I'm curious as to which translation(s) the posters on this forum use the most frequently and why? What translation do you use when studying and which translation do you use for your daily scripture readings? Which translation does your parish use? For me: When studying: NRSV--A good and literal translation, the most commonly used in TEC and other U.S. Anglican traditions. NKJV--A bit easier to read and understand for studying purposes than the KJV. It is used in my Orthodox Study Bible. For Daily Readings: NRSV--Works well with modern Rite II services KJV--A beautiful translation that works excellent with traditional or any Rite I service. I use this version the most frequently. My parish: NRSV
I usually use the Authorized Version for both the Offices and personal study. If I want a comparison, I usually go for the RSV or NKJV or the ESV.
Our parish uses RSV, although they recommend ESV for personal use. I have several translations on the shelf, but I use ESV most of the time and NRSV sometimes. I prefer them for both devotional and study use.
Here are the translations I use. Jerusalem Bible 1966 I have been using the original JB since it became available in the 1960s. It is my preferred translation for home and what I carry to services at my parish. I am very comfortable with the JB, which is my favorite reading bible and study bible. The JB represents the Vatican II Catholic perspective. New Revised Standard Version My next preferred translation is the NRSV. I think the NRSV is an excellent English translation. I love the translation notes in the margin. My favorite study bible using the NRSV is the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th ed. New International Version 1984 I continue to use this translation because many of my study aids are based upon this translation. My favorite study bible using the NIV 1984 is the Life Application Study Bible. Every home should have a copy of a Life Application Bible. New Living Translation 2007 I have been a fan of the Living Bible / New Living Translation series since the 1960s. Again, I guess I am showing my age. The current New Living Translation 2007 has come a long way since the original Living Bible books that Kenneth Taylor put out in the 1960s, usually in conjunction with various Billy Graham crusades. I find the current edition--NLT 2007-- very useful whenever I get bogged down in the Hebrew or Greek syntax. King James Version I love reading the other translations and then turning to the KJV. The nuances suggested in the modern translations are there in the KJV--and the KJV often carries my reflective process a step or two beyond the modern translations. Ever so often, I put KJV at the top of my preferred list. If you are a fan of the KJV, you may want to consider a KJV dictionary. My favorite KJV dictionary is Archaic Words and the Authorized Version by Laurence Vance. An interesting small dictionary (22 pages) that is perfect for slipping between the covers of your KJV is The King James Bible Companion by David Daniels. ***** As for my parish--they are still playing musical chairs with translations. A few weeks ago the New American Standard Bible was all the rage. Now, the ESV seems to be top dog with my parish leaders. ***** I know the ESV is gaining popularity, especially among ACNA leadership. However, I just have not gotten into the ESV translation. Maybe it is because I really do not see the need when you consider all the other fine translations that have been available for many years. In one respect, I find myself asking the question: Is the ACNA pushing the ESV because the TEC uses the NRSV. If this is the case--"do not use the translation of the group you are trying to distance yourself from"--then the ACNA congregations are getting short changed in my opinion. As translations go, the NRSV is far superior to the ESV. Again, that is my humble opinion. I am sure there will be those who disagree. ...Scottish Monk
Private use: Study - NRSV Praise - NRSV, KJV, or the NKJV I have a number of versions in my Olive Tree Bible Reader but only use them for comparison when studying they consist of Vulgate, Douay Rheims, Expanded NT, TEV, Latin Vulgate, NASB, and NIV Our Parish and the Cathedral NRSV for modern rites of the Prayer Book for Australia KJV for Sung Eucharist and Evensong Blessings, Gordon
Not quite I use it to search for Latin bible quotations then use them to find the nrsv reference when I am studying. The electronic translation are fairly cheap or free. It quite interesting how some differ.
yes, I used to have the vulgate on my esword programme, had it there mostly for looks but I couldn't read it unfortunately, I have often wished I could speak Latin, when I look around graveyards I like reading the inscriptions and I am sure many of the latin ones are interesting
Thank you all for your responses so far. It seems that the NRSV, KJV, and ESV seem to be popular for most Anglicans and our parishes and for personal use. I must admit that i'm somewhat unfamiliar with the ESV, what do you like about it and how does it compare to the NRSV?
The ESV is a decent translation. I use it to quote Scripture online. BibleGateway.com doesn't have the RSV/NRSV. The ESV seems to be the next best translation. When our Parish purchased new Bibles, I noticed they are all NRSV w/Apocrypha.
I've noticed that many evangelical leaning online bible resources have snubbed the RSV, NRSV, and the Apocrypha. Apparently, there is a perceived "liberal" bias to be found in the NRSV and others? I have yet to find fault with the NRSV.
Sean, Seems to be that way, and I don't quite understand it. Most Protestants reject the Apocrypha. Maybe that has something to do with it. Could be the "ecumenical" nature of the RSV/NRSV. Some see "ecumenical" as a bad thing.
Very well could be. I have the Oxford Study Bible: Ecumenical College Edition and i've found it to be an excellent study bible thus far. There are instances of bias, but that is found in every study bible ever made.
I used to read the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation: 1582 New Testament, 1609 Old Testament. A wonderful Anglican Orthodox Church rector spared funds out of his tiny pool of money to send me a Canadian BCP 1962 and the KJV revision of 1769 (which is the edition we mean when we say "KJV"). The authorized version is very beautiful, though it contains many senses of words and forms of prose that are totally foreign. KJV is not the perfect height of all poetry that some make it out to be, in my opinion; for example, Psalm 76:4 is much more beautiful to me in the D-R than in KJV: Of course, this is a difference between the Hebrew Psalms translated in the KJV, and Greek Septuagint Psalms translated in the D-R.
The ESV is really like an up-to-date RSV. It is remarkably similar, but it benefits from more recent textual discoveries. ESV also tends to stick with traditional renderings when possible (Spirit of God rather than wind from God in Genesis, Virgin rather than young woman in Isaiah, etc). I don't like their change from "the" to "a" in 1 Tim 3:15, though I understand the Greek argument for it. Some say that a Reformed flavor can be found in a few places, but I'm not sure what I think about that. The ESV is the official bible of the LCMS, interestingly enough. It took me a little while to warm up to it, but it is my favorite right now. Excellent scholarship. As far as evangelicals and the NRSV, I wonder if it just got a weird reputation because of the churches that originally supported and promoted it. NRSV is an outstanding translation. I used it for devotions last year. I really like their Psalms and their rendering of the Pauline Epistles; and I like how readily available the Apocrypha is in the NRSV. Im a big fan of Bruce Metzger's work! There are a few places in the OT that I'm not crazy about. On the other hand, sometimes the NRSV seems to have better literary qualities than the ESV. Ultimately, I use both of these extensively. ESV has a new text edition out now which is really good, so that's the one I'm talking about. Where it and the NRSV differ, I probably like the ESV 2 times out of 3, but they actually are very similar in many passages (due to the common RSV heritage and the commitment to formal equivalency).
Traditional Roman Catholics I've met (even regular Novus Ordo-attendees) tend to disparage the NRSV for its inclusive, gender-neutral language. Even the most lamb-like, guileless friar I've ever known said the NRSV isn't good. Jeez!