John Kesler

I voted for the NRSV. It's easy to read, has good footnotes, and seems for the most part to be dedicated to accurately translating texts rather than reading later interpretations into older passages. I don't think it's a coincidence that The New Interpreter's Study Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk), The New Oxford Annotated Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk), and The HarperCollins Study Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) all use the NRSV.

rob117

The one I own is the 1980-something Jewish Publication Society Translation. It's a heavily foot-noted, fairly liberal translation that makes no attempt to "clean up" morally objectionable or sexually explicit content. The foot-notes and translation make extensive use of comparative material from Ugaritic and Akkadian. When I want to compare differences of translation between Jews and Christians, I use this one in conjunction with Biblegateway.

Regardless of how liberal it is it's still a Jewish translation and thus has its own biases (i.e. it privileges the Masoretic text over what are probably better readings in the LXX and DSS). I find there's really no substitute for the secular Anchor Bible translations (esp. for the useful commentary), but these are expensive.

I can't understand why anyone would still want to use the KJV. While it does have its merits (i.e. it tends to be a much more literal translation than most modern ones and is not as airbrushed of objectionable content), the archaic language is incredibly cumbersome to read, and the original meaning of many passages is much better understood now than in the 17th century.

avi

In my opinion, the archaic language is the least of KJV's problems.

It is based on the Byzantine Greek, hence, full of interpolations and overt forgeries.

To answer the original question:
(I guess I am echoing Mountainman, not sure, but perhaps)
Codex Sinaiticus
I have no patience with any of the other English language versions. They all seem corrupted to me.

I am concerned about Mark, as revealed in P45
This manuscript, apparently the oldest extant manuscript, at least for Mark, (based upon handwriting analysis,) argues forcibly against my notion that Sinaiticus represents the Gold Standard.

And, what about John, in P66?
I am perhaps too enamored of the concept that Constantine's bible, Sinaiticus, is the true version, with all the rest being fake....A simple formula, but of dubious validity. Back to the drawing board...If the Byzantine version turns out to be the earliest afterall, then what????
Where's my old trusty KJV?

avi

Loomis

I can’t understand why anyone would want to use paper. :crying:

Perhaps it’s carbon monoxide leakage. Perhaps their mufflers need fixed. Or maybe they’re still on dial-up.

Here’s some of my favorites/ bookmarks.

http://bible.cc/
http://bible.org/netbible/
http://bible.thelineberrys.com/OT.HTM
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex...ical/lxxmorph/
http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/...ptureIndex.pdf
http://jacksonsnyder.com/nt/index.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.biblekeeper.com/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...with-Rashi.htm
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...reek_Index.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...brew_Index.htm
http://www.textexcavation.com/texts.html
http://www.unboundbible.com/
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-4g.htm
http://www.v-a.com/bible/index.html

As a general rule I usually go to NetBible™ first. But it just depends on what I’m looking for.

Tigers!

AV (aka KJV) for the cadence of the language
RSV because I find it easy to read and doesn't seem to be infected with all the 'isms'
TEV because that's how people speak
The Aussie bible because I want to be reminded of my hertiage while it still exists.

graymouser

I voted for NASB and NRSV, which are the reference bibles that I have around in case I need to, you know, reference the Bible. They're more accurate than the NIV or KJV, which the majority of Christians seem to prefer. (And the NAB, which fulfills the need of many Catholics to have a Bible on the shelf collecting dust.) I'd have an RSV but the copies that are available tend to run a bit expensive, and I donated my old copy.

When I was a Christian I had a lot of interest in the various translations. While the KJV is a classic of English writing, using it for anything but literary reading is ludicrous. I think the RSV tradition - the RSV itself, NRSV, NASB and ESV - is generally the only one worth referencing; they are more exacting about translation and the end result tends toward being readable and not dumbed-down. The NIV is lacking both in translation quality and literary style, and other Protestant translations just get worse from there. From the Catholic Bibles, the NAB is comparable to NIV in overall quality, while the New Jerusalem Bible is actually decent in terms of literary quality.

But mostly I look at multi-translation sites, because I hold all the Christian translations as at least somewhat suspect.

steve_bnk

NSRV, done by a wide range of experts based on all available documents and fragments at the time. Has good anotation with translatiion issues/alternatives which can affect meaning and culturtal context/meaning of the translations. Inlcudes discussion on inonsistensies in the NT books.

Also has a substantional companion commentary and a disscuuon of translation approaches and the approach taken by the NSRV.

Joan of Bark

Gee, no-one uses the NJB? Is there no respect for the Vatican here?

Joan of Bark

Bump back to the top ...