What bible translation do you prefer?

[chongjasmine]

I like the old NIV bible, and the ESV bible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, the RSV-2nd CE and the Douay-Rheims. I prefer those 3 for the beauty of language and traditional translation of the text. But for actual study, I like the Fireside Personal Study Bible - NAB-RE.

 

[EnsignRo]

I actually prefer the NIV version of the Bible. But I am willing to read other versions just to see the differences

 

[Clarity]

I really like the KJV, as I grew up with it, but I also like the ESV. KJV for studying, ESV for a read-through. What are your favorite translations?

I'm greedy. I prefer all of them.

The ones I use the most are:

RSV (I find it most often to be accurately rendered)
MAS (Mine is a Hebrew-English parallel published by JPS)
Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" (The Bible written in Josephus' words)

These three seem to cover all the points of view I look for the most.

 

[David1967]

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures....easy to understand and the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek languages

Curious as to who translated this version. I have a JW friend who showed me a copy. No names in his copy at least as to translator. Do you know?

 

[David1967]

I really like the KJV, as I grew up with it, but I also like the ESV. KJV for studying, ESV for a read-through. What are your favorite translations?

I tend to teach from the NKJV. Lots of people in my church use the KJV and the NKJV is the easiest newer translation to use in conjunction with it.

 

[Rival]

I own about 15 translations, but I like the RSV for accuracy; also the ESV and NASB - but for reading I love the NJB and the JB. Grew up on the KJV and love that one too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you make of the claim that the NIV is mistranslated and alters the passages significantly? Shiranui here is your chance to substantiate your claim!

I do think that the NIV is not the most literal translation, but the issue isn't mistranslation. I know some of the scholars on the NIV translation team, both former and current. These ladies and gentlemen are at the very top of their game - I would not accuse them of mistranslation because they are truly awesome at what they do.

I have found that it's the NIV text that is different than most - they don't use the Nestle-Aland 27 or USB as their text (or any other conventionally published Greek text), so seminarians and other students of Greek that compare their translations to the NIV will see an alarming number of "mistranslations" due to the simple fact that they are not looking at the same text that the NIV committee is translating.

Now the arbitrary choosing of texts may be another topic altogether....

And I will submit also that the Greek offers enough elasticity for a wide variety of translations, and the NIV is more or less responsible.

But again, I use the NIV for preaching only - not biblical interpretation, theology, or anything else.

EDIT: The text for the NIV was published as Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

"This edition presents the Greek text behind the New International Version as reconstructed by Edward Goodrick and John Kohlenberger III. It thus represents the textual choices made by the Committee on Bible Translation, the international group of scholars responsible for the NIV translation. According to its editors, this edition differs from the United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland editions of the Greek New Testament at 231 places." http://sblgnt.com/about/introduction/

 

[starlite]

Curious as to who translated this version. I have a JW friend who showed me a copy. No names in his copy at least as to translator. Do you know?

The New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures. Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, their educational background is not known. The translation must be appraised on its own merits. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times. The New World Translation is now available, in whole or in part, in over 110 languages. When an individual reads God's Word in their native tongue it touches the heart in a special way. They can make God's message their own.

 

[David1967]

The New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The translators were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures. Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, their educational background is not known. The translation must be appraised on its own merits. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. The translators seek to make the Bible as understandable to readers today as the original text was to readers in Bible times. The New World Translation is now available, in whole or in part, in over 110 languages. When an individual reads God's Word in their native tongue it touches the heart in a special way. They can make God's message their own.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[starlite]

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

You are very welcome...sorry I didn't see your comment sooner

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread in the noble name of the ESV!

 

[Sundance]

For me, I absolute adore none other translation than the 1611 Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version.