Jump to content
BMyers

Which translation

Translation  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Which translation of the Bible do you normal read/take with you to church?

    • KJV
      8
    • NIV
      2
    • ESV
      3
    • ASV
      0
    • NLT
      0
    • NKJV
      0
    • MSG
      0
    • RSV
      0
    • NAS
      2


Recommended Posts

Just curious what most people use now days. Growing up, it was the KJV. Now days, I use the ESV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the KJV most often but am not dogmatic about it.

If I am having trouble understanding a verse I will try the other translations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered NASB, because I use it often for detail work or study, but my main translation (NT only at the moment) for last year or so is a newer translation:

The Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV).    http://wartburgproject.org/   IMO, they have one of best translation philosophies I've seen in a while.  Their balance of a natural reading text with accurate translation has repeatedly impressed me as I've worked with it. 

In early childhood, it was KJV and RSV.  Later my childhood church switched to NIV when it was released and I used it for some years.  Admittedly, the '84 rendition had some real quirky translational choices already, but the 2011 revision takes a more ideological approach to translation, so I've dropped it.

Depending on purpose, my choice for an English translation varies between NASB, NKJV, and ESV; but, the EHV predominates.

IMG_20180926_165310375.thumb.jpg.820a1293d97100a039a8ee28523ec4a8.jpg

My EHV working copy:

IMG_20180926_165559363.thumb.jpg.e329b987a3ed556e9f365fa50bedc492.jpg

Edited by Maccabeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAB

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) Released on March 9, 2011, the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors

Stemming originally from the Confraternity Bible, a translation of the Vulgate by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the project transitioned to translating the original biblical languages in response to Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu.The effort eventually became the New American Bible under the liturgical principles and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dric902 said:

NAB

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) Released on March 9, 2011, the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors

Stemming originally from the Confraternity Bible, a translation of the Vulgate by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the project transitioned to translating the original biblical languages in response to Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu.The effort eventually became the New American Bible under the liturgical principles and reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).

 

.

I didn't include any Catholic Bibles on my list, I should of paid more attention. I forget at times that there are denominations that use slightly different versions. Being raised protestant (which you can tell by the list of Bibles), I forget about some of the translations. Sorry about that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 7:20 AM, BMyers said:

I didn't include any Catholic Bibles on my list, I should of paid more attention. I forget at times that there are denominations that use slightly different versions. Being raised protestant (which you can tell by the list of Bibles), I forget about some of the translations. Sorry about that.

 

No sweat

it is really an excellent translation, if you don’t want to read tha Apocryphal books. Skip them.

but they spent years going back to as close as the original texts as possible and translated them directly into English, rather than a translation of a translation 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dric902 said:

No sweat

it is really an excellent translation, if you don’t want to read tha Apocryphal books. Skip them.

but they spent years going back to as close as the original texts as possible and translated them directly into English, rather than a translation of a translation 

 

.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the NABRE in particular and haven't spent much time in the various translations commonly used in Roman Catholic circles.

Having said that, it might be worth highlighting an aspect or two of the NABRE that I'm aware of that relate to your statement that it is "as close... as possible".

+ NABRE is a true translation as you mention, which is an improvement over the DR and JB, which were effectively translations of translations. 

~ NABRE tends to use inclusive language.  That translational decision can limit accuracy to the wording of the original texts.  Sometimes it better captures meaning (a literal "brothers" that carries the intent of speaking to a mixed crowd and therefore is translated "brothers & sisters" captures the sense, but not the wording), but other times it obscures individual application by using plural pronouns instead of singular or clouds prophetic references to Jesus.)  This doesn't have to be a deal breaker, but readers should know this when they pick up a bible.  

+ My understanding is that the NABRE walked back some of the inclusive language that was in an earlier NAB revision.  In the Psalms mostly, I believe.  

~ NABRE uses the Greek "Critical Text" for the New Testament.  That's typical of almost all modern translations, but it brings certain assumptions about which ancient Greek manuscripts are the most reliable.  Certain passages will be called into question or relegated to your footnotes.  Despite 200 years of Liberal theologians rejecting passages like John 8, the end of Mark 16, and numerous smaller verses or words, there are strong arguments in favor of most of them as original.  Conclusions vary and I don't see this as a deal breaker even though I favor the inclusion of most of those doubted passages, but, again, a reader should know the editorial decisions of the Critical Text are rooted in the opinions of liberal rationalists.

- In some ways, NABRE is behind the times.  In the ever controversial Isaiah 7:14 quoted by Matthew as a fulfilment of prophecy regarding Jesus' virginal conception they opt for "young woman" instead of "virgin".  Protestants had this debate the better part of a century ago.  1901 ASV: Virgin --> 1952 RSV: Young woman --> 2001 ESV: Virgin.  The liberal theologians (and those who bought their argument) lobbied long and hard on the claim that the Hebrew word Almah doesn't mean virgin and shouldn't be translated that way.  That thinking prevailed for some time.  These days, translators are more comfortable using "virgin" again.  Yes, the original Hebrew word can have a broader nuance of a sexually mature but unmarried woman as opposed to specifically highlighting someone's virginity per se, but in ancient Jewish culture, the cultural expectation and assumption was that any unmarried "maiden" would in fact be a virgin.  Besides which, the Jewish translators who put the TaNak/Old Testament into Greek used the Greek word for virgin in that verse.  And that was before Jesus was ever born!  So, obviously, the Jews of that era believed Isaiah used the word virgin. 

That's the long way to say that the NABRE, like every translation, does have it's quirks and it doesn't hurt to read a couple different translations side by side when studying the Word.

 

Edited by Maccabeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GlockTrader45 said:

Douay-Rheims 

 

image.thumb.jpg.0add6601fa48a33b9660a36a72e6ad40.jpg

 

 

I have it on audio, keep it in the car.

excellent version

 

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESV, because that's what our pastor uses.  Used NIV before.

That said - The Living and Good News versions (paraphrased versions) can put a new "twist" on things.

What I get a laugn out of is people who think the original translation is the King James.  There's nothing really wrong with the KJV but it's not a "special" translation either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm over 70 and grew up with the King James Version and that's what I have at home and the language is as familiar to me as modern English. I don't like to see the language turned around or paraphrased and prefer to attend churches that use the King James Version but I can still get the meaning out of the newer versions but it always seems to me like something is missing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×