English versions of the Bible

[Jack]

If you speak English and read or own a copy of the Bible, which version(s) do you own and like and why?

I started to make this a poll, until I realised there were about a thousand popular English translations and they wouldn't all fit.

I've always disliked the King James Version(s) because I just can't understand its language style(s). I don't understand why people think it's so great.

A very kind board member sent me a NIV version about a year and a half ago, and I love it. I also have a TEV and I think a couple others. I think have a Catholic one, too, but I forgot which one it is...

[rebl_rn]

I really like my NIV Study Bible. I like the NIV translation and the footnotes in the study bible are great. I have gotten so much out of them. I have a Catholic one somewhere too - like you, I don't remember the exact translation - but I don't like it as much as the NIV.

Beth

[jen f]

I posted something similar in another thread, but I'll reiterate. I think it really depends on what you are using it for.

The New International Version (NIV) is the one I use on a day-to-day basis. It's a good "middle ground"--it is a fairly accurate translation, but reads pretty easily too.

Versions like the Living Bible or The Message are paraphrases, so they aren't accurate word-for-word translations, but they read very easily. I think these are good for reading a whole book at a time to get the general idea, or for getting a fresh perspective on a passage.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is on the other end of the spectrum, a very accurate word-for-word translation, but very "choppy" to read. I think this is a good one for in-depth study of a word or small passage.

If you don't want or can't afford a bookshelf full of Bibles, you can compare numerous translations at http://www.biblegateway.com/ .

I've never really liked the King James Version either. I'm sure it was fine for the audience for which it was intended, but it just isn't the language we speak anymore, so I don't see much reason to use it when there are others available that are in our language.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

I have the "Revised Standard Version" (circa 1973). Is that the same as the American Standard Verson? I always thought it was perfectly readable.

Robin

[Jack]

I've never really liked the King James Version either. I'm sure it was fine for the audience for which it was intended, but it just isn't the language we speak anymore, so I don't see much reason to use it when there are others available that are in our language.

If you knew some of the people I do, you would know that every version of the Bible, except the KJV, was written by Satan.

It sounds like a joke, but I've heard and seen people sincerely argue that before. In my current New Testament class, I have seen students other than me bring nothing but KJVs. I'm the only person who brings another version.

[Lambchop]

If you knew some of the people I do, you would know that every version of the Bible, except the KJV, was written by Satan.

Oh, dear! They're mistaken, Cran. The other versions weren't written by Satan . . . they were just translated by Satan.

I've always suspected that the unintelligibility of the KJV is the source of its continued appeal--one can misinterpret it any way one would like and nobody would notice.

I have a New American, a Revised Standard Version, a New English, and both the original Jerusalem Bible and the newer edition of it, the New Jerusalem. I don't have much appreciation for the New American and the RSV is a little dry. The New English is well-written in the sense of being good literature. The Jerusalem/NJ are the ones I enjoy the most.

[izzarina]

The Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible. I feel that (at least as far as Catholic Bibles go....) it is the most accurate translation, and if you are into Theology to a certain extent, accuracy is a must. It's a bit more archaic, but I like that. I really don't like translations that try to "modernize" for lack of a better word, scripture. You really seem to lose something when you do that (at least IMHO...not trying to step on toes with that).

[Jack]

I really don't like translations that try to "modernize" for lack of a better word, scripture. You really seem to lose something when you do that (at least IMHO...not trying to step on toes with that).

I find that what is lost with more modern translations is the familiarity. For example, 'For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life' might also be translated as 'God loved the world so much that he allowed his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for us so that we can learn of eternal spiritual truths through him.' Or something similar. I can't remember any exact verses offhand besides that one and Genesis 1:1.

The familiarity that we loose with newer translations, I think, is a good thing. It forces us to re-read and re-think what we have always taken for granted. That's one of the reasons I have lots of wildly different versions.

[izzarina]

The problem is WHERE do you stop? In some versions Mary is referred to as a "Virgin" but in others, she is merely a "young woman". There is a very big difference here, and the difference has many ramifications (in terms of prophecy). If the "modernization" is going to change the meaning of the scripture to begin with, then it doesn't make anyone think in the way it was intended, if that makes sense. I can elaborate more in the morning...my eyes are begging me to go to sleep

[blackhawk]

I've never really liked the King James Version either. I'm sure it was fine for the audience for which it was intended, but it just isn't the language we speak anymore, so I don't see much reason to use it when there are others available that are in our language.

If you knew some of the people I do, you would know that every version of the Bible, except the KJV, was written by Satan.

It sounds like a joke, but I've heard and seen people sincerely argue that before. In my current New Testament class, I have seen students other than me bring nothing but KJVs. I'm the only person who brings another version.

I've known a lot of people like that, too. What they never seem to realize is that the KJV is also a translation, not the original.

[Jack]

The problem is WHERE do you stop?

Wherever you feel comfortable. Reading the Bible is a very personal thing and no two people will get the same thing from it.

If the "modernization" is going to change the meaning of the scripture to begin with, then it doesn't make anyone think in the way it was intended, if that makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, but in that case, every single non-Greek and non-Hebrew version of the Bible is in the same situation as the modern translations you talk about. If you hold to that, you should learn ancient Greek and Hebrew and read the words directly in the language in which they were written (something I'd love to do). Any translation is going to be wrong on some points and right on others.

Modern translations may be different from the version you happen to like, but who are you to say that the version you like is more correct, if it is not written in the ancient Greek and Hebrew?

You can't hold that the more modern versions are missing something because any version other than the original version(s) are, by their nature of being translated.

[Lorenzo]

Here's a typical example of the difference between the RSV and the KJV:

Habakkuk 2:16 (referring to people who offer drinks to other people, to make them drunk, so they can gaze at their nakedness)

• (KJV) Drink thou also and let thy foreskin be uncovered;
  (RSV) Drink yourself and stagger

Due to new understanding from copies of Hab. found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, appropriate changes were made in the RSV.

From bible.org

"Which translation is best?", there can be no singular answer. I suggest that every Christian who is serious about studying the Bible own at least two translations. He should have at least one dynamic equivalence translation (or phrase-for-phrase) and one formal equivalence translation (that is, word-for-word translation). In fact, it would be good to have two dynamic equivalence translations--because in this type of translation, the translator is also the interpreter. If his interpretation is correct, it can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is incorrect, then it only clarifies the interpretation of the translator!

Now, for the translations.

King James Version
The King James Bible has with good reason been termed, "the noblest monument of English prose" (RSV preface). Above all its rivals, the King James Version has had the greatest impact in shaping the English language. It is a literary masterpiece. But, lest anyone wishes to revere it because it was "good enough for St. Paul," or some such nonsense, we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes! Further, there are over 300 words in the King James that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. If one wishes to use a Bible that follows the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James, I recommend the New King James Version.2

Revised Standard Version
The RSV was completed in 1952 and was intended to be, in part, a revision of the King James. Of course, it used the ancient MSS of the NT, resulting in the omission of several verses and words. But the wording was still archaic. The RSV attempts to be a word-for-word translation where possible. The NRSV follows the same principle of translation, though has now become more "gender-inclusive" in its approach. At times this is very helpful; at other times, it is misleading.

New American Standard
The NASB is something of an evangelical counterpart to the RSV. It, too, was intended to be something of a revision of the King James. There are three major differences between the RSV and the NASB: first, the NASB is less archaic in its wording. Second, its translators were more conservative theologically than the RSV translators. Third, because of the translators' desire to adhere as closely to the wording of the original, often this translation is stilted and wooden. Still, the NASB is probably the best word-for-word translation available today.

New English Bible
The NEB was completed in 1971, after a quarter of a century of labor. It marks a new milestone in translation: it is not a revision, but a brand new translation. It is a phrase-for-phrase translation. Unfortunately, sometimes the biases of the translators creep into the text. The REB (Revised English Bible) follows the same pattern: excellent English, though not always faithful to the Greek and Hebrew.

New International Version
The NIV was published in 1978. It may be considered a counterpart to the NEB. It is more a phrase-for-phrase translation than a word-for-word translation, and the scholars were generally more conservative than those who worked on the NEB. I personally consider it the best phrase-for-phrase translation available today. However, its major flaw is in its simplicity of language. The editors wanted to make sure it was easy to read. In achieving this goal, they often sacrificed accuracy (in particular, in the NT, sentences are shortened, subordination of thought is lost, conjunctions are deleted).

New World Translation
Finally, a word should be said about the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Due to the sectarian bias of the group, as well as to the lack of genuine biblical scholarship, I believe that the New World Translation is by far the worst translation in English dress. It purports to be word-for-word, and in most cases is slavishly literal to the point of being terrible English. But, ironically, whenever a sacred cow is demolished by the biblical writers themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses twist the text and resort to an interpretive type of translation. In short, it combines the cons of both worlds, with none of the pros.

In summary, I would suggest that each English-speaking Christian own at least a NASB or RSV and an NIV. As well, I think it would be helpful to possess a King James and even a New English Bible. And then, make sure that you read the book!

Epilogue
There is a recent translation that has not yet been completed, but has been available in part on the Biblical Studies Foundation web site. The NET Bible (or New English Translation) has all the earmarks of a great translation. When finished, it may well be more accurate than the NASB, more readable than the NIV, and more elegant than either. In addition, the notes are genuine gold mine of information, unlike those found in any other translation. I would highly recommend that each English-speaking Christian put this Bible on his shopping list as soon as it is completed!

[Dale]

I vote for the New Jerusalem. Currently, I'm reading the Gospels in the New English translation and I'm enjoying it.

[Redwolf]

I have the New American, several RSVs, a NIV "One-Year" Bible, a parallel Bible that includes the NIV, the KJV, the RSV and the "Living" side-by-side (very useful for comparing translations) and An Biobla Naofa as Gaeilge (on DVD).

I like the New American for day to day reading, but that's mainly becuase it's the one I used in college.

Redwolf

[Martin Milner]

The KJV wasn't the first version of the bible translated into English. it borrowed heavily from earlier versions, but it was the first officially approved version. I don't have the facts at my fingertips, but I know that many of the phrases we use today (e.g. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), first appeared "officially" in the KJV, and the language is so rich and colourful, it has stood the test of time.

Of course as we're all agreeing, something is lost in the translation every time, for example the (Greek/Hebrew?) word that commonly translated as Virgin (as in the Virgin Mary) may just refer to a young woman. If the modern English versions are re-written from the KJV, then they contain all its errors and then new ones.

Whether the mistranslations (if they are such) are deliberate and manipulative, errors, or just the best available translation at the time, is open to debate.

At school we used the Good News Bible, which I remember with findness for it's simple but effective line drawing illustrations.