Your Preferred Bible Version

[JimFoxvog]

(That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

I really liked the Cotton Patch Gospel musical, and have a great deal of respect for Clarence Jordan. I’ve never read the Cotton Patch version.

I guess I'm the oddball again. I like the Cotton Patch Version. Similar to The Message it is just one's man's opinion, but it is helpful in seeing how the scripture might apply in today's (or at least mid-20th century Southern USA) culture. Both these paraphrases need to be read side-by-side with a more literal one.

[Fidelio]

I don't want to stick my spoon into someone else's pot, but as a linguist & Bible translator, I would have to say that the KJV (like probably every other translation) contains some erroneous translation choices. Not that I could point them all out, for that translation or for the others, because there are textual questions for which no scholar can (honestly) provide definitive answers. (That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

As the KJV was translated by men who were very much a part of the sacralist (state church) medieval system, I suspect their translation might have a slant to that direction. However, the Textus Receptus appears to be the most reliable original language document to work from. So in that regard I like KJV, KJVER, NKJV, and the MEV.

[ohio jones]

I encourage any of you that are less than sure about some of the things I am saying to do a real study of this subject. Open your mind and read some of the many scholarly works that are out there on the subject.

Yes. A bit of history would also be good.

[temporal1]

i chose “Other”

ENGLISH / LATIN VULGATE PARALLEL BIBLE
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=4

i just stumbled onto this ONLINE parallel Bible.
i haven’t yet registered, at first glance, it’s exciting.

i suppose the English part is KJV? not yet sure.

i was afraid to even look at it, because, Latin.
when i looked at it, the Latin appeared - as an old friend.

i took 2 years of Latin in junior high.
because my best friend wanted to be a nurse, Latin was required, or encouraged, for nursing, medical programs. we wanted to have a class together. girls!!

Latin became a good friend to me.
i have fond memories of the classes, and of going through life with a little Latin. we had real-life teachers then. for everything.

In the past, i enjoyed the Biblehub online Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
i do not have a hard copy, they are available. $$
https://biblehub.com/john/16-32.htm

Early-on, when the Light in scriptures was opening up to me, i studied with 2 Bibles, side-by-side.
1980’s - KJV and NIV. no internet, i had not yet discovered parallel translations.
i studied them side by side simply because KJV was harder for me.
in doing this, KJV became “user-friendly” for me. i’m now comfortable, not intimidated.
this wasn’t my plan. it’s what resulted from what i did with no plan.

altho NIV is where i began, i rarely revisit.
from what understand, they’ve continued to change it.

i enjoy the many parallel translations Biblehub displays.

The important part is to BEGIN. To begin where ever you are. i’ve read, there are some translations that look a lot like comic books. i’m not sure. With my experience, i can’t object.

When Light becomes visible to you, you will seek more Light! This is the important part. Seeking.
imho.

i haven’t read all pages of this thread.
these sources may have been discussed.

[temporal1]

.. i haven’t read all pages of this thread.
these sources may have been discussed.

ooo. interesting thread!
i’ll have to read more.

i’d not read because i was still grieving the loss of MD’s Bible preferences threads.
i believe one was about various Children’s Bibles and reading sources.
or, the subset may have been included in a Bible topic.

[Bootstrap]

Here's my take on these ....

• Amplified Bible AMP
  Not a fan. Cumbersome to read, but it doesn't actually give you much insight into the original language meanings. Tempts people who can't read the original languages to think they know more than the translators of more mainstream translations.
• English Standard Version ESV
  Very similar to the RSV. Probably the best of the KJV family.
• King James Version KJV
  Good translation. No more anointed than other translations in this list, no more accurate than other translations in this list. If you like King James English, this is the one to use. But language changes can lead to misunderstandings, and it can be hard to read for many.
• New King James Version NKJV
  Good translation. Mostly helpful for people who insist on using the same Greek text as the King James Version. We have discovered a lot of early, important Greek texts since then.
• New Living Translation NLT
  Good translation, good English, does not try to be as literal as the ESV.
• New American Standard NASB
  Very literal translation. No real advantages over the RSV/ESV. The English is stilted sometimes.
• New English Translation NET
  Excellent study notes, worth having for these notes. The translation itself is not as good as many on this list.
• New International Version NIV
  Good translation. Very natural English. About as literal as the KJV. If you have an old NIV from when it first came out, get the newest version.
• New Revised Standard Version NRSV
  Good translation, but I actually prefer the old RSV. The main difference was to use gender-neutral language when both men and women are addressed - "children" instead of "sons", "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers" - and to rewrite sentences to avoid saying "he" when the thing referred to could have been either masculine or feminine. But that made a lot of sentences more awkward.
• Other (explain) - Christian Standard Bible (CSB), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
  A nice blend of natural language and literal translation

[Neto]

(That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

I really liked the Cotton Patch Gospel musical, and have a great deal of respect for Clarence Jordan. I’ve never read the Cotton Patch version.

I guess I'm the oddball again. I like the Cotton Patch Version. Similar to The Message it is just one's man's opinion, but it is helpful in seeing how the scripture might apply in today's (or at least mid-20th century Southern USA) culture. Both these paraphrases need to be read side-by-side with a more literal one.

I should have explained that at the time I began reading the Cotton Patch NT, I was about 18 or 19 (now 64), and, more importantly, I put the words "worse yet" in quotes because I was responding to the historical accuracy of the translation (that is, lack of it). I would agree that it gave a perspective that was new to me at the time, and may have been influential in the fact that when I came face to face with the prejudices I had absorbed somewhere along the line in my growing up years in what is at least generally considered to be a part of the American South (Oklahoma), that instead of denying my faults in that area, I repudiated it. So while there is value in this sort of "storying" form of the Scripture, it is not at all accurate as to historical fact. I hope I'm not digging myself a deeper hole here. Let me try again, a bit differently: It carries the MEANING of the Scripture into that era in the US history, but in that it changes facts of the narrative, it goes beyond anything that can be presented as actual Scripture in the sense of an accurate translation. (Maybe that also came out "worse yet", I don't know.)

[Neto]

I don't want to stick my spoon into someone else's pot, but as a linguist & Bible translator, I would have to say that the KJV (like probably every other translation) contains some erroneous translation choices. Not that I could point them all out, for that translation or for the others, because there are textual questions for which no scholar can (honestly) provide definitive answers. (That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

As the KJV was translated by men who were very much a part of the sacralist (state church) medieval system, I suspect their translation might have a slant to that direction. However, the Textus Receptus appears to be the most reliable original language document to work from. So in that regard I like KJV, KJVER, NKJV, and the MEV.

The controversy about the different Greek texts opens a whole 'nother can of worms. I won't argue about it, but just to say that I am more convinced on the side of giving more weight (in determining the "original wording") to the earlier Eastern texts than to the more numerous Western texts. But I'll also say, in an effort to defuse any tension over what I've said here, that there are no textual differences in these two approaches that are of doctrinal importance. (Unless you are really into purposefully handling snakes & drinking poison. )

[Bootstrap]

As the KJV was translated by men who were very much a part of the sacralist (state church) medieval system, I suspect their translation might have a slant to that direction. However, the Textus Receptus appears to be the most reliable original language document to work from. So in that regard I like KJV, KJVER, NKJV, and the MEV.

The controversy about the different Greek texts opens a whole 'nother can of worms. I won't argue about it, but just to say that I am more convinced on the side of giving more weight (in determining the "original wording") to the earlier Eastern texts than to the more numerous Western texts. But I'll also say, in an effort to defuse any tension over what I've said here, that there are no textual differences in these two approaches that are of doctrinal importance. (Unless you are really into purposefully handling snakes & drinking poison. )

I agree with Neto here. The debate is overrated. If I had to choose, though, I think there are good reasons that most scholars prefer the Nestle-Aland family to the Textus Receptus family. But you just don't get a significantly different Bible by picking one of these texts.

[MaxPC]

I don't want to stick my spoon into someone else's pot, but as a linguist & Bible translator, I would have to say that the KJV (like probably every other translation) contains some erroneous translation choices. Not that I could point them all out, for that translation or for the others, because there are textual questions for which no scholar can (honestly) provide definitive answers. (That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

As the KJV was translated by men who were very much a part of the sacralist (state church) medieval system, I suspect their translation might have a slant to that direction. However, the Textus Receptus appears to be the most reliable original language document to work from. So in that regard I like KJV, KJVER, NKJV, and the MEV.

The controversy about the different Greek texts opens a whole 'nother can of worms. I won't argue about it, but just to say that I am more convinced on the side of giving more weight (in determining the "original wording") to the earlier Eastern texts than to the more numerous Western texts. But I'll also say, in an effort to defuse any tension over what I've said here, that there are no textual differences in these two approaches that are of doctrinal importance. (Unless you are really into purposefully handling snakes & drinking poison. )

I agree with your position here, Neto.