What's your favorite version of the Bible and why?

Question

I like the King James Version. I used to only want the NIV since it was void of thee's and thou's, but now I prefer the King James because, though I know some of it was lost in translation, I believe it's the closest to unadulterated as we have.

Don't get me wrong. I like some other versions. I like the NIV and the Amplified. They have good thoughts and when I'm stuck on a Scripture in the KJV, I can go to another version to help. Even though I know the KJV may still be a bit lost in translation, I just want the closest to the original thought as I can get.

Answer 1

"The closest to the original thought" is an excellent attitude. However, the KJV is *no longer* an excellent bible in this regard. Please read the following - it's long, but should help you immensely. Make certain to read my review of the NJB if you decide, like me, that it is the best available.

Here's my "what bible should I pick" answer:

First, I'll assume that you are not a member of a sect that demands using the King James Version or any other particular version. (Unfortunately, most of these sects do not actually use the whole King James Version.)

At this stage you want to decide what your bible should contain. Do you want a bible that contains 1) all scripture or 2) a selection of scripture? Besides editions that contain all scripture, there are editions that contain only new testament books, others containing only books from the Hebrew bible, and still others (the majority) which exclude several books in a somewhat cavalier fashion.

I will assume that you intend to read the entire bible, or at least wish to have the entire bible at your disposal. In this case, you must obtain a bible that includes the Apocrypha. There are some sects teaching that the apocrypha is not inspired scripture, and if you are a member of one of these sects then simply avoid reading these books. There is no other reason for avoiding the so-called apocrypha and every reason to get a bible which includes them. Here is a more in-depth discussion about this topic: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/dc.htm .

In my conclusion I will consider two cases:
1) You want a "complete" bible (Complete)
2) You don't care if the apocrypha is included or not (Open)

The next stage is to decide if you want a bible merely for reading and learning the text of the bible itself, or if you intend to study scripture more deeply and intensely in order to gain a greater understanding and to help you interpret the scriptures accurately. This is the difference between a "standard" edition bible and a (scholarly) study bible. I will refer to this as "purpose" when I make recommendations below.

Finally, you need to decide whether you want a translation that offers 1) ease of reading 2) literalness of translation or 3) accuracy of translation. I separate these even though they are not *necessarily* mutually exclusive. Different versions *do* (must) follow primarily one of these three criteria, however, and so should you when you make a decision. I will refer to this as "style" when I make recommendations below.

A note about the King James Version: although excellent for its time, and including nearly the entire body of scripture, as well as marginal notes from the translators providing possible alternate translations (making it a passable study bible), the King James Version uses 400-year-old English, 400-year-old scholarship (read: they didn't know as much as scholars today), and texts that lacked the last 400 years of archaeological discoveries. By no means was the King James Version the first English version of the bible. It's main advantage today is that most people use some form of the King James Bible and it is often useful to use the same version as others in discussions of scripture.

Recommendations: you can look at a fairly thorough comparison of technical details of different versions here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm , but what follows are my recommendations.

Comparisons of "literalness" of translation can be found here: http://www.preceptaustin.org/tool_commentary.htm#obt and here: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/relg/bible.scale.html and here: http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg

Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading (Ease of Reading is not a relevant style for a study bible purpose)
........Content: Complete
............CEV (Contemporary English Version) - may have difficulty finding a complete version in print href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha-Contemporary%2Fdp%2F1585160210%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556958%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 , but available as an e-book on CD href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible%2Fdp%2F1585160059%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1187556881%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325 . Second choice: NAB (New American Bible) - not as easy to read but still easy, translation accuracy may be slanted slightly by Roman Catholic bias.

Style: Translated for Ease of Reading
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NIV (New International Version) - one of the easiest-to-read modern translations with higher marks for accuracy than most easy-to-read bibles

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible - one of the most literal translations with some of the most scholarly study notes, though somewhat archaic language. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - literalness uncertain but copious translator's notes help the reader achieve this goal. Deutero-canonicals incomplete.

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............NASB (New American Standard Version), Scofield Study Bible - most literal modern translation, but study notes are for the most part independent of the translation. 2nd choice: RSV (Revised Standard Version), New Oxford Annotated Bible - not as literal as the NASB but more comprehensive and scholarly study notes.

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............RSV (Revised Standard Version) - most literal complete version, but somewhat archaic language. Make certain to get a version that includes the Apocrypha. (All "Catholic" bibles include *most* of these books).

Style: Literalness of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NASB (New American Standard Version) - most literal modern-text bible, high marks for accuracy

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Complete
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Regular Edition - copious study notes, word use demonstrates great concern for accuracy of translation, my favorite version, now hard to find. 2nd choice: NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - includes complete deutero-canonicals, excellent scholarly study notes on par with NJB, but translation suffers slightly from over-zealous use of "inclusive" language

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Study
........Content: Open
............Same as above. New Oxford Annotated available without the Apocrypha.

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Complete
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation) - copious translator's notes may make this the most accurate translation, but requires study to absorb the translation; deutero-canonicals incomplete.

Style: Accuracy of Translation
....Purpose: Reading
........Content: Open
............NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), Reader's Edition. 2nd choice: NET (New English Translation). 3rd choice: NIV (New International Version) - highly regarded non-biased translation, not as careful as NJB but easier to read.


Recommendations for the true bible student (who doesn't know Greek or Hebrew):
1) Software including NASB, KJV, NRSV, NJB and NIV - I use Ellis (lacks NIV) but there is at least one other *affordable* (under $100) package providing this selection. Make certain a Strong's Concordance is also included.

2) NJB Regular Edition - get it if you can, don't settle for the Standard Edition. (My review here: http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/njb.htm )

3) NASB - make certain to get the latest version. Get it in print if your software doesn't have it. Most literal translation.

4) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition - NRSV translation demonstrates over-zealous use of inclusive language but the study notes are invaluable, perhaps better and less biased than NJB.

5) Oxford Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha - the complete books of the 1611 King James Version with printers errors removed and spelling modernized. No marginal notes.

6) KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha - the complete 1611 edition, *including* marginal notes, with modernized spelling. Probably more valuable than 5), but it's a tough call.

7) A good bible dictionary, such as HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. There are a few equally good alternatives.

Honorable mentions:

1) Tanakh, 1995 edition, by the Jewish Publication Society - scholarly translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish scholars, very highly regarded.

2) NWT (New World Translation), With References - a very literal bible with some excellent though incomplete study notes. Shows significant but infrequent Jehovah's Witness bias and is available only from the WatchTower Organization (Jehovah's Witnesses). Reading this with the awareness of the bias (which is mostly documented in the bible itself) can be quite worthwhile to a student of the bible.

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 2

A better word than "version" would be "translation."

Translation of the Greek New Testament is a very precise science. The New American Standard Bible, for example, was translated over 10 years, by over 45 scholars and was first published in 1962 AD. Similar painstaking work was applied to the production of the New International (1978 AD), and King James (1611AD) and the New King James (1982AD). These translations and others like them were the products of many years of work from scholars from many denominations.

Each translation has its own strengths and weaknesses. The King James Version (KJV) is excellent, but you must use a dictionary as you read because it uses language typical of the time it was translated (1611). I recommend you purchase a more recent translation. The New American Standard Version (NASV) is believed by many to be one of the most accurate translations and is an excellent study Bible. The American Standard Version (ASV) is also excellent and highy accurate. The New King James Version (NKJV) is high on the recommended list. The New International Version (NIV) tries to make the text as easy to understand as possible and is an excellent reading Bible, but not a good study Bible. The New World Translation (1950, the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) should be avoided because its is actually corrupt, being a sectarian paraphrase rather than a true translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Although the exact choice of words or sentence structure is different in each translation, the meaning is identical.

Answer 3

KJV: No, it is the MOST ADULTERATED in general publication. The kjv ADDS several passages which were UNKNOWN IN THE ORIGINAL, one of which was UNKNOWN BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

My own preference: I have used primarily GREEK for my New Testament study for 24 years now. My preference for English versions varies depending on the exact readings since I constantly compare them whenever I use English for some reason, like on Y!A. Most of the time I'll use NIrV. With a reading level of LESS THAN THIRD GRADE, it is ALMOST TOO SIMPLE TO MISUNDERSTAND.

Much of the New Testament is written in a very simple Greek, what I usually call "4th grade Greek." Because of this, the difficult words and long sentences of even the NIV seem too complex to accurately relate the very simple language used by several writers.

For "closest to original thought," I would suggest the second edition New Living Translation as an intermediate reading level translation with a good balance between literal and dynamic translation styles. Literal results in choppy, broken English, and too dynamic loses the context of the original. Its copyright information should be:

Holy Bible, New Living Translation
Second Edition
Copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust

After comparing this and the prior edition, this seems to do a much better job on that difficult balancing act, and still holds a close affinity with the original languages.

arvin_ian: NO, THE KJV IS NOT THE OLDEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION, WYCLIF'S BIBLE, FINISHED AROUND 1385 BEATS IT BY WELL OVER 200 YEARS! There were NINE English Bibles published BEFORE the kjv!

Answer 4

I used both. I have one bible that has a daily study passage, that is written in NIV. I then go over what I read in the King James Version.
The whole idea behind the King James Version was to put the bible into the standard English of the day, so that people back then could read God's word for themselves. The NIV version just puts it into modern English for us. I mean, how many people do you know say "thee" or "thou" or say "kine" instead of cattle?
But I still like the King James Version, because reading it sounds like poetry.

Answer 5

I wish that previous written versions of the Bible were readily available. I know that The King James version was doctored up by the Priests who wrote it. When I studied the History of Civilization, I learned that when earlier versions of the bible were written, there were no churches. People gathered in one anothers homes to pray and worship. Yet when the Priests produced the King James version, all of a sudden it has a verse where God tells the followers to financially support the Church. It's apparently priests telling everyone to financially support the Church. .I wonder what other changes those ancient priests made.

Answer 6

I prefer the New King James Bible, it has the foundation of the KJV and is easy to read like the NIV.

Answer 7

I like the NRSV.... it updates the translation with the latest scholarly thought, but preserves the literary quality of the "Authorized version" line of translations.

I also rather like the Greek bible... nothing like reading the New Testament in its original language.

By the way, the King James bible does NOT date to the fourth century, since English did not even exist (people of the British Isles spoke Celtic tongues and Latin.) The English language as we know it would not exist for nearly another thousand years!

Also, the Islamic "gospel of Barnabas" is not a Christian scripture, and has nothing to do with us. And yes, in the English language, he very much is "Jesus", and not the Arabic "Isa."

Answer 8

New American Standard (NAS)

Why?
I don't speak the Kings English and the NAS is not as colloquial as some of the more modern English versions. It's like a happy medium between Kings James and the New International version.

Answer 9

I usually study the King James. But I have an interlinear Hebrew-Greek that is good. When I study something, I look at several versions. I don't usually study from the Cotton Patch Bible though.

Answer 10

I'm a fan of the King James Version.Mainly because important little facts get lost in translation.

Answer 11

I like to compare versions. My favorite is the Revised Standard Version (with the Deuterocanonicals),the Catholic,now called the Ignatius Bible