Favorite/preferred Bible translation

[Castle Church]

ESV or NIV. But if I return to Catholicism, then I’ll mostly use my NAB.

NAB is fine, I prefer NRSV-CE myself when it comes to the Catholic canon.

 

[Faith]

NAB is fine, I prefer NRSV-CE myself when it comes to the Catholic canon.

I have so many Bibles, mostly Catholic, that I can’t buy any more.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I have a copy in my computer bible program. But you should see the Geneva Bible Notes. They help greatly with an understanding of the time period.

It is too bad one cannot get just the notes as a sort of commentary. However, I think the translation may be better as the KJV was slanted by the feudal system as I recall.

 

[1689Dave]

It is too bad one cannot get just the notes as a sort of commentary. However, I think the translation may be better as the KJV was slanted by the feudal system as I recall.

“... But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14 (KJV 1900) I use KJV but also many of the newer translations. Always comparing. I get more spiritual depth from the KJV after years of going back and forth. But the Nestle Aland 27 & 28 manuscripts used in some of the newer bibles make the truth more available than the KJV in Christology.

 

[SetFree]

I'm not a "KJV only", but you will think that once you hear what I'm gonna' say.

For English speaking peoples, the KJV is still the most 'accurate' translation. Notice I said 'translation'. There is no translation that is absolutely perfect, so one should never get into that debate.

The 1611 KJV Bible was translated from the OT Hebrew texts, and the NT came from Greek manuscripts which can be dated through quotes by the early Church fathers back to Antioch where the word Christian was first used. These Greek manuscripts still make up the Majority of Greek manuscripts today (in the thousands), and are called The Majority Text, or Received Text. They make up what is known as the Traditional texts of the New Testament. And they have much agreement with each other. The KJV translators wrote a Letter to the reader, and to King James, explaining the difficulties in the translation, and what all manuscripts they relied on. And they made a clear distinction about no connection with a pope or the Roman Church.

But just like everything else in this world, Satan tries to corrupt what belongs to God and His people, God's Word included. Why do you really think the 'higher critic' has appeared for the latter days pushing corrupt Bible versions from completely different Greek New Testament manuscripts whose origin back to the early disciples has never been verified? Such is the so-called Critical Text which was introduced in the 1880's in Great Britain.

In opposition to the Majority Text, the 19th century British scholars Brooke Wescott and Fenton Hort pushed their Greek translation from certain Alexandrian manuscript Greek texts they claimed were "older and better" than the Majority Text. These involved the Codex Vaticanus which was first discovered in the Vatican in 1475 from an unknown origin, and the Codex Sinaiticus first discovered by Tischendorf in a Greek monastery around 1850, of which its origin also is unknown.

So how can the 'higher critic' that pushes that newer Critical Text make a claim that it is "older and better" than the many earlier Bible versions of history based on the Majority Text? (Yes, there were many previous Bible versions based on the Traditional text prior to the KJV.)

I recommend those who really want to look into this, watch the following scholarly documentary...

 

[prism]

My favorite Bible is the one I read.

 

[prism]

For English speaking peoples, the KJV is still the most 'accurate' translation. Notice I said 'translation'. There is no translation that is absolutely perfect, so one should never get into that debate.

Agreed and I’m glad you said ‘most accurate’ and since we don’t have the original manuscripts, it's impossible to say 'this is thee perfect translation' let alone the perfect body/family of text.

 

[SetFree]

Agreed and I’m glad you said ‘most accurate’ and since we don’t have the original manuscripts, it's impossible to say 'this is thee perfect translation' let alone the perfect body/family of text.

I don't think the choice is that difficult, because the later Bible versions past the 1880s that have the symbols 'NU' are from a totally different set of two manuscripts of which few exist, and don't agree well with each other, and their origin still yet to be documented. And around 2,000 words (I think actually more, but can't recall the exact number) are completely missing in the newer NT versions.

And even though the Greek manuscripts for the Traditional text of pre-1880s NT go back only to around the 3rd & 4th centuries, the Bible quotes by the early Church fathers agree with these, showing pretty reliable copies.

 

[prism]

And around 2,000 words (I think actually more, but can't recall the exact number) are completely missing in the newer NT versions.

The flip side of that view is ‘how do we know that words were not added to the Received Text by some over zealous scribe’?

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
— Revelation 22:18-19

Either way, someone is in trouble.

 

[SetFree]

The flip side of that view is ‘how do we know that words were not added to the Received Text by some over zealous scribe’?

That's what the higher critics say to try and support the Critical text being shorter.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
— Revelation 22:18-19

Either way, someone is in trouble.

That's right, especially those like Wescott and Hort who wrote their new New Testament translation while dabbling in the Occult and writing each other about how much they hated the Traditional text.

 

[prism]

That's what the higher critics say to try and support the Critical text being shorter.

The question is 'is there actual proof one way or the other (adding to or diminishing from God's Word?'

That's right, especially those like Wescott and Hort who wrote their new New Testament translation while dabbling in the Occult and writing each other about how much they hated the Traditional text.

I find Burgon's views intriguing but sadly full of ad hominems.
They'd make a stronger case by bringing forth actual evidence of manuscript tampering.

 

[SetFree]

The question is 'is there actual proof one way or the other (adding to or diminishing from God's Word?'

I find Burgon's views intriguing but sadly full of ad hominems.

I don't find intriguing the personal letters Hort and Wescott wrote each other of how if it were discovered what they were doing (with their new Greek translation), they would be found out and be in trouble. Those letters were made public years ago.

 

[Messy]

English NKJV and Dutch only NBG51. Don't care if another translation is sometimes better. I learned the texts from the NBG51 and it's annoying when they come with some new Dutch translation, cause if you say the same thing different, how can you memorize it plus I don't trust it and look it up. My kids though don't even understand what they say in the NBG51 and it was a new translation when I was young. There's also the State translation, from which I often don't understand what the words mean, cause it's so old. It's similar to KJV I think.

 

[SetFree]

ESV is very popular.
I use it, NASB, and the new LSB a lot.

I wouldn't recommend any modern Bible translation that CHANGES the original manuscripts idea of 'Theos' (put for GOD in the Greek New Testament), and tries to replace it with a pronoun "He".


1 Timothy 3:16 is not the only verse where MODERN Bible translations have removed the idea of Diety (GOD) from association with Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
KJV


1 Tim 3:16
16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
ESV

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholic Truth Society's - NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE - it's a modified Jerusalem Bible, the modifications bring it into exact conformity with the readings in the lectionary.

 

[Ammi]

I don't have a favorite translation. Some verses I like best from this translation, and some other verses I like best from another translation. Some verses work best when put to music. Some roll off my tongue better.

 

[Messy]

NBG51

 

[atpollard]

• Genesis 1:2 (Pirate Bible)​

  The land was a mess, nary a speck of shape, 'n all was shrouded in dark over the deep abyss. But then the spirit of ol' God sailed across the waters.

• Galatians 5:18-21​

  But if ye be led by the wind, ye ain't subject to the Code. Ayy, the scurvy deeds of the scallywag be plain to see: adultery, fornicatin', uncleanliness, and lecherousness. Mutiny, voodoo, avast hatred, arguin', lookin' fer a fight, bombs burstin' with rage, scallywags at each other's throats, blasphemous thinkin', and mutinous notions! Arrr, envyin's an' murders, guzzlin' grog an' revelries, o' th' likes o' that, I be tellin' ye afore, as I said afore t' those what do such, that they won't inherit th' kingdom o' God.

 

[Albion]

I have to say that the Authorized Version (AKA the KJV) is my favorite. Then, if there are some passages that seem unclear, there are a half dozen or so other translations that I look at in order to resolve that problem. None of these would be my overall favorite translation of the Bible, however, and none of them is entirely free of any and all problem areas, either.