Bible versions

[Shane R]

1. I do most of my academic work from the NRSV. It is my choice because I feel it is the best modern English version commonly found with the Deutero-canon, which I believe to be an important and canonical set of texts. On the occasions when I have a professor who is opposed to gender neutral versions I revert to NASB.

I prefer Schlacter 1951 in German. We have an LBLA Spanish Bible in our house too (my wife is native speaker; she prefers Reina-Valera '60).

2. I regularly use many versions, somewhat cyclically. I will read one for a month or two and then choose another.
a. General Use: NRSV, NASB, HCSB, KJV, Geneva, RSV, NKJV, ESV, NIV
b. Study: I'm going to use this spot to address my preferences for teaching. I use the
HCSB at any grade level. I use the NKJV if I'm working with people who are
accustomed to KJV. I use the Orthodox Study Bible or NRSV if I'm going to work with
the Deutero-canon.

3. I do agree with the general sentiment of this question. For instance, I see most Pentecostal churches gravitating to NLT. This is also a popular choice among 'Relevant' non-denoms. I think that is because it sounds like a 14 year old having a conversation and is ambiguous enough in some important spots to fit any number of theological perspectives. The NIV is always going to have a good following among Evangelicals because it reads well without becoming insulting, un-technical, or overly technical. The NASB was the go to for preachers under 40 when I was coming of age in the Church of Christ - until the ESV came out and all the new under 30 preachers jumped on its bandwagon. Obviously, a number of churches have commissioned their own version.

4. I am comfortable enough with my beliefs to not need to proof text from a particular version. When I quote from memory it is seldom consistently from one version, so perhaps my memory is my own version.

5. NAB, CEV: insulting to the average reader's intelligence
NLT, NCV: to many liberties with the text
NWT, Message: should these even be dignified with the name "Holy Bible"?

6. What is accuracy? The question can be very subjective.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.

I grew up with the KJV, in the early 70's the Chruch switched to the RSV, but Using The Lutheran Hymnal, the language of the Liturgy remained KJV English. Then in the 80's, we used the NKJV. With the new Hymnal, all of the liturgical content with the exception of Divine Service 3 are taken from ESV (DS 3 is still in KJ English). So, the ESV is our standard and I use it most of the time. Our Synod has also published a separate volume in the ESV translation of the Apocrypha with study notes. This volume not only includes the Books for the Catholic Canon, but also others from other Canons that had, from time to time, been included in "Lutheran Bibles"; I would have to look it up but I believe that the Lutheran edition of the Vulgate had one or two more than the Catholic edition.

2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

For the most part I use the ESV (Lutheran Study Bible); the Scripture translations contained in the Treasury of Daily Prayer are also ESV. I do also use the NKJV and NASB, Catholic Edition. I like the KJV for Psalms.

Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?

I trust the Synod's choice. The ESV is not an obscure translation, but is widely used. It was chosen for it's accuracy and ease of reading and understanding. The NKJV is also very accurate and may be the most accurate English translation from both a word-for-word and thought-for-though perspective, from what I understand, but it can be a bit heavy going at times.

Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?

Any translation that is accurate and readable. Translations where notable changes have been made to accommodate unorthodox teachings are out; as are paraphrases.

Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?

See above. Reasons would be inaccuracy and both types are expressions of human and personal interpretation.

In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

As I stated above, the NKJV because of the diversity of those translating and revising, and the attention to both word and thought translations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.


2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

My answers are:

1. CTS New Catholic Bible.
2. Both but more so for study.
3. Catholic bibles suits Catholics best.
4. No, but I prefer Catholic bibles on the whole.
5. Yes, New World Translation, The Inspired Version, The Clear Word. The first because it was created to reflect the teaching of Jehovah's witnesses, the second because it was created to reflect Latter Day Saints teaching, the third because it incorporates comments and teaching from Ellen White.
6. I think of the CTS New Catholic Bible as most suitable for the liturgy and since I believe that scripture was always intended to be read in the community of christian faith I think that whatever is used for the liturgy is what will be most discussed and most explained by the community of faith - as it should be.

 

[Liberasit]

I use NIV at church, home group and personal reading.

I find looking at couple of other versions at the same time useful in getting to grips with difficult passages. It is so easy to do this with Bible Gateway.

I don't have a point of view about what other churches do on this.

 

[PaladinValer]

What is your go-to Bible and why?

The NRSV and RSV. Ecumenical, scholarly, AVs in my church, and I personally prefer formal equivalencies.

Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?

General use? Sometimes. When I do, it is the NAB or another translation under the auspices of a Catholic and Apostolic church.

For study? I'll consult the NASB and also a translation of the Septuagint alongside the NRSV and RSV.

Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?

Absolutely, and they need to be used in those contexts as that is their intent.

The KJV, RV, and ASV are pretty much all Anglican.
The RSV and NRSV have a definite Anglican heritage but are ecumenical.
The NJB and the NAB are all Roman Catholic.
The ESV is a conservative Protestant, but the fact that a major Lutheran group as adopted it and made a study version of it heightens its worth. I might be persuaded to purchase the Lutheran Study Bible edition of it.
The OSB and the upcoming (hopefully still?) EOB are all Eastern Orthodox
The NIV, NKJV, and NASB are Evangelical Protestant (the former has a definite Calvinist & Chiliast tinge)
So on and so forth.

Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?

The first five for obvious reasons as stated earlier.

Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?

The NKJV and NIV would be on that list. The NASB not so much because of its excellent usage for study, but that's the only reason for its use IMO. I don't see any good use for the rest either, with the exception of the five above as well as the OSB, EOB, and NAB. In addition, the Complete Jewish Bible is a big no-no for me as well, and don't get me started with the Geneva.

In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I think once it is published, putting together the EOB with the RSV, NRSV, and NAB is all anyone could ever want. The NASB may potentially be dropped depending on how good the EOB is. The Lutheran Study Bible edition of the ESV might also be consulted.

 

[hedrick]

As for versions I vehemently reject:

• any version that uses the "received text," e.g. NKJV
  
• the NIV. It has allows the belief in inerrancy to color the translation. See The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation. Also N T Wright has commented that anyone using the NIV will never understand Paul.

Of course I think all of the versions done by conservatives show some biases, but they are generally pretty mild. The NIV seems to be significantly worse than ESV, HCSB, and other well-known conservative translations.

Unfortunately, the NRSV, which otherwise seems the best of the lot, was marred by its desire to be gender-neutral. That leaves us with no translations that I consider free of significant ideological bias. Since the contents still seem accurate, if you can ignore some of the weird wording to get gender-neutrality, I think the NRSV is still the best compromise.

I had high hopes for the CEB. But as I used it seriously, I found issues, particularly in Romans. I had attributed it to being basically a one-man translation. (They used a big committee, but it was mostly for wording, not the core translation.) However I've now found the the person who did the translation originally doesn't like it either. http://rayvanneste.com/?p=4309 Apparently too much adjustment was made for readability, and at times that blurred the meaning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I use the New American Standard most of the time but I sometimes use the Douay Rheims because I like the foot notes and some of the poetry better

Do you mean The New American Bible (NAB, a Catholic translation) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB, a fundamentalist leaning 66 book bible)?

 

[Shane R]

Top Ten Bible Translations in the United States - ThomRainer.com

2012 – Based on Unit Sales

1.New Living Translation
2.New International Version
3.King James Version
4.New King James Version
5.English Standard Version
6.Common English Bible
7.Holman Christian Standard Bible
8.New American Standard Bible
9.Reina Valera 1960
10.New International Readers Version

This gives us some popularity figures, though there are many factors to consider when evaluating these statistics.
1. Most people don't research before they buy.
2. Many stores don't offer a wide selection.
3. Popularity does not indicate quality.
etc.

 

[~Anastasia~]

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
   
   I will most often check the NASB if I'm doing a quick lookup. The reason is that when I would study using online sources that gave a verse in multiple translations and then work out the differences and actual meaning, it seemed to me that the NASB was just about always accurate. I found it to be the most consistent where others seemed to depart anywhere from often to only rarely. My opinion is of course colored by the verses I chose to consider, but at least there have been a lot of them.
   
   By the same method, I have noticed the DR and GNT were often good as well, but I have compared them far fewer times than I have the NASB.
   
   
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
   
   I recently got a Kindle version of the OSB and use that for reading, but I'm not completely happy with it. I wish I had a really good translation of the Septuagint. I'm hoping the EOB will fulfill that. I also read the NASB.
   
   I often use the KJV because that is the version I am familiar with and don't have any trouble understanding. I like to read the Amplified alongside sometimes to get the "expanded meaning" but I think it is not as good as I once thought. It provides food for thought sometimes.
   
   When studying, I like to pull together all of these (less so the KJV) and sometimes compare a few more and Mounce if it helps (the Greek more so to see how the same word is used at different times, since I'm nowhere near far along enough in studying Greek).
   
   
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
   
   The OSB has good notes and includes the proper canon for my Church. I'm sure there are others that better fit other Churches, but I'll leave that to them.
   
   
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
   
   The OSB - same as above. I'm hoping the EOB will be even better.
   
   
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
   
   I started out reading the NIV, and was very disappointed when I began comparing it to the NASB. To me it seems very watered-down. My Grandmother once gave me a NLT as a child, thinking I would understand it better. It might be helpful for a young person alongside the KJV which she had also given me, but in reading it only a little it seemed to sacrifice too much for the sake of readability. I once saw a single verse in the Message which had a powerful impact, but overall it's possible to read that one and get a COMPLETELY different idea than what is intended, and I think it is the worst of all. I wouldn't recommend any of these three.
   
   
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?
   
   I'm still hoping. The NASB has proven itself accurate to me more often than the others, but I'm sure it's not without its problems as well.
   
   I'd say the Septuagint, but I can't really understand Koine. So the NASB is far more useful to me. But I would dearly love to see a very accurate translation of the Septuagint into English. I don't think we have a great one yet.

 

[roman2819]

I generally think for memorization & study, it helps to stick with one version. For me, that is the NRSV. It's the version used in my Episcopal Church.

I think the NRSV is a good translation, in that it's generally easy to read & acceptable in scholarship. It is a common choice for Episcopalians/Anglicans, though not the only choice. It is likely acceptable in other mainline bodies as well.

Agreed. I was at a church for three years and they used NSRV which I must say is good abd acceptable in scholarship. I didnt consciously compare NSRV with NIV 1984 (which I also used often), but I don't think there is much difference.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I generally think for memorization & study, it helps to stick with one version.

You have a good point. I used to read the KJV and if not perfectly memorized, I at least had a very good sense of what a great deal of the NT said. When I started reading other versions, I realized that my memory was being clouded by all the different phrasing and vocabulary. I'm much less able to find things in a single-version electronic Bible than I was before. But since now I search online and it will search many versions, it's no longer a problem.

But I really think memorization is stronger staying with a single version. I agree with you there.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The ESV is a conservative Protestant, but the fact that a major Lutheran group as adopted it and made a study version of it heightens its worth. I might be persuaded to purchase the Lutheran Study Bible edition of it.

You be wanting the one from Concordia, not the one from Augsburg-Fortress.
The Lutheran Study Bible
https://www.cph.org/p-11334-the-lutheran-study-bible-hardback.aspx

You would want this as well: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

They do go on sale from time to time, an you may be able to score one at a better price on Amazon.

 

[Shane R]

You be wanting the one from Concordia, not the one from Augsburg-Fortress.
The Lutheran Study Bible
https://www.cph.org/p-11334-the-lutheran-study-bible-hardback.aspx

You would want this as well: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

They do go on sale from time to time, an you may be able to score one at a better price on Amazon.

The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes is an excellent publication. I use it from time to time in my academic work but I was genuinely impressed with its content when it came out. The editors have a high view of the Deutero-canonical books.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes is an excellent publication. I use it from time to time in my academic work but I was genuinely impressed with its content when it came out. The editors have a high view of the Deutero-canonical books.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Until the early 19th century, the King James also used to be published with the Apocrypha.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Until the early 19th century, the King James also used to be published with the Apocrypha.

You are correct.

 

[Thekla]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?

   For the NT, primarily The Orthodox New Testament (Holy Apostles Convent, Dormition Skete) with notes and for an easier read The Eastern Orthodox Bible. For the Psalms, I primarily use the LXX translation by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. For OT, primarily the OSB (though I don't like it as much). For everything, except the Deuterocanon, The Apostolic Bible Polyglot (interlinear).
   

   [*]Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?

   Yes, as above (For the children, more so the EOB, and the ABPolyglot a bit.)
   

   [*]Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?

   likely ... my own use is an example. I grew up reading mostly the New English Bible (it has a more literary feel to the language, but is modern) and the KJ (which I also like). I have appreciated both the re-viewing by switching translations, and have also found that the versions I do use now have a closer fit to my sense of things from my youth (ie, from the minister of my youth, also my dad).
   

   [*]Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?

   It's been a while since I've used other translations, versions, though I do occasionally read the RSV (when the ONB gets too heavy for my shoulder, I replace it for the RSV 'purse NT' ... sometimes for standing in line at the grocery, waiting for kids, etc.). As for beliefs, I don't know, and though I have noticed some differences, I don't recall what they were.
   

   [*]Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?

   NIV (among the versions I've bumped into) as I do not appreciate the blatant shifting of terms in translation (translating the Greek paradosis as both tradition and teaching/didaskalisis).
   

   [*]In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

Sorry, I don't know. (But then, I have no idea what translation we use at Liturgy, as it is unlike what I've read at home ... and I keep forgetting to ask, but I do like it.)

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.


2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . NIV (among the versions I've bumped into) as I do not appreciate the blatant shifting of terms in translation (translating the Greek paradosis as both tradition and teaching/didaskalisis).

I hope this won't detract from the thread, but where do your concerns lay with 'paradosis', is it with 'traditions' or 'teachings'.

 

[Jipsah]

I use the KJV litugically, so it is also what I tend to go to for personal use - poetically it is the strongest English version, and I think for memory it is best to stick to one version. For Bible study I use pretty much any of the more well thought of versions along side - I think as long as there is a little variety that is enough, I am not a huge supporter of laypeople delving into Greek lexicons as if that will give them a better understanding than a selection of experts in Greek - I think it is more likely to lead people astray.

I quoted your whole post because I agree with everything you said. I'm not sure whether you should be happy or unhappy about that.

 

[Biblicist]

I quoted your whole post because I agree with everything you said. I'm not sure whether you should be happy or unhappy about that.

As we all use Dictionaries on a regular basis then there should be no reason why
anyone shouldn't be able to read a Lexicon, there probably no harder to read then a good exhaustive English dictionary. The best part of a Lexicon is that almost anyone can understand them where the information should keep them from following someone's strange doctrine that they may have based on a single Greek or Hebrew word.