What Scriptural version do you utilise?

[filosofer]

The gender inclusive language is merely an annoyance at best. There's no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of it. And anyway, sometimes it's warranted, and truer to the original meaning. For example, there are times when "anthropos" meant something more like "person" rather than like "man."

Additionally, the footnotes at the bottom of the pages note when gender inclusive language was used. Readers can decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis.

I forgot to post that I use the NAB too. I own the Catholic Study Bible (the one edited by Senior & Collins, and published by Oxford) because I had to use it for one of my theology classes in undergrad, and I absolutely love it. It's very good imo.

Indeed, the NRSV can be very good at times. But it also makes changes without footnotes. For instance, it will follow an ancient version (for the OT: LXX, Targum, etc.) but not provide any footnote, and for someone who does not read Hebrew, that can be misleading. Very inconsistent.

Also, the NRSV crosses the boundaries of the gender issue at times; but the reader is "warned" in the preface. "The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this could be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture." Ironically there is even a sexist bent to this kind of guidance, but it is in the other direction so that must mean it is okay.

 

[bach90]

I use the ESV. I find it very readable, also it is endorsed by the LCMS. I also like how it uses the critical text as its source, but does not work in apologetics like the NIV does. I like the NKJV also.