Bible versions

[peace_]

What's your personal favorite bible translation? Do you switch it up?

 

[Albion]

For me, nothing compares to the Authorized Version (AKA King James Version). But I do also compare it with several other versions when I'm studying something in particular, which is what I would do even if my favorite version were something other than the AV.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I use the RSV online and the KJV too but for personal reading and group bible studies I use The CTS New Catholic Bible.

 

[NewCreation435]

What's your personal favorite bible translation? Do you switch it up?

Welcome to the forum. I usually read New American Standard, but sometimes NIV also. I did read the Living Bible when I was much younger

 

[Josiah]

For causal reading, I usually use the English Standard Version.

 

[Tigger]

For daily reading its either NKJV or EVS but I'll check several when researching things.

 

[IACOBVS]

What's your personal favorite bible translation? Do you switch it up?

I generally use the NRSV for everyday reading, but if I'm going to do a more in-depth study, I use the KJV to start, because it's the most honest version regarding added or changed words (they're in italics).

 

[IACOBVS]

I avoid the NIV like Satan herself, because it's a fundamentalist-based abomination.

 

[Stravinsk]

What's your personal favorite bible translation? Do you switch it up?

KJV or NKJV - although I keep a concordance ready and if I feel it needs doing, often look up the Greek or Hebrew words to see if what I'm reading in English matches what is being said in the original languages.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I avoid the NIV like Satan herself, because it's a fundamentalist-based abomination.

NIV is a product of evangelicalism and shows biases consistent with evangelical prejudices about words; so do the ESV and NKJV. I like the NRSV for some things but the gender-neutral word choices can be jarring

 

[Stravinsk]

I avoid the NIV like Satan herself, because it's a fundamentalist-based abomination.

NIV is a product of evangelicalism and shows biases consistent with evangelical prejudices about words; so do the ESV and NKJV. I like the NRSV for some things but the gender-neutral word choices can be jarring

I find it curious (but not surprising) the twist in gender designation from Satan being a herself instead of himself - when clearly the entity referred to is of the male designation, as found here:

John 8:44 "Father the devil..."

or here:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7854&t=KJV

"Satan" is a masculine noun.

Guess it's a misogynist gay thing? If so, would make sense. The accuser and originator of all that is rebellion and evil being female....lol.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I haven't seen any verses in the NRSV referring to Satan as "her"

 

[Stravinsk]

I haven't seen any verses in the NRSV referring to Satan as "her"

I avoid the NIV like Satan herself, because it's a fundamentalist-based abomination.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The quote from IACOBVS is not a verse from the NRSV.

 

[Stravinsk]

The quote from IACOBVS is not a verse from the NRSV.

The sun came out today.

 

[Wilhemena]

What's your personal favorite bible translation? Do you switch it up?

I enjoy reading the beautiful wording of the KJV and also am now looking into other translations as I do my studies since it is so easy online to now read other versions. Which is your favorite, Peace?

 

[hedrick]

NIV is a product of evangelicalism and shows biases consistent with evangelical prejudices about words; so do the ESV and NKJV. I like the NRSV for some things but the gender-neutral word choices can be jarring

All evangelical translations show signs of evangelical preferences, e.g. translating OT passages reflecting how they are used in the NT, rather than the original context. But the NIV shows its background more seriously the the ESV. E.g. N T Wright has claimed that no one will understand Paul if they read the NIV.

I prefer the NRSV, though I agree that the gender neutral language can be jarring. More recent gender-neutral translations have been more subtle. Still, as a reflection of the original, I think it's the best. I also use the Good News Bible, when I want to read a substantial amount of text for meaning.

I use the Common English Bible when teaching middle school kids. They do a lot better with a simplified version. I had hoped that it would be understandable while not being quite as free as the Good News. I think it works for this purpose, though it seems to have too many weird translations. I've backed off on using it personally.

It appears that there will be a new edition of the NRSV. I'm hoping they'll leave the translators' work untouched. It does appear that some of the gender neutral stuff wasn't done by the translators themselves.

 

[MoreCoffee]

All evangelical translations show signs of evangelical preferences, e.g. translating OT passages reflecting how they are used in the NT, rather than the original context. But the NIV shows its background more seriously the the ESV. E.g. N T Wright has claimed that no one will understand Paul if they read the NIV.

I prefer the NRSV, though I agree that the gender neutral language can be jarring. More recent gender-neutral translations have been more subtle. Still, as a reflection of the original, I think it's the best. I also use the Good News Bible, when I want to read a substantial amount of text for meaning.

I use the Common English Bible when teaching middle school kids. They do a lot better with a simplified version. I had hoped that it would be understandable while not being quite as free as the Good News. I think it works for this purpose, though it seems to have too many weird translations. I've backed off on using it personally.

It appears that there will be a new edition of the NRSV. I'm hoping they'll leave the translators' work untouched. It does appear that some of the gender neutral stuff wasn't done by the translators themselves.

I like the RSV (catholic edition) for internet use.