Which Bible Translation is your favourite and why ?

Branch Meeting

Which Bible Translation is your favourite and why ?

Sin City

The English translation

lmaopml

I'm not committed to any one. I use them all...I like the online sites that give a translation in the Greek as 'literal' too - i.e. I just learned recently that Eagles and Vultures that our Lord speaks of in eschatology can be interpreted vastly differently when looking at the early Church and also translation in the literal sense as opposed to a translation into English sometimes.

I 'like' Scripture! In fact, I think it's sacramental speaking as a Catholic.

im invisible

i feel to get a fuller understanding, you have to read in the original language

martinedwards

King James Version (KJV)

But then most of us don't understand hebrew so a translation by someone who understands it a million times better than I ever could is better for me!!

depends of what I'm doing....

general study, NIV, but with half a dozen others open for reference & comparison.

for getting the gist of the story, esp in the OT, then the Message.

for deep belly laughs?

the street Bible or the Tabloid bible..... "Would you Adam & Eve it?"

philologos

I use the English Standard Version primarily, but I lean back on the New International Version (1984).

I use the ESV because I find it is close to the original language. The NIV is a paraphrase that can be useful for light reading, but for close reading the ESV is the ideal.

georgieporgy

I don't mind too much which version I look up when I want a quick read, however, for a serious thoughtful study I prefer

The Navarre Bible - NT Expanhttp://www.scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=526ded Edition


Synopsis

"The Book That Every Catholic Should Read"This latest edition of the Navarre Bible includes extensive Catholic commentary for the entire New Testament all in one beautiful volume. It has wide-ranging general introductions, individual book introductions, a table of sources cited, maps, and informative notes. Compiled by the faculty of the University of Navarre, the commentaries draw on a huge variety of sources: Church documents, the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the work of prominent spiritual writers. Scholarly yet readable, the Navarre Bible commentaries offer a comprehensive intellectual, historical, and spiritual survey of the riches of the New Testament. They are a wonderful aid in the prayerful reading of Scripture (Lectio Divina).
Click here to see sample pages of this book.

Manach

Revised Standard Version (RSV or RSV-2CE)

The Jerusalem bible for usual perusing, but in tandem I've an app of a Latin version. So reading in parallel with a bible commentary, the one acts as a check on the other so as to better engage with what is on the text and its meaning in present circumstances.

Branch Meeting

The replies are interesting, but I'm much more interested in what versions people READ every day rather than what version is best for PhD's and academic scholastic theological debates, or looks nice on the shelf.

Benny_Cake

The first "grown-up" Bible that Iread was the New Jerusalem Bible.Very readable, although the use of Yahweh in the Old Testament was a little arresting.I currently read the NRSV although I think the psalms in the KJV are beautiful in tue language of Shakespeare.

How about yourself OP, any preference?

Branch Meeting

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The first "grown-up" Bible that Iread was the New Jerusalem Bible.Very readable, although the use of Yahweh in the Old Testament was a little arresting.I currently read the NRSV although I think the psalms in the KJV are beautiful in tue language of Shakespeare.

How about yourself OP, any preference?

I like something that's nice and readable and flowing, but not too revisionist / edited to suit.

So, I'm torn between buying the JB, RSV-2CE, or the NABRE at the moment.

I'm leaning towards the NABRE, but they are still hard to get this side of the pond.

I don't like ordering on line, as the look and feel and text layout is very important to try out, so that it becomes an often used bible, like a pair of comfy old slippers, and I like to scribble a few notes in the margin, and keep using that one version for years with all my own notes.

I guess the perfect bible has not been published for me yet, they are all a compromise in one way or another.

Peregrinus

Hard to say. Since I don't have either Hebrew or Greek I'm in no position to say which is the best translation from a scholarly/accuracy point of view. All I can do is pick the translation which appeals to me the most on aesthetic grounds, and (a) this is a completely subjective criterion; your aesthetic judgment may be quite different from mine; and (b) the most aesthetically pleasing translation may well be different for different passages of scripture.

The JB has the merit of familiarity for me, since it is the translation used in Catholic liturgies in English in most countries. But I believe it's to be replaced in this role by the NRSV-CE in the medium term.

When buying a bible, I'll pay close attention to the footnotes, cross-references, explanatory material, etc; I prefer bibles with these rather than without.

In my local Catholic parish I lead a group for adults who are considering joining the Catholic church. They are all expected to acquire a bible, if they don't already own one. I tell them that any bible that they already own, and that they are happy with, is fine by me, but if they are going to buy and want a recommendation I mention the JB, because it's currently used in liturgy, or the NRSV-CE, because it's likely to be used in liturgy in the future.

Jellybaby1

King James Version (KJV)

Assuming that you want 'ordinary' people to respond too, here is my tuppence-worth. I am not an academic. I prefer the simplicity of the message.

(1) NIV or (2) RSV for readability 'cos that's all I'm interested in. But would also consult KJV, Good News, and The Illustrated Bible depending on my need at the time.

Online also, www.biblegateway.com. Great for doing Bible crosswords.

Apologies if I stuck my nose in uninvited.

homer911

King James Version (KJV)

NIV for daily bible study, The Message for light/alternative reading

keano_afc

Other – Please state below

ESV for reading, NKJV for study and message prep.

totus tuus

Good News Translation (GNT / TEV)

I have three different bibles, the DRB, the NASB and the NRSV, I find NASB suits me better.

Doc Farrell

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Assuming that you want 'ordinary' people to respond too, here is my tuppence-worth. I am not an academic. I prefer the simplicity of the message.

(1) NIV or (2) RSV for readability 'cos that's all I'm interested in. But would also consult KJV, Good News, and The Illustrated Bible depending on my need at the time.

Online also, www.biblegateway.com. Great for doing Bible crosswords.

Apologies if I stuck my nose in uninvited.

No need to apologize, this is a forum for everyone and your post makes more sense than most!

emuhead

The Message - I think you can get it in hard copy but I access it through Bible Gateway website

Matthew 5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=MSG

It's my favourite because the language is contemporary, which cuts out having to figure out the historical context etc. and facilitates focusing on the message - am not strong on Bible studying!

santing

My favorite translation is the NASB - the only flaw I find is the name, you can't really use a Bible Translation "American" in Ireland!
For Church we use the NIV (1984) edition, I don't really like the NIV (2011) edition so we are looking at switching to ESV, or maybe the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
I read my Bible mainly online/tru a Bible app ... I have several translations on my mobile / laptop / tablets .... And of course I can read Greek as well!

redsky7

new american standard bible, i have a bunch of different translations, the message, ESV, NLT etc but thats the one i use the most and like the most, can't really put my finger on why..

catallus

There wasn't a huge response to this thread, I'm puzzled because it's a good question.

I buy rar(ish) books as a hobby and I recently came into a few Young's Literal translations from the early 1910's and I flicked through them and the language excited me.

It is very understandable; from what I've read about it Young had the idea of present tense ancient Hebrew being the best language to give an interpretation of the immediacy of the message; a lot of what I have read when I dip into it is interesting.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis&version=KJV;YLT

Peregrinus

The problem with Young’s, at this point, it that it’s a “literal” translation from the Hebrew/Greek into King Jamesish language which was archaic even when the translation was made, a bit over a hundred and fifty years ago, and is even more archaic and unfamiliar now. And a literal translation into words that we think we understand but in fact we don’t quite understand is a bit self-defeating.

Young retained, so far as possible, the vocabulary/lexicon of the Authorised Version (which was of course the dominant and familiar translation in his time) while reflecting, so far as possible, the grammar/syntax of the original language.

That tells us a great deal about Hebrew grammar and syntax; whether it tells us so much about the truths that the writers seek to convey is more debateable. Hebrew is a richly-inflected language partly because it has a relatively limited vocabulary; differences in meaning conveyed through tense, mood, case, state, voice, etc. in Hebrew are conveyed by using different words in English (and other lanaguages). Young abandons a good deal of the usual biblical lexicon (although he uses King Jamesish words, he uses many fewer different words than the AV does) and instead gives us a direct and accurate rendering of the Hebrew grammatical complexities. But, not being Hebrew speakers and not being familiar with the conventions and idioms of Hebrew, this isn’t necessarily very intelligible to us. So, Young’s is “literal” in the sense that it directly conveys the grammar and syntax of the source text, but not necessarily in the sense that it directly conveys the meaning.

catallus

Thanks Peregrinus, I guess you're right about context being sacrificed for the syntax.

All in all it is an interesting read. It is indecipherable at times but interesting, like a Shakespearean Proust!

Peregrinus

catallus wrote: »

Thanks Peregrinus, I guess you're right about context being sacrificed for the syntax.

All in all it is an interesting read. It is indecipherable at times but interesting, like a Shakespearean Proust!

It's very interesting to read it against another, more conventional, translation. But I'd never use it on its own.

Blue Magic

Sin City wrote: »

The English translation

lol :P

Me too

Seaneh

ESV for me.

lionmqj

ESV for me also.

http://about.esvbible.org/

Geomy

lionmqj wrote: »

ESV for me also.

http://about.esvbible.org/

I don't get this, how can there be different Bibles ?

Is it not blasphemy to change the word of God...

I think it's very odd with all these different Bibles and translations to suit different agendas.

Like updated car maintenance manuals. ....

lionmqj

There are many different translations of the bible out there. When most are translated they are translated from the original text into whatever language. (I say most because some translations are paraphrased instead of translated such as the amplified bible which many theologians detest because some of the original meaning is lost through this paraphrasing)

Yes, unfortunately there are "some" translations out there that do suit different agendas but these are in the minority.

My own favorite, the ESV, is very faithful to the original texts.

Below is some text taken from the ESV website.
"The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original."

To read the rest of this please visit http://www.esv.org/esv/translation/about/

DanWall

New World by the Watchtower Bible and tract society. They go to the words of the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures

lionmqj

DanWall wrote: »

New World by the Watchtower Bible and tract society. They go to the words of the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures

They remove what they don't like also. If it doesn't suit their agenda, they either change it or remove it. Be warned.

BrianCalgary

King James Version (KJV)

NIV. Ease of the read. I have Hebrew and Greek dictionaries handy for further insight. The reading at Mass this past week was "vanity, vanity, all is vanity". Eccliastes, the first time I had heard it that way. I looked it up whan I got hme and discovered that KJV had it translated the same way.

Sandals and Shorts

New International Version (NIV)

The best version of the bible is the one you actually sit down, read for yourself, and finish.

Especially what Jesus and his followers actually said, the context, and to whom.

lionmqj

Sandals and Shorts wrote: »

The best version of the bible is the one you actually sit down, read for yourself, and finish.

Especially what Jesus and his followers actually said, the context, and to whom.

Bang on. Yes.

Benny_Cake

I'm really liking "The Message". Granted, it's a paraphrase, but it's extremely readable and approaches the text from a fresh angle. I wouldn't rely on it alone, but given the rather "dry" nature of the NRSV it's definitely something I'm happy to be able to read. Eugene Peterson has performed a real service to Christians by his work.