are so many excellent translations available in English and I wish there would be a moratorium on the production of new translations. I'm declaring 2020 the year for me to stop looking at newer translations .