Preferred Translation of the Bible

[Gypsy]

I think it was White Angel that made me think of this. We had this thread at the old forum, but we have so many new members that I was curious to find out their takes.
Myself, I love the New Living Translation, for many reasons. When I'm doing deep studies, I use the King James version, because I can also use Strong's with it.
Although I do not take the words in it as the direct words of God - I also like the Message for devotional purposes.

[andyroo]

I like the Bible in Basic English Translation my self. I like the way it sounds when I read it.

[Straylight]

the NIV, because everyone else uses it around here.

[uc pseudonym]

This is pretty mainstream, but I'll go with the NIV too. More or less what I want in a translation. Though at times literal translations (can't remember names at the moment) are good. Of course, if I could read Greek or Hewbrew better, it'd be awesome to have a copy of those...

Yeah, I can't understand why they didn't call The Message a paraphrase. In my opinion it does more than translate. But almost everyone at my church loves it, and I'm not condemning it in any way.

[Gypsy]

I used to read mainly the NIV a few years ago, but when I started comparing it to other translations, I decided that I liked NLT the best.

[uc pseudonym]

New Living... anything particular about it? I haven't ever seen a copy. Is it just another version, or does it have a "gimmick?"

[andyroo]

Although I have never read the New Living Bible; I have read the older translation, just the living bible. It's written in just plain english to where anyone who can read can understand it. It also refers God in his formal name of the English rendition- Jehovah. That's what I noticed alot about the translation, but Gypsy may like it for completely different reasons.

[Ashley]

I know this might sound weird but I would like to get the book on how all the disciples and apostles lived and died. I don't know what it's called though.

The only thing that pops into mind is Foxe's book of Christian Martyrs, although it doesn't end with the apostles. Just thought you might be interested; I believe it's by John Foxe.

Personally I use the student bible; it's NIV. For the most part, it's a fairly straightforward yet elegant translation. I like the fact the authors always write a intro/summary at the front of each book; it helps to put me in the right mindset. Although, I'd like to get an Amplified bible someday...

When I find our digital camera I'll upload the pics of my bible. That little fella's been on countless retreats and endless trips to school with me.

[Ashley]

Oh, this is off topic a bit, but this past August I went on a girl's retreat and came back with a very, very nifty little mini-concordance called "Armed and Dangerous" published by Barbour books.
From the introduction:
" This book will help you find the answers to today's tough topics from abortion to war from the most reliable source...God's word!"

Now, a fair warning, the translation used are from the KJV, with a few exceptions, but it's nice to use to find the topic and look up the scriptures in a bible with a more pratical translation. However, it has topics that go from abortion to music to work...a full two and a half pages of topics. I think my church bookstore had it for like, $7 (mine was free ^^), but it's a great resource. Just a small plug there....I highly recommend it.

oh, btw, you can't miss it if you're bookstore has it...it's bright orange and silver.

[Technomancer]

I like the New Jerusalem, as well as Douay-Reims. I will admit though that for the sheer beauty of the language the King James Version is best (regardless of my theological differences).

A word of caution though about Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Much of it was written as a polemic against the Catholic Church (during Elizabethan times), and contains many distortions. It also ignores the obvious fact that the Protestant reformers were every bit as vicious. In any event, serious scholars of the period do not regard it as a reliable referance. As for the earlier materials (Roman persecutions), I suspect much of it could be found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History", or "Early Christian Lives" (can't remember the author on this one). I don't mean to pick a fight, or to insult, but it is a book (like many others) that need to be read with a few important caveats.

[MillyFan]

I read NIV devotionally and normally, sometimes Psalms or Job in KJV.

If I'm doing something really serious I'll check NASB, NKJV, and KJV.

Although I actually started out with the KJV (LOL, you know) I rarely use it anymore unless I'm reading Psalms, have no other option available, or (as sometimes happens online) talking to a KJV Only person who thinks the NIV is satanic. Of course, those people (although not all of them by any stretch of the imagination) usually would have plenty of other reasons to judge me anyway. . .LOL

[Technomancer]

I could never understand that viewpoint..'St. Paul's english should be good enough for everyone!'? Don't let the buggers get to you..

[LorentzForce]

i prefer NIV. korean.

[uc pseudonym]

Speaking of martyr's... if you want to get depressed, read Martyr's Mirror. Old, huge book full of stories of people who died. Some of them are even our age. I'm pretty sure it only covers Anabaptist martyrs, but that's some of them, right? Also, it's pretty near completely accurate... but of course it only covers the persecution of Anabaptists, not anything else.

[WhiteÃ…ngel]

wow... interesting that i missed this tread until now...

I have always used the NIV for ease of use and pretty good translation, but I only use Zondervan products. I use a king james version as well of course for a more literal translation, but I wanted to express an important point.

we come from many different Christian backgrounds and in order to pick a bible you have to come to one conclusion....

that it is the breated word of God and true... written inspired by God through those worthy to be given teh info to write...

which comes to my next point... we believe in a religion that is very old and comes from a time when those writers spoke Hebrew and Greek depending if you are reading the old or new testments. So it is a STRONG suggestion to purchase a Greek and a Hebrew bible/concordance to have something to go back to and understand the literal translation of what is said.... a great example of this is the questioning of Peter by Jesus when he was asked " do you love me?"
he didn't just ask this 3 times... he asked 3 different kinds of love .. agape( devine),phileo(brotherly), etc .. in each acct Jesus asked for a measure of love and Peter responded with a lesser reply.. telling Jesus I love you but I can't as you require ...
* these kinds of items are what make a good translation really important and why doing a lot of prayer and research are important while doing a bible study..

Thanks for starting this thread .. I really enjoy the topic.

[Technomancer]

Well, most of us here aren't language scholars. In any event a bare literal translation may not necessarily give you everything you need to know, especially if the writing is highly metaphorical, or making an allusiion to something else in the local culture/history. Its helpful if you can find a bible with marginalia that can help explain these things.

I know the NAB (A Catholic bible) does have good notes, and is reasonably sized (though has very thin pages). Some others that I've seen though have been enormous (especially if you're a student and have limited space).

[andyroo]

Well, I have the Strong's Greek and Hebrew Bible Dictionarys.

Å

[Technomancer]

A dictionary will only get you so far though.

[Psycho Ann]

LOL, I try out all of them. But mainly my Indonesian bible which I have no idea what version it was translated from (comparing the literal meanings, I'd say the KJV... or maybe even from the original Hebrew/Greek scriptures? <-- hopeful wishing).

I have 3 bibles: KJV, CEV (ugh, I don't like this. There's no... 'gracefulness' ^^; ), and the Indo one. But I would go online and try out all the other versions on a single verse to get a whole picture ^^

[Technomancer]

I'm curious, what does CEV stand for?

[shooraijin]

CEV = "Contemporary English Version"

It's a very recent translation intended as a 'simplified' English rendition. I haven't used it myself.

I'll throw in with the NIV crowd, just because it's what I'm used to. However, there is an interesting translation called the New Century which I only saw in a Salvation Army youth bible (when I was attending an SA corps [church] for awhile), and it has some unique phrasings that make it memorable. The verse in my .sig is particularly forceful in the New Century, but I can't find that bible now to give the exact wording.

This page looks interesting (cursory glance Google-side):
http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm

[Technomancer]

Thanks, sounds like the "Good News" bible that we used in elementary school.

[shooraijin]

The Good News is the 'Today's English Version" (I think) ... checks bookshelf ... yes.

[uc pseudonym]

A word on the KJV, no offense intended in any way, shape or form.

First off, it's as accurate as any translation can be. But it really isn't more accurate than most others. The English is old, but some people aren't bothered by that.

I was just reading a study on the creation of the KJV, there's some interesting stuff there. After translating, they went over everything, giving it a style of written verse. The entire Bible was spoken orally, to test how it actually sounded. That's why a lot of people say it flows a lot better than other translations (because it was meant to).

[WhiteÃ…ngel]

read this info from a friend of mines site ...

interesting stuff..

http://thelordjesus.com/Majority%20Text/Translations.htm

[Technomancer]

interesting indeed...The section on Walcott & Horth contains mostly ad hominen attacks on their characters, mostly based on a number of quotes whose context is uncertain. The section on the Alexandrian texts is little better.

[uc pseudonym]

That's all I should really say on the topic. I'd like to comment that his introduction was wonderful. Anytime someone comes to a position with an understanding of their position in the body of Christ, my respect for them skyrockets. Otherwise... well, I won't get into that.

Other than that dynamic translation is really the only way to go. Word for word doesn't work too well.

Of course, if you read Greek, this whole issue becomes irrelevant.

[shooraijin]

I thought that a lot of his criticism of the NIV was pretty specious, being based not on the original texts, but upon the idea that the KJV/NKJV is itself an authoritative translation and 100% accurate rendition of the original texts, which isn't true either. The ad hominem really doesn't help his case ...

Moreover, the concept of different translations for different aims isn't new or bad, and I think diverse presentations *helps* the Message come through by looking at all the commonalities.

For some reason, I couldn't read his concluding remarks (file not found? ), and his Majority Text defense isn't coming up either.

[WhiteÃ…ngel]

actually I was wrong.. the link I meant to give was removed when his server crashed... this is only part of the info .. he had a major portion that had some really interesting info, like who was on the council to choose what books were cannonical, etc .. he will replace those parts soon.. he is very strong in apoligetics and his info is an interesting read.

[uc pseudonym]

Ah. Tell us whenever that happens. I, for one, am interested. I'm an apologetics guy too.