Which Bible Translation Do You Prefer?

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

  1. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    For me it depends on the intended use of the translation. For liturgical purposes, I think the RSV is probably the most satisfactory overall. Older-sounding English is probably more desirable for the Psalms if they’re being sung or chanted, and for that purpose I much prefer the KJV Psalms to the Prayer Book’s Coverdale version. (Both modern and older English have their place, in my view; I don’t feel any particular need to exclusively opt for one or the other.) For study, being unable to read the original languages, and bearing in mind that no translation is perfect, in general I tend to use the NJPS for the Hebrew OT/Tanakh, the NETS for the Greek LXX (alongside the NRSV for the Deuterocanonicals), and the NRSV for the NT.
     
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,332
    Likes Received:
    1,638
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Well said Invictus, except the BCP Psalms which come from Coverdale are even older 1535, than the KJV 1611, and more poetic in their metre and language, in my opinion, though even less 'accurate' than the less 'accurate' KJV. They are still better for singing though, in my opinion.
    .
     
    Invictus likes this.
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Thank you, Tiffy. It wasn't my intention to imply that the KJV translation of the Psalms is older than the Coverdale version, though upon re-reading what I wrote, I can definitely see how it could have been taken that way. They each have their good qualities. In my experience, for whatever reason I've just generally preferred the KJV rendering over the Coverdale.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  4. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The guy who does the mid-day mid-week Bible study at the Lutheran church I've been serving for some months absolutely loves the King James. He started a little fire a few months ago when he started spazzing about how the 'modern' versions had deleted a number of verses. So I had half the congregation asking me about deleted verses. We read the NIV in the service because it's the preferred version of NALC in the official publications. Except for the Psalter. The Psalter is read from the Lutheran Book of Worship and the version that book used sucks. It's not beautiful, it's not particularly accurate, and it's not rhythmic.
     
  5. bwallac2335

    bwallac2335 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Religion:
    ACNA
    I feel the most comfortable with the NRSV because that is the one I read the most, although I like the NKJV, and the ESV
     
    Botolph likes this.
  6. Tom Barrial

    Tom Barrial Member

    Posts:
    82
    Likes Received:
    39
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Iyy

    It's the New American Standard version for me
     
    bwallac2335 likes this.
  7. Elmo

    Elmo Active Member

    Posts:
    169
    Likes Received:
    103
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    ESV is my go to. I have lots of versions of it.

    I also like the NRSV.

    But I grew up with King James and NKJ Bibles and they have a close place in my heart.

    I also have the Lexham LXX for reference, as as far as I can tell the LXX is what the majority of early Christians used.
     
    Botolph and bwallac2335 like this.