Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?

by Disillusioned JW 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why? My favorites include the (English) Revised Version Bible (of 1881-1885) and its Apocrypha (of 1898), the American Revised Version Bible (of 1898, it close to the American Standard Version), the American Standard Version Bible (of 1901), the New American Standard Bible - Updated Edition, the New Revised Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, The Complete Bible: An American Translation (it includes the Apocrypha), and The Twentieth Century New Testament. I also use others beside those.

  They are my favorites because I consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence. In the case of the latter four their language is much more modern than that used in the KJV and thus easier for me to understand. When I compare the text of the RV, ARV, and ASV with the KJV, to me the RV, ARV, and ASV are an improvement to the KJV. I also see significance to the Apocrypha and consider it scripture, thus I have Bible editions which include the Apocrypha. Another Bible I like is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. That Bible included the name "Yahweh multiple times" (about 70 times or so in later revisions) in the Old Testament, but when that Bible translation became revised and had the new name of Christian Standard Bible, the name "Yahweh" was unfortunately removed from the scripture text (except maybe it is there as a footnote). Naturally I also use the NWT, but during the past 15 years I mostly only use it in combination with the other books of the WT (or to look up a verse whose wording I most familiar with from the NWT since that is the Bible translation I used for most of my life).
  
• 

  Phizzy

  I have a number of " go to" translations depending upon what I want to know. Do I only want the general thought the Writer wished to convey ?, then an accurate, but readable Version is what I go to, do I want the flavour/meaning of the words as they would have come over in the original language ? then I go to one of the more "literal" Translations.

  If I wish to dig deep as to the Writer's thoughts, a Commentary is useful, often giving the necessary context to the thoughts, the time in which the Writer lived, and religious thought at that time etc, as well as the etymology of words.

  The latter is often illuminating as to the mental picture the words would have evoked in the original audience for the work, and hence the reasons for their use. The RNWT Study Version is probably good for this, the old Version which is all I have was replete with copious and informative Footnotes, but of course, as with any Translation, religious bias often comes in to play, so use a number of reliable Translations.

  Religious bias is often evident in Commentaries too, though usually it is not overt, as the writer is subject to derision from his fellow Scholars if he makes outrageous claims for a particular interpretation of the Text. But the later the Commentary, and usually the Bible Translation, the better, as the people who produce these things are aware of the latest Scholarly consensus. Be aware that Bible Translations and Commentaries can be behind the very latest Scholarly discoveries or thoughts though.
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  I especially like the Revised English Bible, which came out in the 1980's as an update to the New English Bible.

  For the NT reading, I like J B Phillips, though a paraphrase.
• 

  john.prestor

  I don't read the Bible anymore. I don't even have a copy around if I wanted to.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Apart from those mentioned, I like Schonfield’s “Orignal New Testament”, also published as “The Authentic New Testament”. It has blunt footnotes, such as Rev 3:14 where it says the early Christians believed Jesus was the first created being. David Bentley Hart’s new translation is good with lots of footnotes. I recently bought a new version by Anthony Buzzard which has lots of comments and interesting slants. Some of his footnotes clearly take aim at JWs, such as Matt 24:3. Others take aim at Christadelphians such as verses speaking about the devil or demons. I like the translation of Genesis by Robert Alter because it explains the literary and poetic techniques of the original Hebrew and draws interesting connections between different passages. I like the translation of the book of Job by Raymond Scheinlin too. But personally I still prefer the 1984 NWT to any other Bible.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Correction: The Apocrypha of the Revised Version first came out in 1895 (or maybe in 1894) instead of in 1898.
• 

  JoenB75

  NIV
• 

  Queequeg

  https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
  
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  I have a few.

  1. The NASB for literal reading.

  2. The WEB for being copyright free, modern English, and using Yahweh.

  3. The NWT 1984 with references for the references plus my familiarity with the text.

  4. The JPS 1985 Study bible for the OT

  5. The RSV often for the NT.

  Edit: for the Apocrypha I use the Oxford Study Bible Revised English Edition.

  And finally, I would hold the KJV for it's literary qualities.
• 

  Overrated

  I can not read any bible with any sense of seriousness. But a street-slang bible as some spice to such a boring read.