Favorite biblical Translations.

[Colabomb]

I prefer the NRSV/RSV myself (I consider them indistinguishable) although I have been throughoughly enjoying the New American Bible.

My NAB is "The Catholic Bible" an interesting Study bible with some indepth looks at the books. I find the notes facinating and illuminating in a lot of ways.

 

[kamikat]

I use the Orthodox Study Bible for NT and NIV for OT. Currently, the OSB only has the NT, but they are working on an OSB for the OT. When that becomes available, I'll get that one, too.

 

[Secundulus]

My two favorites are ESV and New Jerusalem. I have every other version on my computer so I change which one I use frequently.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I like an older touch.
I prefer the Duoay Rheims version online. Which also converts to the original Latin of St Jerome.

And the Bible I use at home is the Challoner-Rheims version.

 

[Colabomb]

I use the Orthodox Study Bible for NT and NIV for OT. Currently, the OSB only has the NT, but they are working on an OSB for the OT. When that becomes available, I'll get that one, too.

I've seen the OST at the bookstore in the Greek Cathedral downtown.

I plan on buying the complete copy when it is finished. From what I read they will offer both the complete Bible, and the OT for those who already have the new.

 

[xristos.anesti]

Orthodox New Testament I and II (Evangelistarion and Praxapostolos)
Orthodox Study Bible (NT and Psaltir)
Serbian NT (Holy Synod of the Serbian Church)

LXX (Brenton)
Psaltir according to Seventy (Translated for the Serbs by +Atanasije)

I have been wondering whether I should get a copy of the 3rd Millennium Bible as of late.

 

[Colabomb]

I like an older touch.
I prefer the Duoay Rheims version online. Which also converts to the original Latin of St Jerome.

And the Bible I use at home is the Challoner-Rheims version.

Do you have trouble with the translation? It is very old.

 

[nyj]

I typically use 3:
RSV
NASB
NAB

Sometimes I'll use the Jerusalem Bible as well.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Esv

 

[Fish and Bread]

I have a "NRSV with Apocrypha". I like it for the following reasons:

- It includes the duetrocanonical books.
-It is an ecumenical translation, with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, various forms of Protestants, and even a Jew involved on the team which assembled it, which ensures the translation of disputed passages isn't overly weighed towards any one theological point of view, for the most part. This can help a lot both in terms of understanding and also in not being "hung out to dry" in discussions when one quotes a bible verse that flat out doesn't say what a given translation says it does (or at least may not) because of theological bias on the part of the translation.
- It incorporates modern scholarship.
- It is written at the level of a college reader, which means it neither overly simplifies (A problem with many translations which cause shades of meaning to be lost and sometimes for things to even say the opposite of what many deem to be the original authorial intent) or complicates unnecessarily.
- It is in the "King James" line of translations, meaning it usually goes with the majestic imagery and word choices of the KJV, updated and revised to be reflective of modern English and modern scholarship and such. I hate when translations just at random translates something differently just to be different, because they don't take into account the traditional translations used in the English language. I like continuity and majesty.

It's not perfect, but it's the best I've been able to find for my personal use. If I have to replace it someday (It's a paperback copy and will probably fall apart eventually, I'd imagine), I might switch from the NRSV-w/A to the NRSV-CE (Catholic Edition), though, simply because I don't like the convention of sticking the duetrocanonicals between the Old and New Testament (It seems random and disrupts the flow a little bit, almost making it seem as though there are three testaments). I'd rather they be intermixed into the Old Testament in canonical order, which the CE does.

I also have another bible that larger big print and such that I am trying to read cover to cover, but I don't like the translation so I shan't mention it here -- I use it simply because I think I have a hope of finishing it someway due to the format and page layout and such, which makes reading large swathes at a time easier. For everything but that chronological effort, I use my NRSV.

 

[Colabomb]

I have a "NRSV with Apocrypha". I like it for the following reasons:

- It includes the duetrocanonical books.
-It is an ecumenical translation, with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, various forms of Protestants, and even a Jew involved on the team which assembled it, which ensures the translation of disputed passages isn't overly weighed towards any one theological point of view, for the most part. This can help a lot both in terms of understanding and also in not being "hung out to dry" in discussions when one quotes a bible verse that flat out doesn't say what a given translation says it does (or at least may not) because of theological bias on the part of the translation.
- It incorporates modern scholarship.
- It is written at the level of a college reader, which means it neither overly simplifies (A problem with many translations which cause shades of meaning to be lost and sometimes for things to even say the opposite of what many deem to be the original authorial intent) or complicates unnecessarily.
- It is in the "King James" line of translations, meaning it usually goes with the majestic imagery and word choices of the KJV, updated and revised to be reflective of modern English and modern scholarship and such. I hate when translations just at random translates something differently just to be different, because they don't take into account the traditional translations used in the English language. I like continuity and majesty.

It's not perfect, but it's the best I've been able to find for my personal use. If I have to replace it someday (It's a paperback copy and will probably fall apart eventually, I'd imagine), I might switch from the NRSV-w/A to the NRSV-CE (Catholic Edition), though, simply because I don't like the convention of sticking the duetrocanonicals between the Old and New Testament (It seems random and disrupts the flow a little bit, almost making it seem as though there are three testaments). I'd rather they be intermixed into the Old Testament in canonical order, which the CE does.

I also have another bible that larger big print and such that I am trying to read cover to cover, but I don't like the translation so I shan't mention it here -- I use it simply because I think I have a hope of finishing it someway due to the format and page layout and such, which makes reading large swathes at a time easier. For everything but that chronological effort, I use my NRSV.

I think it is wise to put them into the middle. I accept them as canon, but for a Translation like the NRSV which claims to be ecumenical, it is wise not to force the books on More protestant minded folk.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I think it is wise to put them into the middle. I accept them as canon, but for a Translation like the NRSV which claims to be ecumenical, it is wise not to force the books on More protestant minded folk.

Sorry, I should have clarified. The NRSV offers three basic editions for sale:

1. "NRSV" (Protestant canon only)
2. "NRSV with Apocrypha" (duetrocanonicals from both the RCC and the EO in a special apocrypha section between the old and new testaments)
3. "NRSV: Catholic Edition" (duetrocanonicals interspersed into the Old Testament as per the list recognized by the Vatican)

I am thinking of switching from option 2 to option 3 if my current bible ever wears down and becomes unusable. I am not advocating any of the three editions be discontinued, though, as I think it is neat that they offer multiple options.

My only potential qualm about switching is that I would "lose" a couple books recognized by the EO and not the RCC in the switch. But the middle section just, as an average user, seems odd to me. I consider Tobit and so forth to be fully part of the Old Testament and so it is odd for me personally to deal with the segregation in my personal bible, not that it is a huge deal or anything. I can see why others might feel differently. I obviously did originally when I bought it! Other than that minor qualm, I've been very happy with it, though.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I have the New Oxford Annotated, with Apocrypha, which is RSV, I believe. I also use the Orthodox Study Bible (NT & Psalms only). I am so looking forward to the full OSB (the OT is the LXX) coming out next March!

Mary

 

[AveMaria]

For personal study, I'm partial to the New Jerusalem.

 

[Colabomb]

I've seen the New Jerusalem mentioned a few times. We have an old Jerusalem Bible that dad was given when he was Baptized.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I've heard of the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem bibles, but I've never really had any hands-on experience with them. All I know is that they're famous for actually spelling out Yahweh and the various names of God in the Hebrew scriptures instead of substituting "Lord" and such, a rarity in English translations. What are the other distinctive features? How do they compare to the RSV, NRSV, and some of the other translations on the market?