Discussion in 'Questions about Anglicanism' started by coton boy, Aug 11, 2015.
KJV, NKJV with Deuterocanonicals, Eastern Orthodox Bible (New Testament only available)
I had (and since lost) the Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV New Testament) as well....if that's the one you're referring to.
The full version is out now, using a translation of the Septuagint Old Testament (and includes the Deuterocanon).
None of my current Bibles have the "apocrypha"/deuterocanon books unfortunately.
But I had them at one time in the NRSV...but I wasn't fond of that particular translation.
I'd like to get a NASB some day.
It is the primary Bible in the Syrian Church. They pronounce it"Peshitto"instead of Peshitta, something about the latter pronunciation being influenced by Latin...
I like a lot of different versions,mix them up a little from time to time. I believe most versions have something to offer,their own "strengths". I use NRSV,TEV, NIV,Orthodox Study Bible, Schottenstein edition Book of Psalms, sometimes KJV,and KJV21 (in Church). I like my Bibles!lol
I like it. A "good feeling"version.
I possess copies of KJV, Douis Remes and a most dear Jerusalem Bible which I've had since my clerical student days 35yrs ago
I use the RSV for corporate, KJV for private.
It's flattering to hear a Roman Catholic praising a Protestant translation. In likewise manner, I myself possess the Douay because of one main advantage: being a literal word for word translation of the Vulgate, I can understand it and how it differs from other versions without having to know latin, so therefore, being a translation of a translation is not in itself bad, in the case of Douay. Of course, as my name implies, I also have the KJV and Geneva. I usually collect translations of the bible in full-sized hardbound editions and with the Apocrypha if available. I even have many bibles in languages that I've studied over the years, including my prized Esperanto translation!
My favorite translation at the moment, though, is the Protestant HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) which was recently revised as simply the CSB. Very good, balanced, modern translation.
I also want to note that I have a better respect for the KJV in light of it's Anglican heritage than what the American baptist culture has done to make it look like a joke. While many respectable baptists despise the KJV-only teaching, it has become a staple among cults like the JW, Mormons, and of course, the abusive legalistic IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists). Some televangelists who spew awful theology like prosperity doctrine, and other publications like Chick have also held to this doctrine, and helped further the damage to the KJV's image. The KJV itself is dime a dozen here in the US, usually in cheap run of the mill editions. Finding good, quality editions with the Preface and Apocrypha is much more difficult, and something I haven't done myself.
Again, the ESV is also a great modern literal translation. Definitely deserves the acceptance it is getting, but so is the NRSV. But my personal gripe with the NRSV is in places like Isaiah 22:16: "They pierced my hands and feet" being rendered as "My hands and feet are shriveled".
I like the NAB
New American Bible? Is that the Catholic one? I've heard it has a myriad of heretical footnotes trying to discredit the miracles as natural phenomenon. Is this true, and what exactly is the whole deal with it? I hear this complaint a lot from conservative Catholics, that supposedly it is so heretical that it would even trouble Jehovahs and Mormons.
The NAB is a great translation in my opinion; it was the first translation I ever bought for myself and it still reads wonderfully, in way I wish a Bible used for readings in church would. The notes are not nearly that bad; it engages with critical scholarship, as any good study bible should, but it does not say anything heretical by Roman Catholic standards, and in places defends its doctrines (though not in a way too offensive to my Protestant tastes).
Ah, good to hear. I myself will be buying a copy of it in the same format that I do for all my bible collections, obviously. Just wondered about how much of that was true. It is basically the modern standard for Roman Catholics.
I also noticed that there exists a Douay-Rheims-Only movement, much like how we have the KJV-only nuts. CatholicAnswers was quick to dismiss that one, however. Look up their article, "Uncomfortable Facts About the Douay-Rheims".
I feel that Douay-Rheims as a more reliable translation than others would almost have some weight if it wasn't for the fact that the Vulgate contains some verses that weren't in modern translations (based on current scholarship), although the fact that it lacks some of the alleged insertions found in ones like the KJV could give you the impression that it is 'more pure', as one Roman Catholic preface claimed.
One minor correction: it is the standard for American Catholics, not in other countries.
Shh; don't tell the Archbishop, but my favorite has become the RSVCE. I used to be a big NASB advocate, but that committee never did the Deuterocanon. Around the time I was plugging the NASB hard, many of my peers began to jump on board with ESV. ESV is okay (and conditionally approved within my jurisdiction) but what a lot of people don't realize is that the Deuterocanon is just a reprint of the RSV. I like NKJV and usually use it when prepping my sermons, since RSVCE was not authorized by the Abp (again, NKJV is c0nditionally approved within the jurisdiction). I also liked HCSB, and received an advance copy of the first revision (ca. 2009?) and then a complimentary copy of the CSB revision this year, and it has gone down-hill.
I have been a critic of NIV. I thought the 2011 revision was actually an improvement. I rather like the Psalter in that edition. I cannot stand the NLT, and I have heard it read in Anglican churches! Every bit of detail is stripped from the text. And the original NAB was childish, although the NABRE is not as bad. But the notes are still awful.
Oh, also, I think the Majority Text is superior. Certainly a minority position in this day and age, and few versions agree with me. Also the Textus Receptus and Majority Text are not the same, which is one of my pet peeves when seeing KJV only advocates and Baptists/backwoods Pentecostals rant about the Bible.
Has anyone read the Message Bible?
The Message is a horrendous paraphrase of the Bible, really just a commentary that loosely follows the Biblical text, by a single man: Eugene Peterson, an American Evangelical Protestant.
The Good News translation is superior to it, in being a casual rendering without being anywhere as liberal as the The Message was. Same with the CEV (Contemporary English Version).
So far I have been using the online NIV for ease of reading.
I use the NRSV-Catholic Edition, Anglicised for regular reading but refer to the KJV and Douai-Rheims daily for Lectio Divina. When I'm reading with my nephew, however, I use The Message and explain to him what each passage means. He's only four but has memorised a few passages which I love.