I have the NRSV, REV, and GNT, all with the Apocrypha. From what I've read about them, the NRSV is the most scholarly. The REV seems like a reliable translation too. Although the GNT is quite dynamic, I like that translation as well (except that it calls the Ark of the Covenant the "covenant box").
Because it is not only the preferred translation in academia but also the one used liturgically in my own jurisdiction (The Episcopal Church), I use the NRSV as my overall “go-to” translation. That being said, there are some passages that I think the RSV translated better (e.g., the RSV’s “one day” is preferable to the NRSV’s “the first day” in Genesis 1, as it more accurately reflects the Hebrew). One potential drawback is that the NRSV relies on an eclectic method for determining the most likely reading of the Tanakh/OT text, so if I want to do more textually “pure” study, I’ll make use of the NJPS for the Masoretic Text, or the NETS for the Septuagint (both of which are excellent). Likewise if I want the Majority Text reading from the NT, I’ll reference the venerable NKJV. I think it’s important to rely on a variety of translations for study, as well as ancient, medieval, and modern commentators (e.g., Philo, Rashi, or Luther, etc., for the OT; Origen, Basil, or Augustine, etc., for the NT; and responsible commentaries like Hermeneia, Expositors, NIGTC, or The Interpreter’s Bible for more modern analysis and exposition; the Cambridge Bible for Colleges and Schools is dated but extremely well written and an excellent resource as well, with that one caveat).
I use a combination of the RSV-CE and KJV; I will occasionally use the ESV. For public reading, though, the KJV cannot be matched.
In English for devotion or casual reading I like the NKJV and ESV. If I am writing a paper or studying NET bible.
I mostly use the RSCVE simply for ease of use, but my favorite is still the KJV. I've tried to use the Douay-Rheims because I'd heard it's "like the KJV but better". It was okay but more like diet coke vs real coke, something was just off.
I note that the ACNA will be offering a "traditional language" BCP soon. The idea is that it conforms to the overall structure of the 2019 BCP, but reverts to the 1662 prayer book language. I'm definitely going to buy this when it becomes available. I think a lot of congregations who still use the 1928 BCP will like this (and it may be specifically for them that the book was created). ACNA has been striving to regularize church services around the updated BCP for some time now, so hopefully this will help some of the more traditionalist churches to make the transition.
The 2019 BCP gets a bad rap in some quarters but I find it to a pretty good BCP. It has a great lectionary and the Anglican Standard Text is a great eucharist rite.
I love the Coverdale psalter -- that's one of the major points for the 2019 BCP in my view. Like you, I also think it has a great lectionary. I'd like to see a greater emphasis on using the BCP within ACNA, actually. For example, my local church extracts the relevant service portions and puts it into the bulletin, and so many people bring neither their Bibles nor their BCPs to Sunday service. There isn't much guidance at all on using the lectionary or following the daily prayers. Since so many members are new to the Anglican tradition, we don't really learn how to use the BCP as our daily tool for worship. I think the ACNA recognizes this problem, and is trying to a) standardize the use of the 2019 BCP across the province, and b) place an emphasis on teaching congregations how to use it. I've spoken to my pastor about this, and he said that plans are underway to hold formal classes on the BCP later this year. That's why I'm happy to see the "traditional language" edition, because I think that will appeal more to the high-church folks and traditionalists. Don't get me wrong -- I like the ESV translation quite a lot. I think it's probably the best general-purpose translation in common use today. But it just doesn't have the music that the KJV does.
The folks from our parish who attended synod brought an advance copy back with them (for our rector, I believe, who could not attend). So it's definitely coming, once they get more of them printed. Our rector (an archdeacon) brought the use of the BCP back into our services immediately after the 2019 came out.
What do you prefer in French? I was somewhat surprised to find the Bible in French only has a handful of major versions.
https://www.dailyoffice2019.com/ I use this for my daily use. I wonder if they will make a traditional version of it
For casual and devotional reading LSG or NBS, Louis Segond and Nouvelle Louis Segond. For studies, BJ ( Jerusalem) or sometimes the so called TOB (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Also the Bible issued by Bibliothèque de la Pléiade.
One of my colleagues is a Quebecer. I have heard that Canadian French is an archaic dialect compared to Parisian French. I'm still attempting to master Spanish. When I get that done, I'll try French. I am the Secretary General of the Orthodox Anglican Communion and correspond with national churches that communicate in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Swahili. I have a helper in the West African country of Angola who is a true polyglot and can work through the French and Portuguese for me. God bless Fr. Gaston.
That is amazing! I would say do not think too much about varieties of French, it is all French. Probably Canadian French is better for you due to their anglicisms. If I had to define Canadian French I would call it an angliziced French. That is just my opinion. Good luck with your linguistics goals, may God bless you all of them.
Can we please not encourage Quebecois French? Having grown up with Parisian before living in West Africa, it is wholly unusable outside of the region.
85ish %? QC has a lot of archaisms and slang/localized terms that make little sense outside of their area. Don't get me started on NB French (Acadian), or the eastern 'Shiac'.
All French is Greek to me! My hat is off to people who can learn new languages; it's definitely not my strong suit.
Although I adore the thundering diction of the KJV, it is rife with translation issues. A proper exegetical prescription may be the combined usage of a KJV, NASB, NIV, Strong's, Greek/Hebrew dictionary, Bishop Trench's OT/NT commentary.