Which Bible?

[pazuzu]

Hi, I want to buy a bible and was wondering which version is more readable(Not in old english) and has the best translations?

I've heard the RSV is good but that the NRSV and the NIV aren't.

Your opinion?

Thank you.

[Creekfreak]

The companion bible has been said to have the best translations as far as understanding them .
Myself have only read it a few times but I was impressed with it .

[Creekfreak]

Btw God loves you for wanting to study his word !

[fromdownunder]

I still personally prefer the KJV. It's far from the best translation, but I like the majestic language and the poetic structure of the thing.

Norm

[Lothian]

The LEGO (http://www.thebricktestament.com/) version

[Furi]

Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem. (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page)

[Bikewer]

I know that KJV is admired by many fundamentalist types, which is odd since it's well known among scholars that the producers of this translation were under orders to produce a great piece of literature; the definitive English bible.
They took many liberties in this pursuit.

[Camillus]

One option is to pick a few verses that you like (or are familiar with) and then compare it in different versions of the Bible on the internet. From that you can probably make a decision about the version that best suits you.

You may need to make a choice between the accuracy of the translation and the version that you find most readable.

I's always worth having a copy of the KJV because it is such an important document in English literature and because it is still the Bible of choice for fundamentalists.

[Damien Evans]

I have a New King James Version and a New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition)

I much prefer the NRSV.

I suggest that no matter which version you get you should get one with the acrophyca in it.

[Tiktaalik]

Bart Ehrman ("Misquoting Jesus" and other works) seems to prefer the Revised Standard, but notes that "they are all based on texts that have been changed in places."

I personally have a Revised Standard, and because that's the version I first read, I prefer it...

[X]

I have a copy of the New English Bible (with Apocrypha).
It's laid out in a book-style format. I find it makes reading easier.
To be fair, it has some odd translations. I'd suggest trying to find a copy of the Revised English Bible.
The New Jerusalem Bibleis appearently pretty decent for a translation, as well.

Mind you, I'm only reading the thing so I can know what the Christians are talking about as they ret to "save" my poor wayward soul. :rolleyes:

[Wildy]

I have a New King James Version and a New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition)

I much prefer the NRSV.

I suggest that no matter which version you get you should get one with the acrophyca in it.

I have a copy of the NRSV:CE as well. I think as well it depends on what you are using it for. If you are trying to find literary techniques of the Hebrews in the OT, then you shouldn't use it. I've found that it works quite well when you want to quickly check something that someone has mentioned.

[DoubtingStephen]

Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem. (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page)

Bless you for that link. Best translation EVER!

But u must dew whut i sai for i be teh CEILING CAT!

[sthomson]

Hi, I want to buy a bible and was wondering which version is more readable(Not in old english) and has the best translations?

I've heard the RSV is good but that the NRSV and the NIV aren't.

Your opinion?

Thank you.

When it comes to readability, I don't think the Good News translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Translation) can be beat, although I suppose one can quarrel about the lack of memorable poetic phrases like "for God so loved the world" and the Lord's prayer.

Note that there's some controversy over this edition, especially from conservative evangelicals, but in my experience, my high school bible study class responded very well to the clear, well-thought-out translation.

[bruto]

As others have stated, it depends a little on what you're using it for. Despite some issues and criticisms, I kind of like the RSV, which does a fairly decent job of cleaning up the archaic language and some of the worst errors of the KJV, while preserving some of the cadence and feel of the older version. It's close enough that if you know one version you pretty well know the other, except for the vocabulary. They cross reference well. You should probably grab a KJV if one comes your way too, just for the reference shelf. I think the Gideons still give them away, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding one even if you're shy about stealing it.

[pazuzu]

Thank you for all the replies.

I already have a KJV so I wanted something written in more modern english to avoid the poetic feel and get a more straight forward look at what the authors are trying to say. Does this make any sense?

I have heard that some modern version like the NRSV and NIV are based on a more liberal theology and some of the translations have been sugar coated a bit. Is this true?

I took a look at the RSV, NRSV and NIV online and I liked the NRSV and NIV the best as far as readability and I also checked a few passages to see if there were any real differences but they all seemed very similar.

Thanks for the advice.

[grayman]

Thank you for all the replies.

I already have a KJV so I wanted something written in more modern english to avoid the poetic feel and get a more straight forward look at what the authors are trying to say. Does this make any sense?


The best way to understand what the authors are trying to say would be to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew or what ever language the earliest texts were written in, then find copies of those text.

Good luck with your quest for knowledge. :)

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I'm not sure about more readable, but as for the second part, "best translations", it seems Young's Literal Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=15&lang=2) makes a valid attempt at such a claim.

From that link:

"The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young's Literal Translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings. The text was scanned from a reprint of the 1898 edition as published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Michigan....."

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

[Kopji]

IMHO the Zondervan NIV bible did a good job of preserving much of the prose when translating to modern English. NIV is generally criticized for sacrificing accuracy, but an updated version was published in 2005 which seems to have addressed many of the criticisms. The translation is not the work of one person, and although generally a product of evangelical flavor of Christianity, pretty good scholarship.

If you are conversing with Christians you will probably need to keep your KJV around though; it is the "standard".

Wiki as usual, has a pretty good discussion and on-line links to various versions. My advice would be to take a difficult passage and read it in various versions to see how it is rendered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations

When I was a believer way back when, the version considered to be a good accurate 'new English' translation was the 'New Jerusalem Bible'.

[shadron]

The Vulgate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)- you do read Latin, don't you?

Written by god, translated by a saint.

[bobcarp]

if you really want to read the bible you need to learn latin, greek and hebrew.

[sthomson]

if you really want to read the bible you need to learn latin, greek and hebrew.

Yes, just as if you really want to read Moliere, you need to learn French, and if you really want to read Borges you nead to learn Spanish.

Honestly.

[Denver]

When I was taking some religious studies at college, and when we were studying the bible, we used the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphia, Expanded Edition RSV, described as an ecumenical study bible. I personally liked the way it gave alternate translations when there seemed to be competing theories or versions of the text.

[Tiktaalik]

if you really want to read the bible you need to learn latin, greek and hebrew.

It really doesn't matter if you learn to read latin, greek, and hebrew, because even then, we don't have the originals of any of the books of the bible, and the copies we do have show numerous alterations, additions, and deletions as well as copying mistakes. You would just be more confused. So it really doesn't matter it you read an english translation of a copy of a copy of a...

KJV and RS are probably the most popular here in the U.S., so if you want to know what people are talking about when they quote "the Bible", either of those is probably fine.

[Soapy Sam]

The first man in the KJV is a Scotsman, so it's probably right.