What is your favorite Bible translation?

[faroukfarouk]

I usually use the KJV just for simple reading, ......but , when I am doing etymology studies and looking at language cognates in other languages, like Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Akkadian, Sumerian, Syriac, Phoenician, Hittite, etc

...I look at as many different versions as possible, to get a comprehensive overview

The reason for that is that the different translations of the Bible were put together based on the knowledge of language cognates, which is why you see the cognates from languages other than Hebrew and Greek, mentioned in the Concordance listings

Really good to look at various sources, yes; I do use the KJV most of the time also.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Hands down,the OAR ( Old Australian Revised.) It just works on so many levels.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hands down, Old Australian Revised. It just works on so many levels.

When are you going to publish it for us?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Continuing a tradition:
The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

The Lockman Foundation

I know what is meant if it's said that a more formal version is more accurate than a 'dynamic' or paraphrastic translation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the KJV is the perfect Word of God in the English today. However, I use Modern Translations to help update the Early Modern English (1600's English) on occasion. Mostly this is with the Old Testament. I like the NLT sometimes when reading the OT. But I always compare it with the KJV.


...

 

[parousia70]

NKJV & YLT

 

[Monk Brendan]

I am not sure that this is the right board to post on, but a moderator can move it if they feel it is incorrect. If you select "other" on the poll, feel free to clarify your preference as a reply!

My favorite for just sitting down and reading is the New International Version (or as some people call it, the non-inspired version). For serious study, I go with the Orthodox Study Bible, as I know that that version is the closet to the Received Text (what all of the Protestants were reading before they were Protestants--actually, it is the text that came from the Greek scholars way before Jerome translated the Vulgate). However when I am on these fora, I use the KJV, so there will be NO confusion, and so I won't be labeled a heretic because of the Bible I use.

 

[Sam91]

I own NIV, ESV, NKJV. I listen to NIV and KJV on audiobible.

My order of preference is as above. NIV being a thought for thought translation is the easiest of the 3 to read and the translation I've read since a teen. I read most of the bible in ESV last year. It is a more word for word translation rather than phrase so it flows slightly less well.

I haven't read much in my NKJV bible as it is a study bible too so I find the points on the verses a distraction and end up readibg the points being made instead of the word of God. That being a hindrance I actually let my friend borrow it an hour ago. It's a medium term loan. She can keep it as long as she wants... as long as I get it back one day. > . <

 

[faroukfarouk]

I own NIV, ESV, NKJV. I listen to NIV and KJV on audiobible.

My order of preference is as above. NIV being a thought for thought translation is the easiest of the 3 to read and the translation I've read since a teen. I read most of the bible in ESV last year. It is a more word for word translation rather than phrase so it flows slightly less well.

I haven't read much in my NKJV bible as it is a study bible too so I find the points on the verses a distraction and end up readibg the points being made instead of the word of God. That being a hindrance I actually let my friend borrow it an hour ago. It's a medium term loan. She can keep it as long as she wants... as long as I get it back one day. > . <

Yes, sometimes marks on the page can be a bit of a distraction.

 

[Vicomte13]

I never use paraphrase versions.

All translation is a paraphrase, particularly of the Old Testament.

The problem with the Old Testament is that the Hebrew verb system is totally alien from the Indo-European languages, and even modern Semitic languages. It literally cannot be translated word for word, because one Hebrew verb tense means the same thing as ten or eleven English or French verb tenses. It is not a question of context: the Hebrew verb is unrelated to the timestream - it never tells you whether something started happening, is currently happening or will happen in the future. It can only tell you whether an action is complete or incomplete. The manner of thought itself is different, and there are only two ways to translate it into English (or ancient Greek, or any other timestream language):

(1) paraphrase, by choosing ONE of the possible translations of the verb, or
(2) list out all of the possible meanings of the verb.

No translation does the second, because it would make the Old Testament sprawl on for thousands and thousands of pages. Therefore, all translations of the Old Testament are a paraphrase.

 

[No Swansong]

Wow I had to really think on this one. I guess it depends on my purpose but I guess my overall favorite is probably the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

 

[Vicomte13]

For serious study, I go with the Orthodox Study Bible, as I know that that version is the closet to the Received Text (what all of the Protestants were reading before they were Protestants--actually, it is the text that came from the Greek scholars way before Jerome translated the Vulgate). However when I am on these fora, I use the KJV, so there will be NO confusion, and so I won't be labeled a heretic because of the Bible I use.

Might I recommend to you the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) for the New Testament? It is translated from the Patriarchal Text (only, no recension), so it has ONE manuscript source - the "official" one, and it is translated by English-speaking Greek Orthodox who have a real intuitive understanding of the subtleties of the Greek - example: the difference between "latrea" and "proskuneo" - between "divine service" worship and "bending the knee" or "veneration" worship. That difference is important for some discussions, and the Greeks are very sensitive to it.

Another example: basileos, which is usually just rendered "kingdom" in English, is not properly understood in Greek as "kingdom" - a kingdom is a piece of land with borders and a king. It is more properly understood as "reign" - the sphere of influence in the world over individual humans, not tied to geography.

Thus, while Queen Elizabeth reigns in England, her reign also extends to cover English citizens - her subjects - even when in New York. So, English subjects are still within the reign of Queen Elizabeth even when they are within another physical kingdom. A reign - a basileos - is relational among human beings. A kingdom has fixed terrestrial borders. The Basileous ton Theo - the "Reign of God" - is really what Jesus said, not the "Kingdom of God". The former indicates rulership over hearts and minds of humans (and angels, and demons for that matter) wherever they may be. The latter emphasizes a territorial rule.

The EOB is very sensitive to these things, in part because the Eastern Orthodox come into the dialogue from a perch outside of the traditional Catholic/Protestant discussion, and the Greeks never had to use any translation, but simply directly use the LXX and the Patriarchal text - it's an ancient form of their native language.

I would say if you want the most accurate formal AND thought for thought translation of the New Testament in English, the Eastern Orthodox Bible is non-pareil.

Unfortunately the Old Testament version of the EOB has hung fire, and the OSB is the only regularly available bound version of the Old Testament that translates the LXX. It's okay for the Old Testament, but it just uses the NKJV for the New Testament, and the marginal comments, which are supposed to be Orthodox, were clearly written in many cases by a convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, and reflect that particular mindset.

 

[Vicomte13]

Continuing a tradition:
The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

The Lockman Foundation

Trouble is, we have no original manuscripts. So what the tradition is, is the tradition of a recension (the Nesle-Aland probably) inflected by an interpretive tradition.

And the NASB's rendering of the Hebrew imperfect verb is always a paraphrase.

 

[bekkilyn]

You know what they say ... the best bible version is the one you will read.

(... except for The Message which should only be used for starting fires.)

Heh I have The Message on my Kindle and it can get really weird the way it paraphrases some things. I can't even figure out how they came up with what they did to the Lord's prayer.

It can be useful at times when in a bible study class and reading through some verses where everyone is going "Huh?" and so someone will see what The Message has to say about it to see if it triggers any any additional thoughts. Some people really like it, but I do hope they aren't using it as their primary source of bible study.

Continuing a tradition:
The original NASB has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The NASB update carries on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say--not merely what the translator believes they mean.

I've heard someone else say this same thing recently, but wasn't sure whether or not it was true or whether it was coming from some sort of NASB-only type of perspective similar to the KJV-only folks. I do have a copy of this version

My favorite for just sitting down and reading is the New International Version (or as some people call it, the non-inspired version). For serious study, I go with the Orthodox Study Bible, as I know that that version is the closet to the Received Text (what all of the Protestants were reading before they were Protestants--actually, it is the text that came from the Greek scholars way before Jerome translated the Vulgate). However when I am on these fora, I use the KJV, so there will be NO confusion, and so I won't be labeled a heretic because of the Bible I use.

LOL

Who publishes the Orthodox Study Bible and is there an e-book version of it? I did an Amazon search on it, but only came up with an Orthodox study bible for NKJV. I don't currently have anything Orthodox-specific (I don't think) so wouldn't mind taking a look.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I am not sure that this is the right board to post on, but a moderator can move it if they feel it is incorrect. If you select "other" on the poll, feel free to clarify your preference as a reply!

The ESV on this list is my preferred translation. I is very readable and beautiful in language. It uses the more accurate set of manuscripts as well.

I have recently been attracted to the NIV84. I do not like the newer NIV, but the '84 edition is a very good one. Thankfully I had 2 copies of it, a Thompson Chain Reference NIV84 and a Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible NIV84. That Key Word Bible I also have in the ESV.

 

[Sam91]

Heh I have The Message on my Kindle and it can get really weird the way it paraphrases some things. I can't even figure out how they came up with what they did to the Lord's prayer.

It can be useful at times when in a bible study class and reading through some verses where everyone is going "Huh?" and so someone will see what The Message has to say about it to see if it triggers any any additional thoughts. Some people really like it, but I do hope they aren't using it as their primary source of bible study.



I've heard someone else say this same thing recently, but wasn't sure whether or not it was true or whether it was coming from some sort of NASB-only type of perspective similar to the KJV-only folks. I do have a copy of this version



LOL

Who publishes the Orthodox Study Bible and is there an e-book version of it? I did an Amazon search on it, but only came up with an Orthodox study bible for NKJV. I don't currently have anything Orthodox-specific (I don't think) so wouldn't mind taking a look.

I bought a bible for someone which had NIV, NKJV, NLT and the Message side by side all through it. This person swore by NKJV but didn't grasp meaning of scripture well so thought it was a useful tool to have. Four translations side by side to compare is pretty handy.

My friend was in today and she showed me an extract from a book she was reading. (By the something Church of God) I didn't quite like what I was reading. Recognised it from Romans 7 so looked it up in my NIV... got son to get the ESV and NKJV and it sounded different to all three. Plus they had added bits in brackets we had to dismiss. I realised what was missing eventually ... The first half of Romans 7:25 and the rest of the extract was made to sound different to suit whatever it was trying to teach.

 

[bekkilyn]

I bought a bible for someone which had NIV, NKJV, NLT and the Message side by side all through it. This person swore by NKJV but didn't grasp meaning of scripture well so thought it was a useful tool to have. Four translations side by side to compare is pretty handy.

My friend was in today and she showed me an extract from a book she was reading. (By the something Church of God) I didn't quite like what I was reading. Recognised it from Romans 7 so looked it up in my NIV... got son to get the ESV and NKJV and it sounded different to all three. Plus they had added bits in brackets we had to dismiss. I realised what was missing eventually ... The first half of Romans 7:25 and the rest of the extract was made to sound different to suit whatever it was trying to teach.

Maybe Worldwide Church of God? They were pretty cultish in the past when they revolved around the teachings of a guy, Herbert W. Armstrong, though they later reformed the church after he died and instituted more standard Christian doctrine. I think there's some other sub-denominations of them still around who refused to go along with the reforms, so if the book was from them or from that older Armstrong stuff, you probably would see some rather "interesting" things in it.

I've seen some of those multi-translation bibles before and have thought about getting one, but then never do since I usually have them all somewhere on the kindle, and already have a physical NRSV study bible with apocrypha I lug around to various places.

 

[Deadworm]

When I want to evaluate the spiritual competence of church leadership or unknown preachers, my first question is this: Do they think so little of God's Word that they use the King James Version? In the 1600s, Bible translators were far more limited in the availability of biblical Greek and Hebrew texts than they are today. But now not only do we have access to older and more reliable manuscripts; translations can benefit from the new science of Text Criticism. This science has learned to group texts into manuscript families by date and region. This allows them to trace the source and reasons for most of the 70,000+ contradictory readings in these manuscripts. Their discoveries are then compared to the biblical quotations of early church fathers who wrote before most of our biblical manuscripts were composed. For example, Origen (born 185 AD) points to earlier texts that lack certain readings, readings that mistakenly show up in the KJV.

]I know Greek and Hebrew and have an MDiv from Princeton Seminary and a ThD in New Testament and Judaism; and I also attended an evangelical seminary (Fuller) for a year. I can assure you the most Bible scholars, conservative, liberal, and secular, deplore the hostical ignorance of Fundamentalist who use the corrupt version of the Word of God, the KJV.

As for the best version, the best way to answer that is to examine controversial texts that are mistranslated for reasons of political correctness or theological bias and let the readers decide for themselves on a text by text basis. I may well offer several exammples of this in this thread.

 

[Sam91]

I have no need for one either. Not with google at our fingertips. A verse is easily checked in multiple translations just by searching the verse. I think it's bible hub which gives them listed?

 

[Sam91]

Maybe Worldwide Church of God? They were pretty cultish in the past when they revolved around the teachings of a guy, Herbert W. Armstrong, though they later reformed the church after he died and instituted more standard Christian doctrine. I think there's some other sub-denominations of them still around who refused to go along with the reforms, so if the book was from them or from that older Armstrong stuff, you probably would see some rather "interesting" things in it.

I've seen some of those multi-translation bibles before and have thought about getting one, but then never do since I usually have them all somewhere on the kindle, and already have a physical NRSV study bible with apocrypha I lug around to various places.

Also a little miracle happened. I'm busy warning her about the amount of books about the Bible she reads being a new-ish Christian and having no church. Well, I hapoened to read that Church name as a possible cult last night on a thread here. Well, when she showed me the page on her tablet and I was checking out what she showed me because it sounded dodgy. I asked where it was from after we figured out what was taken from the verse and what was emphasised more than it is in the 3 translations we checked and I saw it was from a certain Church. Well then I foung the thread from last night and it was one listed.

She told me she loves the book and it isn't bad. So I reiterated how close to the bible things can sound and mislead. When she left I thought to phone her and remind her it probably isnt a coincidence that I only heard of this Church last night and its the first time she has shown me one of her many internet books in months and that to happen. God might have been protecting her. She was thinking so too. Praise our Lord!