Favorite Bible Version

I have read numerous Bible quotes throughout this forum and find that a majority of them are from the King James Version (KJV). This version was presented in published form to King James of England in 1611 and has been the Standard English version for nearly 400 years. Despite its authoritative nature, I find the use of thees and thous to be distracting. I can generally understand the meaning of the verses, but not without effort.My favorite is the New International Version (NIV) for three reasons: First, I find it easy to understand; second, it was translated using a mixture of the ancient texts over several years and by over 100 biblical scholars from a variety of Christian denominations. In essence, I believe that potential bias by a single person or denomination was minimized; finally, it was the first Bible I picked up when I began searching for the Lord, so it holds a special significance for me.That’s not to say that I don’t read other versions. I often compare the same verse in different versions to gain a new perspective and sometimes new insights.I’m not looking for a debate as to which Bible version is the best. I believe we can all agree that the best version for a believer is one that speaks to the heart of the individual.I also understand that certain Christian denominations require the use of a particular version and that’s Ok by me, whatever floats yer boat.BTW, non-believers are welcome to join the discussion, but please be nice. Comments like, The best Bible version is the one burning in the fireplace, do nothing but incite rancor.So what’s your flavor?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

As a Protestant, this will seem a touch odd, but my favorite translation is the (Catholic) Jerusalem Bible. It has some odd touches, but the first editions (with some tremendous explanatory notes) keep the flavor and beauty of the original without being distracting, in my opinion. The fact that J.R.R. himself worked on it (in a minor role, I think, but still involved) shows the level that they were aiming for, and in my opinion, achieved. I'm not sure that I'd use it for complete textual examinations (NASB is supposedly the best for that, but since I don't know the languages I have no opinion) but for simply reading I think it is my favorite.On the subject of the NIV, I wonder if it is biased towards the literalist interpretation: compare Gen 2:17 in the NIV with the New American Standard, KJV, or New Revised Standard translations as a perfect example. One of them has a very different meaning from the other three (those four being the four most popular translations in use by modern American Protestant churches, as I understand it). While I don't know enough Hebrew to have an opinion, it leads me to suspect that the NIV translators allowed their interpretation to color their translation (this has probably been discussed to death before here).Chris

I usually quote from the NASB as it is reputedly one of the more accurate translations (better than the NIV and KJV) and because it is relatively easy to understand.

I'd like a bible that would contain all the scriptuire found like thomas and all the apochrypha whatever else isn't in the Luther reformed of even the catholic bible which I like for putting more books in.This message has been edited by chris porcelain, 03-08-2005 14:21 AM

Yeah the new american standard translates word for word the niv translates phrase for phrase.

Well, let’s post all four and compare: (Note: I’m quoting verses 16 and 17 to show the complete thought). I don’t see much of a difference. The NIV does not use the term in the day as is the case in the other three, but is that a very different meaning?Here’s a few other translations: Regarding interpretations, here’s what the authors of the NIV say in the Preface:

Yes, I believe there is a difference. The difference is in the part left out, the timing of death and indirectly, what is meant by death.The NLT and the NIV make death something that can happen at some indefinite time in the future. The change was made to try to allow a semi-literal interpretation of the verses without the issue of GOD lying. The idea stems from the concept that death first entered the history after the apple is eaten and/or, death was meant spiritually as opposed to literally.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that what gets me is the removal of any reference to it being the same day. And that that does make quite a difference, at least to me. Looking at it from the NASB, NRSV, or KJV, it would appear that God had mercy on the poor humans, changing their fate and allowing them to live when previously he had foretold death. The NIV, on the other hand, makes support for one literalist interpretation (that it was the Fall that introduced Death into the world) much more palatable, IMO. It can much more easily be read to support that belief, though it does not enforce that belief.(This is not the proper place to discuss the two different interpretations of the Fall, though I briefly touched on it above. A good discussion of this has already been started, I see, over at http://EvC Forum: Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II -->EvC Forum: Is Genesis to be taken literally Part IIYou can read what they've written and we can discuss it over there, if you wish, though I warn you that both my knowledge and faith about this topic are beneath that of many of the posters on the group, and so my end of the discussion would be below what is currently there.)Chris

Ok, I see. I also see why it's good to reference thought-for-thought translations. A literalist would need to defend errancy in the other versions since obviously Adam and Eve did not physically die "in that day".

I think you are being most humble regarding your knowledge as evidenced by your eloquent posts to this thread, and I agree that the referenced thread would be a better place to discuss the topic, so let's drop it here.

One thing that is actually on topic that I forgot to mention above- the Jerusalem Bible now comes in many different forms, as is common with Bibles. The Readers Edition removes many of the wonderful notes, so I don't recommend it. The early editions I do recommend; the current version (link to amazon for paperback at: Amazon.com) has removed some of the notes (but still has many of them). My Dad has the original edition; I use the newer one. I'm not sure which of the many versions available at Amazon is the one that has all of the notes of the original edition- I tried to purchase one second hand from them but ended up with the readers edition. If you see an old one with lots of notes at a second-hand book store I recommend it.And its always fun to read the Deutero-Cannonical books, no matter what you think of their spiritual quality. I would never have encountered Ecclesiasticus' Let Us Now Praise Famous Men section (starting in Chap 44), which I like, if not for this translation.Incidentally, MyMonkey, is that your kid in your avatar?Chris

One of the online sources for comparing different versions of the Bible can be found here. It is a handy reference but does not get into as deep an analysis as some others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, I find the various study bibles very informative I would agree. I find reading the Apocrypha, as Protestants describe the collection, to be interesting and the first few verses of Chapter 44 in Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach) are certainly famous.It does seem at times that it’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water, when Protestant Bibles exclude the Apocrypha as does the NIV. On the other hand, one can read this collection of seven books and four parts of books and can begin to understand why it is that Roman Catholics and Protestants have such doctrinal differences.I’m fairly strong in my faith and comfortable with my religion, so I like to read all sorts of material and can do so without an internal conflict arising. Even stuff that is non-scriptural such as the pseudepigraphal books or so called Lost Books of the Bible . Some of those writings are really strange.Yea, that's my daughter Sophie

I refer to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible most often, and it can be viewed here:Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of MormonThere's also a similar treatement of the Quran and the Book of Mormon at that site. Very useful.