Help me choose 4 new bibles

[Markus6]

Following a number of threads about bible translations I thought I'd jump in but with a slight twist. I recently bought myself some new bible software (Accordance) and as part of the package I can choose 4 bibles to unlock. The software came with the following translations (so I already have them):
ASV - American Standard Version
BBE - Bible in Basic English
BISHOP - Bishop's Bible
DOUAY - Douay-Rheims Bible
DRBY - Darby Version
ESVS - English Standard Version with Strong's
GENEVA - Geneva Bible
KJVS - King James Version with Strong's Numbers
NAS95S - New American Standard 1995 Update with Strong's
NASB - New American Standard Bible
NET - New English Translation Bible
NLT-SE - New Living Translation Second Edition
WEB - World English Bible
WEBSTR -Webster Bible
WEYMTH - Weymouth New Testament
YNG - Young's Version
I also have an actual physical parallel of the KJV, NIV, NLT and NASB as well as just a standard NIV.

My choices are between:
AMP - Amplified Bible
CEV - Contemporary English Version
CJB - Complete Jewish Bible with Notes
GWORD - GOD'S WORD with Notes
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible
JPS - Tanakh-Jewish Publication Society
MESSAGE - The Message
NAB - New American Bible
NIV - New International Version with footnotes
NJB - New Jerusalem Bible
NKJV - New King James Version
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha
REB - Revised English Bible
RSV - Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha
SB - Schocken Bible: The Five Books of Moses
TEV - Today's English Version
TNIV - Today's New International Version and Notes

A bit more information:
My pastor tends to use a number of translations but has a definite penchant for the TEV.
I tend to prefer literal translations but I'm also interested in having lots of diversity and different opinions. If any of the bibles are the main bible for a particular group (e.g. I've heard the HCSB is becoming the standard for the SBC) then that certainly sparks more interest for me.

I did want to include a poll but there are more than 10 options. If you post your top 4 I'll compile the results myself. However, I think I'll mostly be basing my decision on any opinions and information given. Feel free to ask any more questions if you feel it'll help your answer.

I really appreciate your help.

 

[MrPolo]

I would definitely get the earlier King James with Strong's numbers because that comes in handy, plus the KJV is a pretty literal translation.

I also like the Douay-Rheims, which is of course a Catholic translation, close to KJV in trying to be literal, based on St. Jerome's translation too, I believe.

My favorite in your group is the RSV-w/ Apocrypha (which I call the deuterocanon). The RSV is also a more literal translation but in sentences less antiquated than the KJV will give you. Plus you get the extra books, which even most Protestants throughout history found valuable for personal spirituality at the least.

The only other two I use regularly are the NIV and NAB (which is the translation used in the modern Catholic mass in the United States). These are both "easy to understand" translations as far as I can tell.

 

[kiwimac]

My picks.

NAB - New American Bible
NIV - New International Version with footnotes
NJB - New Jerusalem Bible
REB - Revised English Bible.

 

[Markus6]

I would definitely get the earlier King James with Strong's numbers because that comes in handy, plus the KJV is a pretty literal translation.

I also like the Douay-Rheims, which is of course a Catholic translation, close to KJV in trying to be literal, based on St. Jerome's translation too, I believe.

My favorite in your group is the RSV-w/ Apocrypha (which I call the deuterocanon). The RSV is also a more literal translation but in sentences less antiquated than the KJV will give you. Plus you get the extra books, which even most Protestants throughout history found valuable for personal spirituality at the least.

The only other two I use regularly are the NIV and NAB (which is the translation used in the modern Catholic mass in the United States). These are both "easy to understand" translations as far as I can tell.

Just FYI I already have the KJV and Douay-Rheims and the rest of the first list. It's the second list I need to choose four from (I've tried to clarify). So far you've got (and thanks for giving reasons):
RSV, NIV and NAB would you care to pick another.
And yes I'm quite interested in reading the Apocrypha so that's definitely a plus point for me.

 

[wildboar]

Nkjv
Nrsv
Njb
Hcsb

 

[Markus6]

My picks.

NAB - New American Bible
NIV - New International Version with footnotes
NJB - New Jerusalem Bible
REB - Revised English Bible.

Could you give some reasons? The NIV is an interesting one. I already have two physical copies of it but it's by far the most used translation so it'd be nice to have the text to manipulate with the software, which is amazing.

 

[SummaScriptura]

AMP - Amplified Bible
NKJV - New King James Version
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha
RSV - Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha

You need to get the deutero-canonicals. The RSV and the NRSV gives you two entirely different approaches to the translation of those books. The Amplified is an indispensible reference tool. The KJV is a standard and the NKJV is an excellent update of it.

By the way, the Jerusalem Bible, the New AMerican Bible and the Douay-Rheims are missing several of the deuterocanonicals. Plus the Douay-Rheims is a translation of a Latin translation so it is twice removed from the originals.

 

[Markus6]

Thanks for your comments. After a bit of study I think I have eliminated the following:

AMP - Amplified Bible - It seems great but amplifying the bible is exactly what the software is designed to do. With the original greek and hebrew, lexicons, commentaries and the ability to read different translations in parallel it just doesn't seem necessary to have this version.

MESSAGE - The Message - It can be very useful, especially using the bible with the very unchurched and those who don't have that great a grasp on the English language (assuming you agree with the interpretation which I may sometimes but often won't) but I don't think it's for me at this time, especially as Accordance is a serious study tool and this isn't a serious study bible.

NAB - New American Bible - From a bit of reading around the NJB seems to be a superior Catholic bible.

NIV - New International Version with footnotes - I already have two physical copies, if I'm going to get something from this school it will be the TNIV.

There are also a few either/or decisions:

CEV vs. TEV - I grew up with the Good News Translation, which is very popular in Britain so it's a bit nostalgic, though some of that might be lost without the pictures. I don't know much about the CEV so I'm going to have to do some reading on it.

CJB vs. JPS - Messianic or Jewish... I only want one of these at most but I am interested in having a slightly more Jewish flavour.

NRSV vs. RSV - I already have the ESV so I only want one, if any, more of this family.


So the list now looks more like:

1. TEV (GNT) or CEV
2. CJB or JPS
3. GWORD (I really don't know anything about this translation so more info would be appreciated)
4. HCSB (A fresh new school of translation, very big with the baptists, a strong contender)
5. NJB
6. NKJV (I already have the KJV and I'm a minority text kinda guy so I'm leaning away from this one, my girlfriend has it if I'm desperate)
7. NRSV or RSV
8. REB (part of a whole school I haven't got any translations from, also British so very tempting)
9. SB (I love the idea of this)
10. TNIV

Perhaps I'll splash out and get 4 more if I can't decide!

I've got a lot of info from Rick Mansfield's blog "This Lamp". His top 10 bibles are listed here:
http://heissufficient.net/2007/04/20/this-lamp-favorite-bibles/
And he gives a lot of useful information.

More opinions would be nice so I can make a meaningful graph. Any comments on these thoughts of mine?

 

[crishmael]

From the remaining list I would choose:

RSV-simply because it is a translation that is used and accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. I've been meaning to get my own for a while now.

TNIV-I got one of these for Christmas and so far I have really enjoyed it. I'm not certain it will replace the NIV in readership, but it is gaining a younger audience.

HCSB-I've only glanced at my copy a few times, but if it is gaining popularity, then it would be useful to have access to it.

NJB-simply to have a Catholic translation. Never know when it will come in handy.

 

[Markus6]

RSV-simply because it is a translation that is used and accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. I've been meaning to get my own for a while now.

RSV over NRSV? Any reason? The rest of your list I agree with, and with the reasons you gave, from what I've read myself.

 

[student ad x]

My 2 cents:

HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible
NKJV - New King James Version
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha
TNIV - Today's New International Version and Notes

 

[student ad x]

I've got a lot of info from Rick Mansfield's blog "This Lamp". His top 10 bibles are listed here:

And he gives a lot of useful information.

More opinions would be nice so I can make a meaningful graph. Any comments on these thoughts of mine?

You will get a lot of useful information from Rick's blog.

 

[crishmael]

RSV over NRSV? Any reason? The rest of your list I agree with, and with the reasons you gave, from what I've read myself.

I would say RSV because it was more accepted. Some churches have had problems with the NRSV use of generic phrases like "people" or "brothers and sisters" in instances where the Bible may use a masculine term like "brothers" but the passage in context applies to all people. It is the same argument used against the TNIV. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the NRSV. I used it for a while in college, and still have a copy with the Apocrypha. It would get my recommendation just as much as the RSV.

 

[Markus6]

I would say RSV because it was more accepted. Some churches have had problems with the NRSV use of generic phrases like "people" or "brothers and sisters" in instances where the Bible may use a masculine term like "brothers" but the passage in context applies to all people. It is the same argument used against the TNIV. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the NRSV. I used it for a while in college, and still have a copy with the Apocrypha. It would get my recommendation just as much as the RSV.

I really don't have a problem with inclusive language, and will have plenty of translations without if I need balance. What I'm more interested in are the other updates to the NRSV, is it generally an improvement? More literal or more dynamic?

 

[wildboar]

I really don't have a problem with inclusive language, and will have plenty of translations without if I need balance. What I'm more interested in are the other updates to the NRSV, is it generally an improvement? More literal or more dynamic?

The NRSV is definitely more of a dynamic equivalence translation than the RSV is. The RSV and NRSV would both be nice to have on hand. The RSV was the standard at most colleges and universities for a long, now replaced by the NRSV. You might also go the route of choosing versions that you can't access on-line but it is nice to have them all together. There are a lot of nice translations in the RSV although it does obscure some of the Messianic prophecies in the OT.

The God's Word translation is based on a work done by some in the LCMS called the New Evangelical Translation which had simplified English and was designed to be used on the mission field. New Evangelical Translation was actually pretty good but the revised form in the God's Word Translation has lost a lot of accuracy in attempts to be even more readable.

 

[crishmael]

I really don't have a problem with inclusive language, and will have plenty of translations without if I need balance. What I'm more interested in are the other updates to the NRSV, is it generally an improvement? More literal or more dynamic?

I'd agree with Wildboar on the RSV as being more dynamic. The one I'd personally read between the two, RSV and NRSV, would be the latter. It seems to read smoother.

 

[SummaScriptura]

.

 

[Markus6]

I'd agree with Wildboar on the RSV as being more dynamic. The one I'd personally read between the two, RSV and NRSV, would be the latter. It seems to read smoother.

Yeah, I'm thinking that if I get the NRSV, having already got the ESV I'll have all sides of the RSV covered as the ESV seems more formal and the NRSV more dynamic. The RSV is pretty much out of print now so those two are more likely to be used.

Seriously leaning towards buying an extra four so I can choose 8 now!

 

[SummaScriptura]

The genealogy of the translations runs like this:

KJV 1611 > ASV 1901 > RSV 1953 > ESV 2001

The NRSV 1989 is a revision of the the RSV but it abandons formal equivalence in favor of dynamic equivalence, so in a sense its in a different lineage.

The BIG plus of the NRSV is the willingness of the editors to add back in recovered segments of scripture heretofore unknown to tradition but which nonetheless merit inclusion; examples are a restored fragment in between 1 Samuel 10 and 11, Hebrew fragments of Sirach restored, the longer recovered text of Psalm 151 from the DSS and the inclusion of the longer Tobit text.

I'd say get the RSV for the literal rendering of the deuterocanonicals and get the NRSV for the additional recovered texts.

 

[Markus6]

The genealogy of the translations runs like this:

KJV 1611 > RevisedVersion 1894 > RSV 1953 > ESV 2001

The NRSV 1989 is a revision of the the RSV but it abandons formal equivalence in favor of dynamic equivalence, so in a sense its in a different lineage.

The BIG plus of the NRSV is the willingness of the editors to add back in recovered segments of scripture heretofore unknown to tradition but which nonetheless merit inclusion; examples are a restored fragment in between 1 Samuel 10 and 11, Hebrew fragments of Sirach restored, the longer recovered text of Psalm 151 from the DSS and the inclusion of the longer Tobit text.

I'd say get the RSV for the literal rendering of the deuterocanonicals and get the NRSV for the additional recovered texts.

Hmmm, isn't the RSV based more on the ASV (1901)? I found a diagram that showed it:
KJV => ASV => RSV => ESV
_________________=> NRSV

and KJV => RV => NEB => REB