From the article: Why Are There Problems Choosing Bible Translations?
Whether you're an ancient historical researcher, a Bible scholar, or a devout Jew or Christian, you are likely to have occasion to consult the Bible. Unless you're well trained in ancient languages -- and even then when pressed for time -- you probably use a translation. How do you decide which translation to use? Which version of the Bible do you wind up with? Share Your Solutions
NASB & Harper-Collins
- The NASB Key Word Study Bible is more word for word, uses the best Greek of the NA23 (too old for the NA27) and has Hebrew and Greek lexicons, thus saving me from going to the original texts (BHS and BDB, NA27 and BDAG) all the time. The Harper-Collins has the best commentary so far, but a flawed translation, not just in the gender renditions.
- —Guest Rich D
Various
- For reference, I'd generally use the NRSV, RSV, or Revised English Bible, as these (1) provide not just the whole of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, but also the Deuterocanonicals / Apocrypha accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, and a range of other Christian groups (and a significant disadvantage of the NIV for reference as well as devotional purposes is the absence of these books); and (2) are fairly widely accepted by scholars, and also by members of a range of different religious denominations (especially true of the REB, created by a committee with representatives of most significant Christian bodies in the UK and Ireland). For the NT, I also use a Nestle-Aland critical edition with facing RSV; and I might also consult Richmond Lattimore's translation (1996), in which he aimed to reflect the style of the source texts (whereas many corporate translations tend to even out differences of style). If my reason for consulting the Bible is primarily English literary, then I'm most likely to use the King James / Authorized Version (though of course other early versions may also be relevant).
- —TLockyer
Jerusalem Bible
- For Biblical history, I like to include the New Jerusalem Bible in my sources. I find that it is far more respectful of the Jewish roots of the books, and is willing to include, at least in notes, more accurate translation information even when this does not correlate with later orthodoxy -- even though it is sponsored by Catholics. The earlier version (Jerusalem Bible without the "New") was highly recommended by the scholars at the university where I studied Near Eastern history and literature, and the newer version is even better.
- —Guest JJL
Jerusalem Bible
- I like to use the Jerusalem Bible because it has a good index, maps, and contains books that are not always included. For the NT, I consult a Greek version if I doubt the translation.
- —gillns
