Which Bible Translation Do You Prefer?

Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by coton boy, Aug 11, 2015.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    298
    Likes Received:
    105
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here's a pic of my bible collection, which does not show some of the extra copies of the same bibles you see here, and a few of the foreign language ones, but most of them are here:
    [​IMG]
     
    Will_ likes this.
  2. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    298
    Likes Received:
    105
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I got several new bibles from local thrift shops for a bargain. One is a fine copy of the New American Bible. The original, not the revised edition, but in very good shape. I know the NAB was criticized for its higher textual critical notes, but this is either in the Revised Version, or just wrong, because the notes are generally very good. However, they are easy to mistake as questioning biblical inerrancy or integrity, as they relate to subjects that are at times technical, but I don't find it hard to comprehend. The translation is not bad either, it gets some flack for being inconsistent with formal vs. casual dialect, but the NKJV gets the same criticism and I am a fan of that, too. Besides, most people develop their speech patterns in a variety of ways that can seem 'inconsistent' by 'proper' standards, if you care about that, but that makes it all the more natural. So, no big deal, really.
     
  3. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    909
    Likes Received:
    673
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    If you had to pick one or two out of all the translations you've encountered, what would you have picked?

    (And your may picture is gone, above)
     
  4. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    298
    Likes Received:
    105
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'll have to take another one, my apologies!

    My main bible is probably the NKJV, since it respects the KJV tradition but updates some of the more difficult, archaic words. There's been some complaint, as I mentioned, about it's 'inconsistency' of trying to retain the formal, traditional language of the original with more modern words, but as I said, it's not that odd to me or awkward, though some have issues with it. I would've suggested Holman Christian Standard Bible, but in all truth, I can't, since it makes embarrassing errors like in Deuteronomy 22:28 with the 'rape' mistranslation, despite being more accurate at times than the NIV, which IMHO is no longer relevant.

    I give a special honor to the KJV, Douay-Rheims, and Geneva bibles as three competing but complimentary witnesses. Each was composed by a major denomination, who respected church tradition and orthodoxy, but had some notable theological differences, although agreeing on many core aspects. These were also pre-modern, i.e., before contemporary scholarship with more controversial views came along. So, that makes them important. But, these might go beyond the basic 'one or two' you asked for. ;)
     
    anglican74 likes this.
  5. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    909
    Likes Received:
    673
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Splendid, thank you....
    I am beginning to share your thoughts as well, especially on the NIV
     
  6. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    298
    Likes Received:
    105
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    The 1984 NIV has many of the same accuracy errors as the newer 2011 revision, but the 2011 version goes a bit beyond that. It's more PC, mostly in gender terms, but beyond what the original text says in some places. I would say the ESV is also a great alternative to the NKJV for a modern literal translation, and it has an apocrypha for it. I am against the NRSV because of it's liberal and pseudo-ecumenical biases. If you look at the NRSV's official endorsement page, you'll see no end to the 'progressive' heretics supporting it from numerous denominations, some not even Christian (such as Bart Ehrman). The translation of Psalm 22:16 in the NRSV is indicative of a Jewish, Anti-Jesus bias, but ironically not even in line with traditional Jewish interpretations of the same passage. Jews choose the whole "like a lion, my hands and feet' interpretation rather than the Christian 'they pierced my hands and feet' (a textual discrepancy that has been noted and discussed many times). Therefore, most Jewish advocates who want to suggest it says something unrelated to the suffering of Jesus do NOT go for the 'my hands and feet are withered' translation. That is extremely novel by both Jewish and Christian standards. The Good News translation is somewhat worse. It says they 'tied up' or 'bound' my hands and feet, which again is a novel translation, and the footnotes have the nerve to explain it as if it is giving you some scholarly insight on a truly faulty interpretation. All in all, I'd avoid the NRSV like the plague. I can see why it is widely accepted in Episcopal denominations, but you'd be better off with the original RSV, which is not a bad choice.
     
  7. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    727
    Likes Received:
    922
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I live with the NRSV in an NRSV parish in an NRSV diocese. Indeed this is a reflection of the approach taken by the Anglican Church of Australia more generally. The world has changed in the way we use language. In every day speaking, if you mean to include everyone you generally would not use a gender specific pronoun or word, unless you use both.

    Probably for me the most jarring of the NRSV efforts is in Micah.

    Micah 6:8
    He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
    but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God? ​

    It could be rendered more simply I believe

    Micah 6:8
    He has told you what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
    but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God? ​

    Overall I don't mind the NRSV for the rendition of meaning and generally acceptable language, that fits well inside Anglican Liturgy. I went somewhere recently where they used a modern translation (I think Good News) where the language just did not feel right in the setting.
     

Share This Page