What Bible do Anglican's Use?

[Cary.Melvin]

What English Bible translation do Anglicans use in Church services? at home?

 

[benedictine]

This is a personal decision. Primarily I believe that either the KJV or NRSV are used in churches. I personally have an NIV, NRSV, and an Oxford Annotated version of the NRSV. I know some people prefer only the King James Version. Some people use a translation called the amplified Bible, though I don'r know anything about this translation. Hope I helped!
~~~Pax Christi

 

[Cjwinnit]

I have a battered old RSV on my shelf at home but my (anglican) school stipulated that the NIV was preferable.

 

[KleinerApfel]

My Anglican church uses the NIV nearly all the time, which coincidentally is also my choice for personal use.

The King James is also used just occasionally in our services.

When studying I often like to look at things in several versions to get a wider picture.

Blessings, Susana

 

[pmcleanj]

What English Bible translation do Anglicans use in Church services? at home?

Same answer as for most questions about Anglican practice: no single mandated standard exists.

I like the New English Bible. In fact, for clarity of English and beauty of prose, no comparable modern translation exists.

For memorizing, I use either the Bishops' Bible (the sections that are preserved in the Book of Common Prayer lectionary) or, since I don't own and cannot find a complete Bishops' Bible, the King James Version.

For teaching, usually the Contemporary English Version, because the simplicity of language makes the Word more accessible to students whose biblical literacy is of an inconsistent standard. I like the CEV for lectionary readings, for the same reason: for some hearers this is the only Scripture they will hear each week, so it had best be understood. Sometimes the NIV for classes where that's what most students are familiar with, or if the CEV translation is oversimplified to the point of awkwardness.

 

[September]

Our church uses the NRSV. Personally, my favorite and the one I use regularily is the NIV, but I also own an NRSV and a CEV.

 

[Aeschylus]

It's really something that varies from person to person and from church to church, I prefer the KJV and for no small reason is regarded as one of the finest works of the English language.

 

[Polycarp1]

There are canons in most Anglican provinces and national churches stipulating which versions are acceptable for official reading in church services. At last count, ECUSA was allowing something like twelve versions.

That said, there is an outfit which prints service leaflet inserts of the appointed readings for each Sunday and major feast, and they use the NRSV, which therefore has become something of the default choice, not because of church rules, but by virtue of the convenience of those inserts. I've seen them in about 20 different churches that we've visited, including the last two in which Barb and I have held our memberships since 1978.

 

[NewToLife]

Many parishes in the Church of England use the Good News Bible.

 

[tyeutter]

The Continueing Churches in North America [seperated Anglican bodies like the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Provinince of Christ the King, the Reformed Episcopal Church,] all use the Authorized translation of 1611 liturgically.

 

[Cliffnotes]

My church uses NSRV. My fav is NIV.

Speaking about the Good News Bible....is that a translation or paraphrase?

I've heard some priests, as I have many evangelicals, speak against paraphrases used in any way other than additional reference.

 

[Cjwinnit]

My church uses NSRV. My fav is NIV.

Speaking about the Good News Bible....is that a translation or paraphrase?

I've heard some priests, as I have many evangelicals, speak against paraphrases used in any way other than additional reference.

I know of a few "bible christians" who do not like the Good News Bible, but are very happy to read mst others. I can only assume it's heavy on paraphrase. An interesting accusation when you read half the Gospels

 

[Polycarp1]

There is a difference between "paraphrase" and "dynamic equivalence" -- though not much of a one. The former simply renders the ideas that the author thinks are being expressed in the Scripture -- and hence we don't get the underlying text but the author's understanding of it. "Dynamic equivalence" simply "translates the customs" -- if Paul were writing in and to modern France, for example, he might commend greeting a Christian brother with a kiss on each cheek (as he actually did with "the kiss of peace") and for Americans and British, J.B. Phillips' "dynamic equivalent" of "a hearty handshake" conveys the point -- a warm, friendly, non-sexual greeting as of true brothers is what is called for.

I've used the example that to pledge a sincere oath in ancient Israel, one laid one's hand on the thigh of the man receiving the oath -- this is mentioned in passing several times in Scripture, and some folks believe that "thigh" is euphemistic for "genitalia" -- and this is equivalent to swearing an oath with one's right hand on the Bible today. The bargaining between Abraham and Mamre is also rife with customs that we miss unless we read it with commentary -- God had given Abraham the land, so accepting a gift from Mamre of a place to bury Sarah would not give him title to the land in the eyes of Mamre and the Canaanites (why does that sound like a 1950s style band name? ) but paying Mamre for it would.

 

[Inge87]

I personally always use the KJV, but my church uses several different versions.

 

[Timothy]

As they say, it varies from church to church.

Incidentally (and off-topic), Aeschylus, do you attend the anglican church in Kyrenia?

Timothy

 

[Bingley]

At church, NIV (the pew bibles were a donation), at home NRSV with occasional glances at NIV.

 

[PaladinValer]

I and my parish both use the NRSV. The parish I attended when at college also used the NRSV.

I use the RSV and NJB as secondary Bibles and I'll rarely take a gander at the NASB.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

I see quite a few that are using the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Do any of you have a problem with the amount of gender inclusive language that is in it?

 

[PaladinValer]

Nope. In fact, the "gender inclusiveness" has made it quite an accurate translation.

 

[Polycarp1]

I see quite a few that are using the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

Do any of you have a problem with the amount of gender inclusive language that is in it?

My wife and I (she thinks a lot like Michelina, to give you a point of reference) have discussed this at length. And there are two aspects of "inclusive language" that are important to bring up.

First, many advocates of inclusive language want to see formal recognition of women whenever men are mentioned, and while that's fine, I dislike rewording Scripture to suit anyone's agenda (that goes as much for the folks who insist on "the sin of Sodom" being something different from what Scripture spells out verbatim that it is, as it does the inclusivists, pacifists, and every other brand of special interest group).

But second, remember that English uses one word, "man/men," to mean both "human being" and "adult male human." And Hebrew and Greek (and Latin) make a clear distinction between the two uses.

To address this, inclusive language advocates like to see "men and women" or, better, "person/people" ("people" being the plural of "person" in this usage, not "ethnopolitical group"), used where "human being(s)" is the sense meant (and specified) in the original.

And I'm kosher with that. There is a difference between agapetic love, erotic love, and filial love, and it helps if you know which one's meant by "love" in a given statement. There's a difference between "all anthropoi have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God" and "David had thirty androi of might" that deserves being made clear in English translations.

Does that make sense to you?