Which Bible version would you recommend?

[Complete in Thee]

I'd like to know which Bible version is more commonly used by the Anglican laity and priests/ theologians/theological colleges?
Previously I have used the KJV but now I am wanting to use a modern version for personal use and for my formal theological studies.

I would appreciate your feedback.

Complete in Thee

Thank you

 

[High Fidelity]

NRSV is the most common I believe

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We use the NIVA in our church, both in services and in home groups. I think most COfE churches use NIVA, certainly all the ones I have been to in recent years.

 

[DW1980]

Hi

In most Anglican churches it would be the NRSV, though many low churches and evangelical churches would use the NIV.

For my own personal use I mainly use the NIV, and sometimes the NLT. For study I consult others too such as the ESV.

 

[sdowney717]

I like the NKJV.

 

[Paidiske]

NRSV is the recommended translation for use in public worship in my diocese.

If you want one for formal theological study, I'd suggest consulting the book list before buying; good study Bibles can be expensive.

 

[Albion]

I'd like to know which Bible version is more commonly used by the Anglican laity and priests/ theologians/theological colleges?
Previously I have used the KJV but now I am wanting to use a modern version for personal use and for my formal theological studies.

I would appreciate your feedback.

Complete in Thee

Thank you

Hi, "Complete in Thee." Everyone I know prefers the KJV, but I think it's also a good idea to compare translations if you're working on understanding some Scriptural point. Those publications that put four different translations into parallel columns for easy comparison work very well.

 

[gordonhooker]

For university study and reading/Bible study in church our diocese uses the NRSV. My lecturers recommend having multiple translations for comparison when doing serious study. I have Bible software Logos and Accordance which enable me bring up multiple translations in parallel.

 

[Ancient of Days]

KJV

 

[PloverWing]

The NRSV is very commonly used in Episcopal churches in my area. It's also a popular choice for scholarly use in the mainline Protestant denominations here in the US.

 

[Radagast]

I'd like to know which Bible version is more commonly used by the Anglican laity and priests/ theologians/theological colleges?

It depends on which Anglicans.

In Sydney, Australia, it would be the ESV.

 

[Paidiske]

OP is in Victoria.

I don't actually know which translation the country dioceses use, I probably should find out...

 

[Radagast]

OP is in Victoria.

Well, that does narrow it down a bit more. There are still multiple theological colleges in Victoria, however.

AFAIK, Ridley College recommends an electronic Bible (a custom version of the Logos software) which includes multiple English translations. But my information could be out of date.

 

[Paidiske]

At Trinity you'll get different recommendations depending which unit you're doing and who teaches it. But in chapel it's the NRSV.

 

[Complete in Thee]

In Australia do high church Anglicans tend to favor the NRSV while low church Anglicans use the ESV/ NIV? If yes why would that be so?

I guess I want a Bible version in modern English which I can use during my life (both for personal reading and for formal study). I don't really want to be changing version every few years. There are just so many versions and some greatly differ.

Thanks for the help so far

 

[Paidiske]

In Australia do high church Anglicans tend to favor the NRSV while low church Anglicans use the ESV/ NIV? If yes why would that be so?

Broadly speaking, yes I think that would be accurate.

Both are good and sound translations. The NRSV tends towards inclusive language for people (so, for example, expanding the Greek adelphoi to "brothers and sisters" rather than simply brothers, when talking about or to a mixed group).

The study notes of the NIV are frankly far superior in their breadth and depth. But the NRSV includes the deuterocanonical books, which are not in the NIV.

My observation is that the NIV has a noticeable socially conservative bias in its translation, and especially in its study notes. The NRSV has a more socially liberal bias. When I talk about bias, I don't mean they go beyond the possible meaning of the Greek. But often the Greek is ambiguous and has a range of possible meanings, and the NIV consistently chooses the conservative end of that range of possible meaning, if that makes sense?

 

[Radagast]

In Australia do high church Anglicans tend to favor the NRSV while low church Anglicans use the ESV/ NIV? If yes why would that be so?

In Australia, the Anglican split, in my view, is not so much between "high" and "low," as between "Sydney/Moore College affiliated" and "not Sydney/Moore College affiliated."

Among the "Sydney/Moore College affiliated" group, I've seen the NIV, ESV, and (more recently) CSB used. This would be driven by a range of factors, including influences from Evangelical churches overseas.

Outside the "Sydney/Moore College affiliated" group, I've seen the NIV and NRSV used, driven to a large extent by the range of Australian Anglican liturgical texts (APBA, epray, etc.). There may also still be people using the BCP and the KJV.

 

[Radagast]

The NRSV tends towards inclusive language for people (so, for example, expanding the Greek adelphoi to "brothers and sisters" rather than simply brothers, when talking about or to a mixed group).

The latest editions of the NIV also do this.

My observation is that the NIV has a noticeable socially conservative bias in its translation, and especially in its study notes.

That was probably true for the 1984 edition of the NIV, not so much for later editions. That may be why some socially conservative congregations have drifted away from the NIV to the ESV and the CSB.

 

[Radagast]

In Australia, the Anglican split, in my view, is not so much between "high" and "low," as between "Sydney/Moore College affiliated" and "not Sydney/Moore College affiliated."

Ridley College in Melbourne may sit between the two groups to some extent. Leon Morris, once the Principal of Ridley College, was on the Review Committee for the ESV.

 

[Paidiske]

That was probably true for the 1984 edition of the NIV, not so much for later editions. That may be why socially conservative congregations have drifted away from the NIV to the ESV and CSB.

Mine's a '95 reprint of the 1984, so that probably explains why I have that impression. I haven't seen the 2011.

Ridley College in Melbourne may sit between the two groups to some extent. Leon Morris, once the Principal of Ridley College, was on the Review Committee for the ESV.

That's probably true. Ridley's definitely on the conservative/evangelical/Sydneyward side of things in Melbourne, but it's still (officially) supportive of women preparing for ordained ministry. (Unofficially women training there tell me that reality doesn't always match the rhetoric).

People who studied under Leon Morris tell me that the ethos of the place has changed greatly since his time, and become much more conservative.