One correction: the Ignatius Study Bible is the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition).
What is your favorite Bible translation?
- Thread starter Z-2
- Start date
I use mostly the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). That’s what my apps use (Ignatius Study Bible and EWTN app), and if I’m online with my iThing, I do my searching and copying/pasting from one of those apps.
I have the Ignatius Study Bible real paper book version, too. After that would be the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE), because that’s what is used at mass in America.
Finally, I also have the Douay-Rheims version. That was my first personal Bible, a Christmas gift from Mom & Dad.
I have the Ignatius Study Bible real paper book version, too. After that would be the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE), because that’s what is used at mass in America.
Finally, I also have the Douay-Rheims version. That was my first personal Bible, a Christmas gift from Mom & Dad.
Yes, that's right. The ESV has been officially approved as a Catholic Bible and I was thinking two things when I wrote. Good catch. The ESV is better than the RSV as a translation.
The Augustine Institute has an ESV-CE Bible.
The New Jerusalem Bible, RSVCE, NAB... in that order.
shoelessjoe
"I took out a Chihuahua!"
Never could warm up to the New International Perversion … NASB & NKJV sit on the nightstand.
KJV has been the 'authorized' version, and guide book of the church for over 400 years. And is considered beautiful literature, even by secular scholars.
Since English is not your native language, you might find "The Message" to be easier to read and understand. It is certainly not a translation suitable for Biblical study as it tries to capture the overall meaning of the passage and does not try to get all the nuances of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words.
The version I currently use is the ESV or English Standard Version. My current pastor served on the editorial team when this version was translated. Thus, in his preaching, he brings up some of the translation concerns when dealing with particularly difficult passages. The ESV is translated from the oldest known available texts.
The NASB (New American Standard Bible) tries to translate each word as literally as possible. However, that makes reading from this version rather difficult, especially for someone whose primary language is not English.
I grew up reading the King James Version (KJV). Although the version is good for memorization due to the poetic nature of the translation, it is hard to understand due to the terminology used several hundred years ago. The New King James Version is an update of the KJV, just like the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was an earlier attempt to make the KJV easier to read. These versions are English translations of the Textus Receptus or Received Text which was a Greek translation of the New Testament published in 1516. Since then, many texts have been found which predate those used in compiling the Textus Receptus. That is why some newer translations either omit or comment on certain passages that were not found in the earliest known texts. Unfortunately, we do have access to any of the original texts. However, the oldest available texts are likely to be closest to the originals.
My favorite translation prior to the ESV was the New International Version (NIV) dating to 1984. It was a very good scholarly translation, achieving a good balance between translating individual words and capturing the meaning of the passage. However, when Zondervan attempted to update the NIV to the TNIV (Today's NIV), they had an agenda to eliminate all gender specific language other than that related to diety. In doing so, they altered the meaning of some passages. The TNIV received staunch opposition by many Christian leaders and many denominations denounced its use in affiliated churches. The 2011 version of the NIV did correct some of these changes, but by then many churches in the USA were wary of Zondervan and adopted the ESV. Some gender neutral language is used in the ESV, but that language is used when the contect of the passage clearly indicates that it is meant to apply to both genders and not only to one.
The version I currently use is the ESV or English Standard Version. My current pastor served on the editorial team when this version was translated. Thus, in his preaching, he brings up some of the translation concerns when dealing with particularly difficult passages. The ESV is translated from the oldest known available texts.
The NASB (New American Standard Bible) tries to translate each word as literally as possible. However, that makes reading from this version rather difficult, especially for someone whose primary language is not English.
I grew up reading the King James Version (KJV). Although the version is good for memorization due to the poetic nature of the translation, it is hard to understand due to the terminology used several hundred years ago. The New King James Version is an update of the KJV, just like the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was an earlier attempt to make the KJV easier to read. These versions are English translations of the Textus Receptus or Received Text which was a Greek translation of the New Testament published in 1516. Since then, many texts have been found which predate those used in compiling the Textus Receptus. That is why some newer translations either omit or comment on certain passages that were not found in the earliest known texts. Unfortunately, we do have access to any of the original texts. However, the oldest available texts are likely to be closest to the originals.
My favorite translation prior to the ESV was the New International Version (NIV) dating to 1984. It was a very good scholarly translation, achieving a good balance between translating individual words and capturing the meaning of the passage. However, when Zondervan attempted to update the NIV to the TNIV (Today's NIV), they had an agenda to eliminate all gender specific language other than that related to diety. In doing so, they altered the meaning of some passages. The TNIV received staunch opposition by many Christian leaders and many denominations denounced its use in affiliated churches. The 2011 version of the NIV did correct some of these changes, but by then many churches in the USA were wary of Zondervan and adopted the ESV. Some gender neutral language is used in the ESV, but that language is used when the contect of the passage clearly indicates that it is meant to apply to both genders and not only to one.
My in-laws both graduated from Wheaton. My wife and I took mom to her 60th reunion their a few years back. Absolutely beautiful campus.
I like the Holman Christian Standard Bible pre 2005? Or '06....
But what little I've memorized is in the KJV. It just tastes better in my mouth.
If you're curious about different bible translations, I highly recommend listing to the bible. Maybe try an app on your phone. Both "Bible Gateway" and "Bible.is" offer multiple translations and speakers.
I like listening to Max McLean as a speaker. He's done the ESV and NIV, maybe others. Some of the other speakers sound too robotic.
The reason I suggest this, is listing to someone else read the bible to you is an entirely different experience than reading it to yourself. If the translation is literal when it should have probably been a little more dramatic, the lack of poetry is very noticeable. A good example is the entire book of Psalms in ESV. While it seems very accurate, there is an overwhelming lack of poetry (lets say compared to KJV or NKJV) that makes it awkward to listen to. Surprisingly, I didn't notice this "problem" with other books of the ESV translation, such as Proverbs or Song of Solomon. You gotta try it yourself to hear what I'm talking about.
I like listening to Max McLean as a speaker. He's done the ESV and NIV, maybe others. Some of the other speakers sound too robotic.
The reason I suggest this, is listing to someone else read the bible to you is an entirely different experience than reading it to yourself. If the translation is literal when it should have probably been a little more dramatic, the lack of poetry is very noticeable. A good example is the entire book of Psalms in ESV. While it seems very accurate, there is an overwhelming lack of poetry (lets say compared to KJV or NKJV) that makes it awkward to listen to. Surprisingly, I didn't notice this "problem" with other books of the ESV translation, such as Proverbs or Song of Solomon. You gotta try it yourself to hear what I'm talking about.
What, no love for the Wicked Bible? 
Seriously, though, I grew up reading the KJV bible and it's still the most comfortable version for me to read. However, I also read the NIV before (when I didn't have my KJV bible) and liked it well enough.
The former senior pastor at my old church would sometimes read from the Message version in service. I wasn't as fond of it as it wasn't intended to be a direct/literal translation as much as a translation based on what the translator believed to be the main intent of the passage/verse. While I understand that's also part of any translation process, I am more drawn to a literal translation for some reason (and yes, this is very much a "me problem").
For a nonnative English speaker, I would recommend against starting with the KJV unless you're also comfortable reading Shakespeare. Instead, I'd recommend going with something like the NIV.
In any case, good luck with your bible studies!
Seriously, though, I grew up reading the KJV bible and it's still the most comfortable version for me to read. However, I also read the NIV before (when I didn't have my KJV bible) and liked it well enough.
The former senior pastor at my old church would sometimes read from the Message version in service. I wasn't as fond of it as it wasn't intended to be a direct/literal translation as much as a translation based on what the translator believed to be the main intent of the passage/verse. While I understand that's also part of any translation process, I am more drawn to a literal translation for some reason (and yes, this is very much a "me problem").
For a nonnative English speaker, I would recommend against starting with the KJV unless you're also comfortable reading Shakespeare. Instead, I'd recommend going with something like the NIV.
In any case, good luck with your bible studies!
I used to read the NASB as my daily Bible. I counted the bibles I own the other day... I have 28 copies of Christian scripture. That being said... I didn't know the NASB had a 2020 update and I'd never heard of the ESV bible until I read this thread... interesting.
I used to be a voracious bible reader.... I collected Bibles like some of you collect razors.
I even have 2 extra copies of my favorite NASB edition for backup for when I wear out my first one of that edition. It's a wide margin, Inductive Study NASB.
I used to be a voracious bible reader.... I collected Bibles like some of you collect razors.
I even have 2 extra copies of my favorite NASB edition for backup for when I wear out my first one of that edition. It's a wide margin, Inductive Study NASB.That reminds me of the Bible in a Year podcast. There is a reading every day with a short explanation and/or reflection.
The Bible in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) on Apple Podcasts
Religion & Spirituality · 2024
podcasts.apple.com
"Authorized" meant that the King of England allowed it. I'm not under the whim of the medieval king of any nation. Authorized does not mean it is the most accurate or best translation, nor does it mean it is the best for modern English speakers. Many words and phrases in it no longer exist or have completely different meanings, today.
I usually recommend the New Living Translation (not Living Bible). The NLT is a real translation, but is in simpler English. I agree that the Message is easy to read, though.
One minor nit, the King James Version of the bible was not written in the middle ages. At most, it could be argued that the KJV bible was written at the tail end of the Renaissance, for those who subscribe to the long Renaissance school. For others, in terms of European history, the KJV bible was written during the Age of Exploration.
Last edited:
I believe your somewhat caustic reference to my post, misses the only point I was trying to make. Which was that the KJV has stood the test of time, which in itself is quite remarkable, and is considered a beautiful piece of literature.
Certainly modern translations are easier for today's readers to understand, just as Shakespeare would be better understood written in today's vernacular, but would lose much of its beauty.
I didn't mean it to be caustic. My apologies.I believe your somewhat caustic reference to my post, misses the only point I was trying to make. Which was that the KJV has stood the test of time, which in itself is quite remarkable, and is considered a beautiful piece of literature.
Certainly modern translations are easier for today's readers to understand, just as Shakespeare would be better understood written in today's vernacular, but would lose much of its beauty.
I prefer reading the Midrash in conjunction with the Bible. It explains the different translations and interpretations that are possible and acceptable.
As a Methodist, I use their official version, the New Revised Standard Version, but for my own personal I like both the English Standard Version and the Message ( a free-flowing version, not a direct translation). I grew up with the King James Version, the beautiful English language usage has never been equaled. That said, there are many fine versions of the Bible, each of which has its own adherents.
