Which version of the Bible is your favorite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SSTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SSTeacher

Guest
Translators aren’t inspired so the things that you’re liable to read in the Bible vary from one version to another. Which version do you prefer and why?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
 
SSTeacher said:
Translators aren’t inspired so the things that you’re liable to read in the Bible vary from one version to another. Which version do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...
For several reasons I prefer the King James Version. The plays of Shakespear and the KJV have had a major influence in English education, and English is the only language that I speak. There is also the Strongs Exaustive Concordance of the KJV, which is inexpensive and excellent for doing research into scriptural meaning.

The KJV was written as a word for word translation, as best it could be managed, so the English of the KJV reflects the compactness of the Hebrew. I grew up listening to a minister read from the KJV and comment, so those are my earliest memories of sacred scripture. These are some of my reasons for prefering the King James Version.
 
SSTeacher said:
Translators aren’t inspired so the things that you’re liable to read in the Bible vary from one version to another. Which version do you prefer and why?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
The RSV-CE (AKA - The Ignatius Bible), followed closely by the Navarre, then the Douay-Rheims.
 
Acknowledging that there are ‘problems’ with these (and expecting a lynch mob any time now) I still have to say that my two favorite Bibles for reading are the NRSV and the New Jerusalem Bible. I also like the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (I have them) but I do prefer the new versions. All of these include the deutero-canon.

I have never particularly cared for the NAB, although I use it for quoting purposes on this site.

If I could read the scriptures in the original languages I would be most pleased, but I have never learned them.
*
Michael*
 
The Douay-Rheims. After that, the Ronald Knox version (but only for devotional reading, not study).
 
Hesychios said:
Acknowledging that there are ‘problems’ with these (and expecting a lynch mob any time now) I still have to say that my two favorite Bibles for reading are the NRSV and the New Jerusalem Bible. I also like the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible (I have them) but I do prefer the new versions. All of these include the deutero-canon.

I have never particularly cared for the NAB, although I use it for quoting purposes on this site.

If I could read the scriptures in the original languages I would be most pleased, but I have never learned them.
*
Michael*
Click to expand...
Ditto for me. I started with the NAB but changed when my college profs, all doctorates, 2 theologians and 1 biblical expert (2 religious and one priest) suggested I go to the NRSV as being a preferred translation. I also have a NJB and love it as well. Much much better translations that anything that I have seen before. The NRSV is the preferred translation in the Episcopal church I attend as well.
 
First Choice: The Orthodox Study Bible. It’s the only English translation with the COMPLETE OT as accepted by the Eastern Churches.

Second Choice: New King James. Its OT, as far as it goes, gives major differences between the Hebrew and the LXX.

The NT in both is the same: that of the NKJV. This and the original KJV (last revised in 1769 and 1904 when it was normalized according to American spellings by the ABS) are the only two English versions whose NT is based directly on the Textus Receptus (Received Text).
 
bpbasilphx said:
First Choice: The Orthodox Study Bible. It’s the only English translation with the COMPLETE OT as accepted by the Eastern Churches.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know why the Orthodox Old Testament Canon contains three more books than the Catholic one?
bpbasilphx said:
Second Choice: New King James. Its OT, as far as it goes, gives major differences between the Hebrew and the LXX.

The NT in both is the same: that of the NKJV. This and the original KJV (last revised in 1769 and 1904 when it was normalized according to American spellings by the ABS) are the only two English versions whose NT is based directly on the Textus Receptus (Received Text).
Click to expand...
Would you mind explaining why you favor the Textus Receptus over the “Critical Text” of Westcott and Hort? I’ve never understood why there is disagreement about which is the “right” one.

Respectfully,
Mick
👍
 
New Jerusalem Bible. It reads well and has exhaustive footnotes and forwards having been translated from the original Greek and Aramaic. Great maps and concordance references on all pages between Old Testament and New Testament books. Plus one of my favorite authors (JRR Tolkien) helped translate some of the books (OT).
 
I prefer the Vulgata Clementina, commonly known as the Latin Vulgate, supplemented with the Douay Rheims, for those hard passages where my latin is lacking… 🤓
 
Hesychios said:
I have Ronald Knox New Testament. I am very fond of it.

Did he do the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it’s out of print. (I have only the Knox New Testament too, but an old one that is falling apart). Baronius Press is supposed to be re-printing the entire Knox Bible sometime in the near future.
 
MrDickerson said:
Yes, but it’s out of print. (I have only the Knox New Testament too, but an old one that is falling apart). Baronius Press is supposed to be re-printing the entire Knox Bible sometime in the near future.
Click to expand...
I have the Baronius Douay-Rheims, they did a first class job with it.
 
Verisimilitude said:
New Jerusalem Bible. It reads well and has exhaustive footnotes and forwards having been translated from the original Greek and Aramaic. Great maps and concordance references on all pages between Old Testament and New Testament books. Plus one of my favorite authors (JRR Tolkien) helped translate some of the books (OT).
Click to expand...
It was my understanding that the Jerusalem Bible in English is translated from the French (the French having been translated from earlier original texts). Is that not also the case for the New Jerusalem Bible?

I could be mistaken…😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top