Buying a new Bible. Suggestions?

[Leevo]

Hey guys, I am looking to get a new Bible. Maybe.

I currently own 7 Bibles. A KJV, a NLT, a NKJV, two ESV's, a RSVCE, and a NAB.

I dislike the NAB, and the KJV. I won't use them. The KJV is too difficult for me to read, and I don't like the liberal commentary contained within my NAB.

I have taken a look at the NIV, but I noticed that many people dislike the new translation of it, the 2011 revision. Thoughts? Also, the NIV 1984 seems to have the most support, with a few people taking issue with a few verses.

 

[dysert]

I believe people dislike the 2011 NIV because it's gender neutral. I dislike the NIV because it uses dynamic equivalence in the translation, so going gender neutral is no surprise. My (current) favorite Bible, besides the NKJV, is the HCSB, and since you don't have one, you might give it a whirl. It's *very* accurate yet reads like the NIV. The HCSB and NKJV are really the only two I use any more (with an occasional nod to the ESV).

 

[Leevo]

I believe people dislike the 2011 NIV because it's gender neutral. I dislike the NIV because it uses dynamic equivalence in the translation, so going gender neutral is no surprise. My (current) favorite Bible, besides the NKJV, is the HCSB, and since you don't have one, you might give it a whirl. It's *very* accurate yet reads like the NIV. The HCSB and NKJV are really the only two I use any more (with an occasional nod to the ESV).

Interesting! I will give it a look! Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Goodbook]

Not sure why you need another one when you got several already?
Give them to people who don't have Bibles, and just have one. I do recommend the KJV at least giving it a go. It actually is not as hard to read as it appears. You can ask God for wisdom on which Bible translation too.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Hey guys, I am looking to get a new Bible. Maybe.

I currently own 7 Bibles. A KJV, a NLT, a NKJV, two ESV's, a RSVCE, and a NAB.

I dislike the NAB, and the KJV. I won't use them. The KJV is too difficult for me to read, and I don't like the liberal commentary contained within my NAB.

I have taken a look at the NIV, but I noticed that many people dislike the new translation of it, the 2011 revision. Thoughts? Also, the NIV 1984 seems to have the most support, with a few people taking issue with a few verses.

I highly recommend the NIV (yes, the 2011 NIV, since the 1984 NIV has been removed from the market). Believe me, there is nothing wrong with the 2011 NIV. It is a great translation! It is very fluent and sufficiently literal. I like to use it and compare it with a more literal one (generally, the ESV).

To me, the NIV seems to be the product of an excellent amount of work, in order to create an accurate, beautiful, easy-to-read and easy-to-use Bible version. It has got a number of useful footnotes, it is organised in a nice way (with paragraphs, headings and indentations) to make it easy to use, it is written in modern English to make it easy to read, and (not so important, but also useful) it is a popular version, meaning many people will read from the same version as that one.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Not sure why you need another one when you got several already?
Give them to people who don't have Bibles, and just have one. I do recommend the KJV at least giving it a go. It actually is not as hard to read as it appears. You can ask God for wisdom on which Bible translation too.

I speak for myself: I like to have many Bibles, especially in different versions. When I read a certain passage from more than one Bible version, I can find more interesting details in one of them which I could not find in the other one. Using different Bible versions is useful for studying, since each version renders the same verses in slightly different ways, which allows you to: 1) read things from another perspective; 2) capture details hidden elsewhere; and 3) sometimes, be aware of different possible translations for the same text. For me, it has been a huge blessing to read multiple translations!

I dislike the King James Version for a number of reasons. Firstly, although I can read most of it, it slows my reading, and there are always things that are not so clear. Secondly, its organisation is terrible. It just makes a paragraph out of every verse, and has nothing else: no headings, no sections, no indentations, nothing! I can't tell where a story begins and ends. It doesn't even have quotation marks, so I can't even tell where people begin and finish speaking or quoting the Old Testament. Thirdly, it is sometimes misleading (http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-words.html). Fourthly, it does not have any footnotes, which would identify alternative translations for the same text. And, fifthly, it includes verses and passages which are not known whether they are part of the original manuscripts, without any indication of such an uncertainty (e.g., Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Acts of the Apostles 8:37; 1 John 5:7-8).

But, oh well! That is just my opinion. On the bright side, it really sounds cool to read all those ‘thou’s and ‘thee’s and ‘-eth’s in the KJV. It has been a classic of the English language, and it has influenced the very English language in itself. And it is really a very literal version. But, in my opinion, that's probably where the advantages of the KJV end.

 

[Goodbook]

Oh Ok. I found it easier than the other versions thats all. Because it doesn't have the distracting footnotes and everything else. It is actually the Bible that was the first complete translation into English and is also known as the Authorised Version to Anglicans (as it's appointed to be read in their churches). So I wouldn't knock it. Other bibles have bits missing. I don't think its a good idea to cut our scripture like that. We know it's inspired as the Bible does confirm itself. I wouldn't say its completely perfect (only the original translation in hebrew and Greek,) and these have been copied and recopied many times..but God always preserves His Word.

The original Hebrew did not even have spaces between words and no chapter headings at all, so I would say the KJV is much easier!!! I think some editors add too much of their own ideas into the Bible, commentary and footnotes and intros etc so those bits aren't inspired its just someone else's opinion. also good thing about KJV is, once God opens your understanding to scripture you don't really need any other version. You can always go online to biblehub to compare scripture amongst the different versions.

I find once you start reading it, the Word really gets in you. Give it a go anyway.

 

[Goodbook]

Another thing to be aware of is so many new christians do NOT even have their own copy of the Bible so you can bless someone else by giving them one you don't need or use.

 

[Soyeong]

If you're interested in understanding the Bible from a Jewish cultural perspective, then I suggest the Complete Jewish Bible or the Tree of Life Bible.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Oh Ok. I found it easier than the other versions thats all. Because it doesn't have the distracting footnotes and everything else. It is actually the Bible that was the first complete translation into English and is also known as the Authorised Version to Anglicans (as it's appointed to be read in their churches). So I wouldn't knock it.

Neither would I knock it! It is an interesting version to read, but I find a number of problems with it, which make me unwilling to read from it very often. Nevertheless, it is still on my list.

Other bibles have bits missing. I don't think its a good idea to cut our scripture like that.

Hmm... Are those bits really missing from others Bibles, or has the KJV inappropriately added them? Think about it. Who can guarantee that it is the KJV which is correct and all the others wrong, and not vice-versa?

Please do me two favours. Firstly, take a quick look at the following article: http://www.gotquestions.org/textual-criticism.html, and pay special attention to the second last paragraph, which explains why many versions do not include John 5:4, as an example. Secondly, read this article: http://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html (it is a short one), which explains a much more serious error with the KJV: 1 John 5:7-8. After that, think about which version is really correct.

The original Hebrew did not even have spaces between words and no chapter headings at all, so I would say the KJV is much easier!!! I think some editors add too much of their own ideas into the Bible, commentary and footnotes and intros etc so those bits aren't inspired its just someone else's opinion.

Surely, these additions are not inspired. But they are helpful. Headings and paragraphs make it much easier to read and find what you want. Besides, you need to distinguish simple footnotes from commentary: simple footnotes add alternative translations (because translating is not always easy) and information about divergent manuscript accounts, whereas commentary refers to someone who has written his analysis of a certain passage in order to help readers get more insight into it (not always are they simply about opinions: a good commentator will include different perspectives of a certain passages, and perhaps justify why he favours one in particular).

also good thing about KJV is, once God opens your understanding to scripture you don't really need any other version. You can always go online to biblehub to compare scripture amongst the different versions.

I don't need another version. It's just useful. That's all.

I find once you start reading it, the Word really gets in you. Give it a go anyway.

I have. I have found that the NIV is much better in this regard. The New International Version is rendered in such a way that it makes you clearly understand it. For example, if I try reading a chapter of Paul's letters in the KJV, I will be slightly confused, and things will not be so clear; but, if I try the same in the NIV, all of Paul's arguments and his entire line of thought — including all the evidence, logics, Old Testament quotes, and even predictable objections and his answers to them — are so clearly evidence, just as if he were a modern writer arguing today.

Another thing to be aware of is so many new christians do NOT even have their own copy of the Bible so you can bless someone else by giving them one you don't need or use.

Yes, but that does not mean you have to give them your Bibles. I prefer to buy them a new one, rather than abdicating one of the ones I like and often use for comparison and Bible study.

 

[paul1149]

What I would suggest doing is, when you find a verse you would like to see rendered in other ways, search out that one verse at BibleGateway.com. Then after the verse will be a link "view all English translations". You will get probably 50 different takes on the verse. You can find one that you like and investigate it further, even assembling a parallel page of different translations, and get a feel for the translation before buying it.

Edit: It has to be a single verse only to see this option. Adding pics:

1.

2.

3.

 

[Leevo]

I highly recommend the NIV (yes, the 2011 NIV, since the 1984 NIV has been removed from the market). Believe me, there is nothing wrong with the 2011 NIV. It is a great translation! It is very fluent and sufficiently literal. I like to use it and compare it with a more literal one (generally, the ESV).

To me, the NIV seems to be the product of an excellent amount of work, in order to create an accurate, beautiful, easy-to-read and easy-to-use Bible version. It has got a number of useful footnotes, it is organised in a nice way (with paragraphs, headings and indentations) to make it easy to use, it is written in modern English to make it easy to read, and (not so important, but also useful) it is a popular version, meaning many people will read from the same version as that one.

A lot of people take issue with the 2011 version. Enough to cause me concern. The entirety of the Southern Baptist Convention has denounced it as a poor translation due to its gender neutral language in unnecessary locations. To name the main issue people have with it. Have you owned a 1984 version? Have you compared them? I am genuinely curious because I don't know which to get if I were to get one.

 

[Leevo]

Not sure why you need another one when you got several already?
Give them to people who don't have Bibles, and just have one. I do recommend the KJV at least giving it a go. It actually is not as hard to read as it appears. You can ask God for wisdom on which Bible translation too.

I like to have choices. When it comes to the KJV, I just don't believe that the Textus Receptus is very accurate compared to the much earlier manuscripts that we have today. It was good for its time, but now, on the lower list in terms of accuracy in my opinion. I want a version that flows nicely that I don't have to spend a huge amount of time trying to understand.

I would much rather buy someone else a brand new bible than give them one of my used ones. They would probably appreciate it more as well... All the Christians I know have one anyway...

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

A lot of people take issue with the 2011 version. Enough to cause me concern. The entirety of the Southern Baptist Convention has denounced it as a poor translation due to its gender neutral language in unnecessary locations. To name the main issue people have with it. Have you owned a 1984 version? Have you compared them? I am genuinely curious because I don't know which to get if I were to get one.

I see no problem with the modern 2011 version. The gender-neutral language was chosen to be... gender-neutral! I mean, honestly, what's the big deal with being gender-neutral? I mean, singular they, generic he — does it really make any difference? Gosh! I think that whoever condemns gender-neutral language and he who condemns masculine language should shut up and think about themself and whether he hasn't got anything better to do with their life than just bother other people and make a whole big deal out of the minutest details he can find and out of which they form an opinion in such a minor issue and refuse to read anything from he who disagrees with their opinion and favours a different style from his. Gosh! Man up, guys!

ADDENDUM (I forgot to say it before): No, I do not possess a 1984 NIV. Firstly, as I am led to understand, it is outside the market, and it is very difficult to find it online. Secondly, why should I buy a book which is, in 95% of the text, exactly the same as another book I already have, and where the differences regard only a few words occasionally and hardly ever change the meaning of the text? Gosh! Such a big deal these people make out of such an irrelevant issue! If you're curious about the main changes, take a look at this article and judge for yourself: http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2011-Translation-Notes.pdf.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Hey guys, I am looking to get a new Bible. Maybe.

I currently own 7 Bibles. A KJV, a NLT, a NKJV, two ESV's, a RSVCE, and a NAB.

I dislike the NAB, and the KJV. I won't use them. The KJV is too difficult for me to read, and I don't like the liberal commentary contained within my NAB.

I have taken a look at the NIV, but I noticed that many people dislike the new translation of it, the 2011 revision. Thoughts? Also, the NIV 1984 seems to have the most support, with a few people taking issue with a few verses.

When I did my degree in theology we were told to acquire a copy of the NRSV including the deuterocanonical books.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

When I did my degree in theology we were told to acquire a copy of the NRSV including the deuterocanonical books.

This guy seems to be Protestant, so I do not think he is interested in the Apocrypha...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

This guy seems to be Protestant, so I do not think he is interested in the Apocrypha...

I don't see why... The only reason why Bible's aren't printed with the Apocrypha today is that there was a shortage of paper in the inter-war period and the custom stuck.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I don't see why... The only reason why Bible's aren't printed with the Apocrypha today is that there was a shortage of paper in the inter-war period and the custom stuck.

Er... Yeah, that was definitely it. They thought, ‘Well, we're running out of paper, so we just might as well remove from our Bibles these seven extra, useless books — I think it will account for a significant saving.’ And so they did, and it remains to this day.

 

[Leevo]

I see no problem with the modern 2011 version. The gender-neutral language was chosen to be... gender-neutral! I mean, honestly, what's the big deal with being gender-neutral? I mean, singular they, generic he — does it really make any difference? Gosh! I think that whoever condemns gender-neutral language and he who condemns masculine language should shut up and think about themself and whether he hasn't got anything better to do with their life than just bother other people and make a whole big deal out of the minutest details he can find and out of which they form an opinion in such a minor issue and refuse to read anything from he who disagrees with their opinion and favours a different style from his. Gosh! Man up, guys!

ADDENDUM (I forgot to say it before): No, I do not possess a 1984 NIV. Firstly, as I am led to understand, it is outside the market, and it is very difficult to find it online. Secondly, why should I buy a book which is, in 95% of the text, exactly the same as another book I already have, and where the differences regard only a few words occasionally and hardly ever change the meaning of the text? Gosh! Such a big deal these people make out of such an irrelevant issue! If you're curious about the main changes, take a look at this article and judge for yourself: http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2011-Translation-Notes.pdf.

I don't personally take issue with gender neutral language. It makes the most sense given our modern culture. I think the main issue with a few verses that were changed. With something like this:

NIV84 | Psalm 8:4 "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"

NIV | Psalm 8:4 what is mankind that you are mindful of °them, human beings that you care for them?"

They were upset at the removal of the "son of man" which is a title given to Jesus by himself in the gospels. I don't see that much of a problem with it, but apparently they think it hurts the ability to see the reference to Jesus with removing the "son of man" part.

 

[mygodisalvation]

The AMP is my favorite. Most translations don't have the deity pronouns capitalized and that annoys the crap outta me.