Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?

[Dave...]

I like the, the New King James Version (NKJV) because it updated many of the outdated words from the original King James Version. Like, instead of 'charity', it used 'love'. It also corrected a few translations that I agree where not accurate. I never did care for the "ye's" and Yeah's" anyways, no matter how poetic it may sound.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) isn't bad either. I've used the New International Version (NIV) when I started out because it was easier to understand.

My go to is the NKJV.

Anything outside of those big four I probably wouldn't trust.

Dave

 

[for_his_glory]

I use the Open Bible KJV. I love the concordance, cross references, archeological discoveries, guide to Christian workers, a list of OT prophecies that are fulfilled in the NT, a beginning outline of each book and just so much more.

 

[Free]

ESV, NIV, LEB, NASB.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I use several, but my 'go to church' copy of the Scriptures is the NKJ translation. But I do like the 1984 copyright of the NIV.

 

[WIP]

I use a few including KJV, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. My favorite is the NKJV. Not using other translations does not mean I do not trust them. I do not read or understand the ancient languages so I am not in a position to judge the validity of any translation. Translations rarely, if ever, work word for word but are basically a thought for thought conversion so the best I can do is to compare different translations side by side to see if they are more or less expressing the same thing.

 

[electedbyHim]

LSB, NASB95, ESV, KJV and YLT

LSB is fairly new and based off of NASB from my understanding.

I use NASB95 most of the time.

Think there is an updated one as well.

 

[Tenchi]

KJV for memorization, particularly.

NKJV, ESV, NASB (1995), YLT, AMPC.

 

[Dave...]

My NKJV was a MacArthur study Bible, BTW.

I purchased a NASB because of Kenneth Wuest, one of the translators of the NSAB. I was introduced to him by way of some of his private writings. I though that NASB may be 'thee one' translation. Not bad, but NKJV is still better in my opinion. I also purchased a NASB because I needed a large print Bible anyways.

Dave

 

[hawkman]

My go to is a KJV Thompson Chain Reference Bible , I am not KJV only .

 

[Whatever]

You can go here:

BibleGateway.com - 233 online Bibles in 74 languages, in text and audio format.

www.biblegateway.com

And type in any verse or whole chapter and it will let you choose to see it from 60 different versions in English. Some I never knew existed.

They also have a bunch in almost every language.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

New King James. It's not a matter of preferebce as long as it's the only paperback I have, no other for me to choose over it.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I like the, the New King James Version (NKJV) because it updated many of the outdated words from the original King James Version. Like, instead of 'charity', it used 'love'. It also corrected a few translations that I agree where not accurate. I never did care for the "ye's" and Yeah's" anyways, no matter how poetic it may sound.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) isn't bad either. I've used the New International Version (NIV) when I started out because it was easier to understand.

My go to is the NKJV.

Anything outside of those big four I probably wouldn't trust.

Dave

I like the KJV bible.
It is the purest.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.

 

[electedbyHim]

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.
View attachment 17401

I have read great things about the AMP.

Word for word is also plus and I will be looking into this.

Thank you.

 

[D-D-W]

My go-to for the last 50 years has been the NASB. First the '72 and now the '95. I got a first edition of the NIV when it came out and was quickly convinced it was seriously watered down. I do like the NKJV, but mostly as the best representative of the Textus Receptus family of Greek texts.

Another good one, but not for everybody, is the Tree of Life Version. It is as word-for-word with the Nestle Aland text as the NASB, but does so in Hebraic/Messianic terminology.

If I am writing something where I am quoting a LOT of scripture, I often will use the WEB - World English Bible (both the regular and the Messianic Edition) for copyright purposes. It is based off of the American Standard Version which is public domain so the WEB is also public domain in all its flavors.

 

[D-D-W]

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.​

Yeah - I REALLY dislike commentary put in as biblical text.

Commentary is fine, but put it in the footnotes or a side bar. When it is within the text, it is too easily considered scripture itself.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I have read great things about the AMP.

Word for word is also plus and I will be looking into this.

Thank you.

Well, the downside of the AMP is the it is choppy at times when you just want to read word-for-word and skip AMP's insertions. Overall, I think the insertions are a plus. AMP not good for group study IMO.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Yeah - I REALLY dislike commentary put in as biblical text.

Commentary is fine, but put it in the footnotes or a side bar. When it is within the text, it is too easily considered scripture itself.

That's a valid point. At times the insertions disrupt my reading. At other times it makes things clearer. The textual flow of word-for-word versions can be difficult at times and the AMP smooths it over. On the other hand, putting in insertions could be abused.

 

[Free]

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.
View attachment 17401

I think it's good to use at least three from across the spectrum. Formal equivalence can be choppy to read and doesn't always convey the author's meaning. That is just the nature of trying to translate word-for-word from one language to another. Hence the need for a dynamic equivalence translation, such as the NIV, or even the NLT. One could, and perhaps should, also choose from versions whose scholars are not American or even Evangelical, to get a sense of how other interpret the text.

But, I also agree with you about the KJV--it's good but inferior. That it uses archaic language certainly doesn't help, as some words have changed meaning since then and one could actually get wrong ideas about what is being said. The NKJV is hardly better--updated language but the same inferior manuscripts of the KJV.

 

[jasonc]

Esv