Preferred Translation(s)

[PristineGraceCA]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original. The ASV/World English Bible are the ones I use the most. What translation(s) do you prefer? *This is the version I use to study.

 

[“Paisios”]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original. The ASV/World English Bible are the ones I use the most. What translation(s) do you prefer? *This is the version I use to study.

When reading through it, I tend to use the New King James Version. When studying a passage, I compare a variety, including the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NABRE, and the Orthodox Study Bible.

 

[Athanasius377]

I was raised reading the KJV but used the NASB for a long time. I switched over recently to the ESV. Of all the translations I have tried and used I find the ESV does the best at maintaining the accuracy of the translation with the readability. Its the translation I recommend.

 

[bèlla]

I use different translations dependent on the individual or situation.

When I'm in the company of Christians I'll reference the NASB or ESV.
When addressing non believers or situations when clear language is best I use the NIV.
When speaking to older people I reference the KJV.
For daily prayers I use the JPS Tanakh and CJB.
For lectio I use the RSV.

I maintain a library of different versions for reference and recommendation. Some are special additions like The Apologetics, Archaelogical, Orthodox, Women's, Stewardship, Leadership, and Chronological bibles. And the rest are translations including the NKJV, NLT, The Message, and The Amplified Bible.

I contemplated going to divinity school that's why I have lots of resources.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I use the 1769 KJV as my final word of authority; And I like the Amplified Classic (AMPC), and the NLT (New Living Translation) for hard to understand passages. I use the VOICE translation if I want to see all who are talking. I can compare them all at once at Biblegateway. But I prefer my KJV reading at Biblehub.

 

[eleos1954]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original. The ASV/World English Bible are the ones I use the most. What translation(s) do you prefer? *This is the version I use to study.

For my hard copy bible I usually use my NAS that is a red letter version and has a concordance, to compare many translations, strongs lexicons etc. and other tools I go to biblehub.com, sometimes I even use the Geneva bible.

 

[Krueman]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original. The ASV/World English Bible are the ones I use the most. What translation(s) do you prefer? *This is the version I use to study.

You said "These translations seem to be very close to the original." What do you consider to be the original? The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Unless you know biblical Hebrew and Greek, it is difficult to know what the original is. The first time both the Old and New Testaments were in a single language was the Greek Septuagint. Personally, I prefer KJV because I studied about its creation in theology school. I have confidence in the scholarship. However, KJV language can be difficult sometimes. When I want something more modern, I use NKJV or NIV. When still in doubt, I use Greek-English interlinear text.

 

[Radagast]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original.

The ESV would probably be the most accurate. Let's look at a random passage (Ephesians 2:4-7) with a literal translation:

ὁ δὲ θεὸς (ho de theos = but God) πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει (plousios ōn en eleei = being rich in mercy), διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς (dia tēn pollēn agapēn autou hēn ēgapēsen hēmas = through/because of the great love with which he loved us), καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (kai ontas hēmas nekrous tois paraptōmasin = even though we are being dead by/through the sins) συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ (synezōopoiēsen tō Christō = made-us-alive-with Christ) χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι (parenthesis: chariti este sesōsmenoi = by grace you have been saved) καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (kai synēgeiren kai synekathisen en tois epouraniois en Christō Iēsou = and raised-up-with and seated-together-with in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus), ἵνα ἐνδείξηται (hina endeixētai = so that he might show [subjunctive]) ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις (en tois aiōsin tois eperchomenois = in the coming ages) τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (to hyperballon ploutos tēs charitos autou = the surpassing riches of his grace) ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (en chrēstotēti eph’ hēmas en Christō Iēsou = in kindness to/upon us in Christ Jesus).

ESV (pretty much perfect): But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus.

WEB (almost as good, but a bit clumsy in places, reflecting the fact that the Biblical scholarship involved with the WEB was of lesser quality than the ESV): But God, being rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus;

KJV (archaic, and mistranslates "together with" and "seated with"): But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved); And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

NKJV (a modernised KJV, but still mistranslates "together with" and "seated with"): But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

CSB (almost perfect, and with small changes in word order for improved readability): But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love that he had for us, made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. You are saved by grace! He also raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might display the immeasurable riches of his grace through his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

NIV (almost perfect, and with small changes in word order for improved readability): But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

NLT (a very loose translation): But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!) For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus. So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus.

NASB (almost exactly the same as the ESV): But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

 

[Radagast]

Unless you know biblical Hebrew and Greek, it is difficult to know what the original is.

Some of us do. I know Greek myself.

Personally, I prefer KJV because I studied about its creation in theology school. I have confidence in the scholarship.

The scholarship and translation quality of the KJV is not as good as you think.

However, KJV language can be difficult sometimes.

True.

When I want something more modern, I use NKJV or NIV.

The NIV is good, though the ESV and CSB might be better.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I actually strongly dislike the ESV and prefer to steer clear of it as much as possible. The NIV is bad, but it is not as bad as the ESV in my opinion. It says things that are contrary to the Word of God. In fact, the ESV is one of the most popular translations out there. But we know that just because something is popular, it does not mean it is correct.

The English Standard Version Exposed
(Note: I merely agree with the article and it does not mean I agree with everything this author says or believes).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Edumacate yourself and spend some time learning Greek at the very least!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would prefer to believe my Bible in the English than assume I can know a dead language. There is no one to correct you from Bible times if you do not understand a certain word in the original languages correctly. You have to assume the scholars (who disagree with each other) got it right. This is why we read different translations in our own language and look at things like the context, and cross references, etc. Believers also pray for the understanding, as well (and they are not out to seek their own pet beliefs that they have learned from men).

 

[StevenMerten]

I have spent a great deal of time finding the right for me. Prior to my serious search, I exclusively relied on paraphrases (The Message, particularly) and translations such as the NIT, NLT, NAB (a Catholic translation), God's Word Translations, and other "dynamic equivalency" versions. Now, however, I use the 1611 KJV (the 400th anniversary facsimile, published by Hendrickson Bibles, which I used primarily in prayer) and the ASV related translations (American Standard Version,World English Bible*, NASB, and ESV). These translations seem to be very close to the original. The ASV/World English Bible are the ones I use the most. What translation(s) do you prefer? *This is the version I use to study.

Hello Pristine,
I prefer the NAB (New American Bible). I am Catholic, but I have read the KJV and NIV Bibles. The NABRE is the Bible of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and thus the Bible which is read at all the Masses in America. The beauty of the NABRE is that it is on-line, Books of the Bible . When you do Bible searches, Church documents on the issue come up as well; with the option to filter them out of the search. This gives me every thing the Church has ever written (that is put on-line), on the search word or phrase, along with all the references and Bible notes on the issue, and it is all right there on my phone.

I do choose the NAB, over all others, based on its clarity, style and accuracy, in the first place, however, the convenience of electronic searches and the availability of having it all on my phone, adds the spice to the NABRE.

 

[Concord1968]

I use primarily the ESV. I also have, in Logos, about a dozen other translations I can consult. All the major ones.

 

[miamited]

Hi PG of CA,

For myself, I generally use the NIV and the NKJV. I actually came to faith in Jesus and understanding of who God is and what He asks of us, through the NIV. It was my first choice when I purchased a copy of the Scriptures after I was born again. It happened to be the translation that the fellowship used that I was a part of when I trusted and believed God at the age of 40.

However, since then, I have also come to believe that there are a lot of valuable and worthwhile translations and some not so much. I pretty much steer well away from the translations that I consider to be pretty wild paraphrase variants. The Message translation would be one of these for me. According to GotQuestions.org the Message translation came about because a man thought that people were getting tired of reading the new covenant as most translations presented it. He seems to have come up with the idea that if we make the new covenant read more like a good novel today, more people would find it more interesting to read and study. Here's a quote from that site:

The Message is not a translation, nor can it strictly be said to be a paraphrase of the original languages of the Bible. Peterson’s goal in creating The Message, in his own words, was to “bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat’.” Pastor Peterson’s parishioners, by his own admission, “simply weren't connecting with the real meaning of the words and the relevance of the New Testament for their own lives.”

We seem to have gotten the Message translation because a lot of people were getting tired of the same old same old. For me, that's a very dangerous reason to rewrite the Scriptures. Rather than change God's word, I believe we need to change men's hearts. I pretty well understand that God's word was never conceived to be or intended to be some best selling novel. It is merely the truth of God and for those who can't seem to understand or find those truths getting boring, then it's time for a change of that person's heart rather than to attempt to make God's word more palatable for them.

That's just my opinion.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Radagast]

The Message is not a translation, nor can it strictly be said to be a paraphrase of the original languages of the Bible. Peterson’s goal in creating The Message, in his own words, was to “bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat’.” Pastor Peterson’s parishioners, by his own admission, “simply weren't connecting with the real meaning of the words and the relevance of the New Testament for their own lives.”

The late Pastor Eugene Petersen has written at length on his goals for The Message. In the context of Bible studies, he wanted something more forceful, to complement the "real" Bible.

Parts of The Message are actually really good translations. Parts are paraphrases. Parts make you think "what was he smoking that day?"

 

[miamited]

The late Pastor Eugene Petersen has written at length on his goals for The Message. In the context of Bible studies, he wanted something more forceful, to complement the "real" Bible.

Parts of The Message are actually really good translations. Parts are paraphrases. Parts make you think "what was he smoking that day?"

Hi radagast,

I would agree with your assessment of the Message as to its translation work. However, there are just too many very good translations that don't leave you with anyplace where you'd think "what was he smoking that day?" Personally, I prefer to encourage believers in the use of those better translations. What if the part that the reader really wants to hang his hat on is one of those "what was he smoking that day?", passages?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Radagast]

However, there are just too many very good translations that don't leave you with anyplace where you'd think "what was he smoking that day?"

I'm not really arguing. I admire his goal of making the Bible forceful, but I don't think he properly achieved it.