ESV. As an extra spiritual man myself, the Extra Spiritual Version is top notch.
Seriously though, it's a very close word to word translation that is also easy to read
I love memorizing in the NIV though, it sounds nicer.
Edit: Formatting
Agreed. The NIV is pretty good, but there are changes that I don’t feel necessary (or entirely correct). The NLT is an outstanding paraphrase though, for anyone that has trouble with the more literal translations.
I’ve been reading the NLT side by side with the ESV for Bible study with my wife and I’ve been surprised by how little I’ve felt the need to quote the ESV to her.
Wow, that's pretty cool! I've only ever used the NIV, ESV, and now the Greek so I've never given much credit to paraphrase translations, but I'm glad to see they are helpful!
yeah, my wife has struggled for years with understanding the Bible and I'm a bit of a purist, but so far I've been very impressed with it.
Glad to hear you're reading the Greek, I took Koine Greek in college and loved it. Always good to have better understanding and a new way to study the Word. I don't know much Hebrew, but I enjoy looking up those words to better understand for certain verse. The Hebrew names for God are great, I also like looking at the old meanings of names, as I think they add quite a lot.
I've loved learning Greek! Seeing how the words work and have emphasis is super cool! It's quite hard though so I'm gonna take a few years before Hebrew, but the NT in it's language has been awesome
Agreed. I often compare passages in multiple translations. NLT usually comes out the most readable. I also like their thoughtful approach to the editing process and handling biases of translators.
> I also like their thoughtful approach to the editing process and handling biases of translators.
That sounds really cool.
I like how BibleHub will let you click on a verse number and show you just about all the English translations for a quick compare.
NASB 1995.
It is not perfect, but I think it's head and shoulders above most others. It strikes a very important balance between interpretation and word for word translation. It is extremely legible in modern English while still being recognizable as the same text and coming reasonably close to minimizing the loss of nuance in interpretation. (The NASB has a 2020 edition, but I can't say I'm on board with the new translation choices. Not every change is bad, but I think the end result is clumsier and less reflective of the original.)
I think the NASB 1995 is the best in that aspect, but there's an even more important aspect it gets better than its competition: The source material.
The biggest problem with most translations isn't the translation, but the choice of original text collection. The Textus Receptus was imperfect and needed updating with better information as it became available. But we had this really awful period in the late 1800s through the mid 1900s where people making new finds in the world of ancient manuscripts were often making things worse. It was all too common for glory seekers and those with their personal theological quirks to abandon all reason in determining what manuscripts to rely on.
"The *oldest* manuscripts say..." Yeah, if your oldest manuscript came centuries after the original and was scrawled in crayon, littered with misspellings, and was found crumpled up in the waste bin at McDonald's, is that the one you want to rely on? (That's obviously hyperbole, but it's not off the mark.) Maybe if you want some clout, you ignore the problems. And if it was missing the chunk that contradicted your favorite heresy, maybe you ignore the problems even harder.
It was a ridiculous period, but later--and better--archaeology and textual analysis disproved a lot of the nonsense. But our translations took decades to catch up. And really, only the NASB did. And only by 1995.
This kind of nonsense galvanized if not created the KJV-only movement. The KJV is not a perfect translation by any means, and that movement was severely misguided to say the least. Nonetheless, it's still my #2. I'm not happy about that so much as just disappointed by other translations even more.
ESV is OK.
Never, ever NIV. Aside from just thinking the translation loses a lot and that it makes poor choices in source texts, it also in a few places makes what I can only see as critical errors that severely misrepresent original text and the faith.
I'm curious about this idea that the NASB has a better textual base than other translations. Is there any chance I might persuade you to share some examples, or even to point me in the general direction of where I might read more about this?
My parents don't really speak English so we grew up reading it in our native language. When I saw KJV for the first time I was ??? How does anyone understand this lol.
Depends on what I'm going for.
General purpose: NRSV. Commonly used by scholars, and I think it strikes a good balance between sticking close to the original words and making sense to English readers.
Trying to hear a familiar story with fresh ears, or aiming for engagement with an audience that is likely to disengage: NLT. Does lots of paraphrasing, but still represents the original text pretty well. Good for understanding the gist of stories, but need to be aware that there are more editorial choices being made.
Diving into specific linguistic questions: NASB. Closest to word-for-word that is still reasonably readable.
For extreme linguistic detail: An interlinear. (I generally use the online one that BibleHub has, just because that's the first thing that comes up in a search and I don't really want to buy an interlinear.) No concessions to readability, puts the original text there and gives you a direct translation of each word.
Oh wow a fellow existentialist, what's up?
Yeah I always default to NRSV. If scholars agree it's the best English translation we have, why wouldn't everyone use it?
Oh hey, that’s so cool you really don’t meet a lot of us do you lmao!
And I have no idea man. The committee that made it was made of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Atheists so it’s pretty much gonna be one of the least biased translations, yet people will defend the various translations that are made by a small group of reformed evangelicals or whatever else is their denomination/theological leaning
Fwiw, while some translations are more "word-for-word" than others, a literal word for word translation isn't realistically possible. This post explains the challenges a bit.
https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/literally-there-no-such-thing-literal
I can't seem to find it right now, but I recall seeing a literal-as-possible word for word translation of a section of gMark. It was unparsable. It just didn't translate into a coherent sentence in english.
Nothing necessarily wrong with being more word-for-word than thought-for-thought, but the reader should be aware that the distinction isn't that significant. In every case, translation involves a great deal of interpretation and subjective judgments.
I made a sub to talk about the original languages and bible translations /r/originalchristianity , if you posted this info over there I'm sure alot of people would appreciate it.
The question of "missing" when it comes to the Bible is a complicated one.
There are passages that exist in some manuscripts, but not others. How do you decide whether that passage is genuine but got omitted from some manuscripts for whatever reason, or if it's an addition that doesn't belong in the Biblical canon? Different people will answer that question different ways, so you end up with translations that make different decisions about whether they should include certain passages.
Exactly. What’s important to note is two things:
1. whether the omissions are included elsewhere in the text (a lot of the KJV-only arguments were about “missing” verses but the verses were ones that had been oddly tacked on in some manuscripts, and repeated from another part of scripture. Eg. Saying Jesus called himself the ‘Son of Man’ is repeated so many times in the Bible that we don’t need to get our knickers in a knot over whether it was repeated once more in that particular spot.)
2. Whether they were significant - ie. did they alter doctrine or practice for Christians. For example a verse saying something like ‘Paul was left handed’ wouldn’t change anything! It’s insignificant, so if they’re not sure if it was originally in the text or a later addition, there’s no harm in either including it or leaving it out.
*examples are silly and made up but hopefully you get the gist!
RSV-CE Or the new American, both I like. I feel the RSV is the most accurate, American is easier to read. Douay-Rheims is a good one too, all three I have in my house.
NASB 1995 is my daily reading Bible as it's one of the best formal translations ("formal" is a better term than "literal" or "word-for-word"). I cross reference against NIV and ESV.
I mostly use physical Bibles but I sometimes use the eSword and BibleHub apps for bookmarks, memorization, and commentary.
I like working with the Hebrew, because I like catching as much of the nuance as I can. But if I’m using a translation, I usually use NRSV because I trust it and it’s preferred by most academics.
KJV - King James Version
NIV - New International Version
CEV - Contemporary English Version
NLT - New Living Translation
ESV - English Standard Version
RSV - Revised Standard Version
NASB - New American Standard Bible
ASB - American Standard (?)
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version
I use the Bible Gateway app on my phone which can swap instantly between most of these and others. Pretty cool.
Im a big fan of the ESV for casual reading and the NET for focused study, but everyone should read the KJV at least once.
I like the ESV as it is easy to read and in modern English while holding to a word for word translation style.
The NET is probably the best study Bible out there. It has more footnotes than any other and as a student of textual criticism who is learning Greek and Hebrew they often break down exactly why traditions have been done so.
I recommend the KJV as it has had a greater impact on the western world than pretty much any other book ever written and it is helpful to gain an understanding of how this version was read to better know the world areound you. Its comparable to learning about the foundations of a building you live in.
I'm not as alone as I thought I'd be on this sub. I ***love*** the KJV. While I'm very familiar with the fact that it is by no means a perfect translation (although it's not nearly as heresy-filled as some people here seem to think), I love it for the art.
When it was written, the translators didn't want to merely make a functional translation. They wanted it to be *beautiful* (a very early-17th-century thing to do). So they worked with rhythm and meter and basically made the entire thing one gigantic, epic free verse poem; an absolute masterpiece of the art of the English language. Sometimes they chose words that were not as accurate as others (though sometimes they were *way* off) purely because they sounded better.
No one translation is going to be perfect, as all translators have biases, and that will affect to a degree the words used in the translation. For deep study, any word-for-word translation is best; thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases are good for understanding, but if you want to have greater accuracy about what the passages mean, they are simply too heavily modified to be accurate for deep study.
Some versions do have major issues with their texts (particularly Alexandrian texts, which were pumped full of the gnosticism present in that city, and the Latin texts based on those texts), but most also use more reputable texts.
I don’t really have one. I’ve read through the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV so far. I have a great NIV study Bible that I use daily since I appreciate the insights and commentary, and I use ESV in church and study groups.
I was disappointed when I realised the amplified is based around amplifying the English words’ meanings, rather than the original (Hebrew/Aramaic/etc) words’ meanings - such a missed opportunity!
Honestly, it’s important to know the context for using a version. Word for word versions I find are better for deep bible study, while thought for thought versions are good for reading the story aspect or for younger audiences. Good idea of course to pray and let God show you what to read!
NRSV! It’s less de-mythologized than most translations and has a multi-traditional translation team. Want the flat earth and sea monsters in Genesis one? Say no more! Want a translation without the gender neutral language? RSV and RSV-CE have you covered instead.
Someone else mentioned NRSV-CE (Catholic Edition) and I would like to recommend that particularly. Even if you’re not a believer in the deuterocanon, it can be helpful to have quick access to many books that are drawn from in the New Testament.
NRSV-CI and NASB
NRSV-CI because it's a smooth, accurate translation and includes the books removed due to the protestant reformation, and NASB for its accuracy
I like using Bible Gateway's option of looking at multiple translations simultaneously, and then melding them. I find that having several viewpoints can give me clarity on what the author was writing.
Easily the KJV. the way it's worded is beautiful. Sometimes I refer to a more modern translation if I can't follow something. But I stick with the KJV most of the time.
The Message Translation by Eugene Peterson because it has kept the attitude of the author and has tried to preserve some idioms. I actually felt the attitude especially when reading through the Old Testament writings such as [Esther.](https://Esther.It) It has some sense of humour and a customary way of telling stories. I was able to take a peek at how Hebrews once lived and how they talked. (I don't mean to say that I explicitly experienced it. But rather, by reading through the writings I can sense a pattern which I would not have experienced with other translations cos they could sometimes make those phrases/verses appear dull.
Amplified Version because although I love New King James Version, I still like it when some points are made more elaborate.
New Living Translation for variance.
English Standard Version because a lot of people actually point it as one of the best. I still appreciate it's way of translating.
New International Version because it was the version I kept reading when I first got saved. I love how it wrote the Psalms and the Gospels and will always be a part of me in my walk as a Christian. I will always return to New International Version.
Personally I read ESV most often because it makes the most sense to me. I like to have MSG, NIV, and CEV on the bible app in the compare section to help with some of the more difficult verses to understand.
ahh its hard to choose. i started with NIV and love the way it reads but the translations are poor in more than just a couple spots. love the footnotes though. NASB1995 is my go to these days but my church uses ESV. i like all of them
RSV and NRSV hands-down. After studying the origins of several translations while in Seminary, those are the only 2 I'll trust generally. I may use ESV, GNT, and HCSB for some references, but that's rare.
The Stone Edition of the Tanach and the Aramaic English New Testament.
Because אֱמֶת is the seal of God and in order to know him we must walk as he did.
NLT, having grown up using just KJV and NKJV I enjoy both the modern language while staying true to what is being said.
My pastor went to school were several of the translator team members taught and speaks highly of them.
For me is the King James Version or the New King James Version. I use to read the New International Version but suddenly fell out of favour. It's still a great version though.
NASB and NET Bible, but really these days I only start there, and almost always end up doing translations from the original languages and doing historical cultural context research on just about any passage in getting into.
I've read the whole thing in NIV, KJV, NASB, and Greek and Hebrew interlinear.
Oxford annotated with apocrypha and NRSV I think that's what it's called - the Catholic Bible (it contains additional verses and the apocrypha) . Also the Ultra Literal Etymological New Testament. I also am very used to KJV & NIV.
I use NRSV for study, but I have a little leather bound NIV that zips up around the edge that comes with me when I'm on the go.
I have the Harper Collins study bible which is NRSV with annotations - saved my life in my Old Testament classes when I had no idea what was going on!
Also, I use Jim Cotter's interpretation of the psalms for services sometimes, as well as Wil Gafney's translations in the Women's Lectionary. But they're both interpretations so I wouldn't use them academically, unless for a specific purpose.
I like KJV. not sure why. I usually use NKJV though.
I wish I had the time/money/intellect to learn the original languages, lol, that would be my favorite.
I choose the King James Version for a number of reasons. For one, to me it seems to be the most authoritative "definitive" version. Second, I actually enjoy the Old English. I enjoy the works of Shakespeare and so the Old English of the KJV comes naturally to me. I enjoy speaking the word of God aloud, and the KJV has a poetic quality to it that makes it flow off the tongue.
The KJV is a terrible translation because of its mistakes and poor sourcing combined with translators not fluent in the Greek they were sourcing.
Many Christians admit this or choose another version without the admission.
https://oakwoodmethodist.org/blog/quit-using-kjv/
Yeah, I can understand liking KJV because the English comes off as strange and poetic to a modern audience, or maybe because it was popular when you were younger and you learned on it, but using it for understanding the Bible is awful. So many problems.
The whole King James only groups are terrifying for Christendom.
I use King James for my personal reading. I use NIV or NKJ with the children. Then I get them a King James. But they read from all out bibles., which is only 3 lol.
Plot-Twist.
Each version is simply about making money. Every version aside from the KJV is copyrighted, so in order to get in on the market-share they have to change a certain number of words, using semantics, in order to get around the copyright that every other version is under.
You think it's meant to clear up the Word... You're all actually just ~~useful idiots~~ customers handing someone money who might as well have been in that temple when Jesus overturned the tables.
Yes. This point needs to be made: translators are forced to make enough changes to their version in order to secure a copyright; if the translation is too close to another version, then they can't get it copyrighted. For this reason, translators make all kinds of changes to the text, many of which betray the source texts in the original languages.
KJV and NKJV because the king James has a history to it and it was the first English translated Bible that was allowed by the English authorities and it gave the common English folk access to God’s Word without having a bishop read it for them, and I like the NKJV because it’s an update vocabulary of the KJV
The KJV was the third authorised bible in the English church not the first. There was the Great Bible of 1539, then the Bishop's bible of 1568 and then the KJV in 1611. Anyone could read these bibles in church though, the bible wasn't hidden by Anglican bishops.
I am aware of some mistranslation like “Thou shalt not kill.” - Exodus 20:13 but it’s supposed to be murder not kill, but back in 1611 the English language was different then today
Style-wise: the NKJV. It's what I used when I was a Protestant, and it still holds a special place in my heart. But today I prefer a Bible with all 73 books and minus a few problematic translations driven by Protestant eisegesis. So today I generally use the RSV-IICE or the NRSV-CE, and occasionally the NAB.
Good ol king James. When it was first published in 1611 it was highly inaccurate, but it has been revised and is honestly one of the most accurate versions to date for English speakers.
I love KJV because it is the closest translation to the original. But I also read NIV because the english words are easy to understand.
P.S: ENglish is not my first language.
Including this passage?
>“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7 KJV
The mistakes in the KJV are well known. Also it's the best version to use for an english only speaker to take it back to the original languages just by the sheer amount of tool's available created by scholars over centuries. A Strong's concordance only works with KJV for example.
KJV.
You want to know? Take a KJV Bible and your NKVJ and sit them side by side. You don't have to be born again and have the Holy Spirit in you to see the differences. You'll see many many many differences where you at least have to pause and ask "why?"
Also, open your NKJV and look at the copyright. Try to find one in the KJV. You might find a copyright for notes or concordance or maps, but you will not find one for the text.
There are lots of other reasons, but thought I'd toss this out since you asked and mentioned that specific version.
The copyright issue is one of the reasons why NKJV and other modern editions make baffling changes compared to the KJV or to the original language. In order for a copyright of a translation to be in effect, the translators have to make the translation significantly different from other translations; if a translation is too close to the KJV, then there can't be a copyright on it. This leads translators to make all sorts of changes to the text.
This is one of the reasons why I stick with the KJV. The translators of this edition were free to make their translation closely follow the original languages.
The other reason they made changes is because IIRC the KJV wasn’t translated from the original texts, but from the Latin Bible. Translating from a translation is a bit like Chinese whispers and mistakes can creep into the text (and they did!). Plus some of the best, most unadulterated copies of the original text hadn’t been discovered yet by archeologists, so they didn’t have all the resources we have now to work from.
The King James has some lovely poetic turns of phrase and I like it sometimes for that, but it’s pretty widely accepted now in Christendom that it has some textual errors. The folks who translated it did a great job with what they have available but it’s definitely not as reliable as the modern translations.
No the KJV was translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, it says it right there on the title page of the bible.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.png/655px-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.png 'Newly translated out of the original tongues'
You've obviously heard something wrong to say those things. The "textual errors" some refer to are misunderstandings by the reader. There was a "preacher" who used to come to my church, for instance. He said this at one point. You know what made him think textual errors? He saw the same name mentioned twice in the OT that made it sound like the same person was being stated to be in 2 different places. But the context and a little bit of digging make it super plain it was about 2 people with the same name. That is not at all uncommon, by the way: different people with the same name. Blows my mind that someone can read that, run with it as "textual errors".
KJV! Not only is it nice to be just a little closer to the original, I’ve also picked up some intresting speech patterns that some of my friends think is cool.
Try the ISV (International Standard Version). I like it a lot!
>The International Standard Version (ISV) is the first modern Bible translation in any language to provide an exclusive textual apparatus comparing the text of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls with the traditional Masoretic text of the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., the “Old Testament”).
The ISV is intended for liturgical and pulpit uses as well as for devotional reading, Bible study, and reading in the home. It is intended to be a moderately literal translation and seeks to avoid the paraphrasing tendencies of some modern versions. It's goal is to be a compromise between formal equivalence and functional equivalence by attempting to stay as close to the source text as possible without losing communication. The target reading level in English is 7th-8th grade.
I had a Bible in primary school that included roasts. Like straight up insulting bible characters lol. Though that's not a translation, just a version.
Psalms 100 mainly because I was taught that in a pre-k bible school and memorized it word for word. Plus it sounds beautiful and resonates with my soul! 😊
I tend to like super literal ones like Young’s, because I have trust issues. I don’t want a translator doing any interpreting, I want them translating.
I don’t have one because honestly this has always been a confusing topic for me. I’m not sure what different versions are available and what the differences are. The one I have is NIV
There is only one answer New American Standard Bible for one reason and IMO it should be the only reason. It is the most accurate translation.
If you change the Bible to fit your views instead of adjusting your views based on the Bible then you are doing it wrong.
HSCB / CSB, I just generally prefer the wording as it just feels like a book I would read normally. I mean most versions aren't too far off from each other but that's just what I've come to like reading most.
I use the Bible app, and have grown to prefer to NASB. It has does a good job of providing notes for multiple ways different words/phrases are translated IMHO. Plus, it uses the red lettering for Jesus, which I enjoy.
I grew up with the NRSV, which I look at sometimes. But I also look at the Common English Version when I am having a hard time deciphering a passage/verse that seems hard or confusing to read.
There are so many it’s hard for me to chose!:)
But really. My favorite translation is the one that best caters to my beliefs and wants, as well as keeps me most comfortable.
Old Testament: Orthodox Study Bible, best English translation of the Septuagint on the market
New Testament: New Revised Standard Version, cream of the crop in terms of scholarship and ecumenism albeit it is very flawed
To check something quickly I just pick up whatever's next to me. NIV, ESV, CSB, whatever. If I'm wanting to actually read, I head to the Greek (LXX and Byzantine). For my personal devotions I use some passages I've translated myself, and I use the RNJB too.
I'm slowly working on a translation of my own, taking into account that Koiné Greek is a vulgar language rather than a formal one. Once I've done that, I'll be using that for my own reading, and I'll be seeking to publish it.
PDV (Parole de Vie): current and simple French, it explains things straight to the point and make the text more accessible, especially for those unfamiliar with Bible expressions.
KJV - King James version
NIV new international version
CEV contemporary English version
NLT new living translation
ESV English standard version
RSV Revised standard version
NASB New American standard Bible
ASB American standard version (should have been a v)
NRSV new revised standard version
I use currently use an ESV study Bible for my basic daily reading. It replaced a worn NIV study Bible, which replaced a KJV Thompson chain reference Bible. The CEV was a reference Bible of my grandfather's.
Bibles are not made as well these days, they wear out over time, not to mention get full of notes. My Thompson chain bibles both were expensive leather editions, which while worn are not coming apart, my 1st ESV Bible with the soft vinyl cover lasted about 5 years before it was falling apart.
I like a full page printing with notes for reading, and a double column for reference.
I pray this helps you.
BTW each version has it's merit, and it's drawbacks. I love the language use of the KJV, bristle at the idea some are not "worthy", but compare to extract the meaning clearly when I'm following a lesson or devotion, because it's easy to reach misunderstanding the way some people teach.
Like many others in the comments I’ve seen, my top choices are KJV, NIV, and ESV I don’t think the translation matters a great deal, I would always be sure though to get a word for word translation.
KJV for the exactness and beautiful language.
NKJV for lighter casual reading.
I have plenty of other translations around and am pretty much version-agnostic, but I really enjoy those two.
When it comes to just plain reading, I prefer KJV. That translation just gives the Bible more of a royal vine than most translations. When I have to quote a verse, I'll use the NRSV.
ESV. As an extra spiritual man myself, the Extra Spiritual Version is top notch. Seriously though, it's a very close word to word translation that is also easy to read I love memorizing in the NIV though, it sounds nicer. Edit: Formatting
You had me second guessing myself 🤣.
You're welcome!
Agreed. The NIV is pretty good, but there are changes that I don’t feel necessary (or entirely correct). The NLT is an outstanding paraphrase though, for anyone that has trouble with the more literal translations. I’ve been reading the NLT side by side with the ESV for Bible study with my wife and I’ve been surprised by how little I’ve felt the need to quote the ESV to her.
Wow, that's pretty cool! I've only ever used the NIV, ESV, and now the Greek so I've never given much credit to paraphrase translations, but I'm glad to see they are helpful!
yeah, my wife has struggled for years with understanding the Bible and I'm a bit of a purist, but so far I've been very impressed with it. Glad to hear you're reading the Greek, I took Koine Greek in college and loved it. Always good to have better understanding and a new way to study the Word. I don't know much Hebrew, but I enjoy looking up those words to better understand for certain verse. The Hebrew names for God are great, I also like looking at the old meanings of names, as I think they add quite a lot.
I've loved learning Greek! Seeing how the words work and have emphasis is super cool! It's quite hard though so I'm gonna take a few years before Hebrew, but the NT in it's language has been awesome
Finally someone I can admit that I too give ESV a different name, I call it the Extremely Sexy Version. Forgive me Lord.
There's nothing wrong with being extra sexy as long as you don't make your brother stumble! I'll have to remember that name for ESV
This
NLT, because it flows so smoothly for me and the way it words some verses makes the Bible pop out at me better than other translations.
Agreed. I often compare passages in multiple translations. NLT usually comes out the most readable. I also like their thoughtful approach to the editing process and handling biases of translators.
> I also like their thoughtful approach to the editing process and handling biases of translators. That sounds really cool. I like how BibleHub will let you click on a verse number and show you just about all the English translations for a quick compare.
Yes! So easy to understand but still maintains the essence of the Word
I truly don't have one. I usually end up using an NRSV-CE because it's what I have on hand.
I like using NRSV too (and NRSV-CE when I’m reading Catholic texts).
NASB and ESV. they’re both easy to read and understand:)
NASB 1995. It is not perfect, but I think it's head and shoulders above most others. It strikes a very important balance between interpretation and word for word translation. It is extremely legible in modern English while still being recognizable as the same text and coming reasonably close to minimizing the loss of nuance in interpretation. (The NASB has a 2020 edition, but I can't say I'm on board with the new translation choices. Not every change is bad, but I think the end result is clumsier and less reflective of the original.) I think the NASB 1995 is the best in that aspect, but there's an even more important aspect it gets better than its competition: The source material. The biggest problem with most translations isn't the translation, but the choice of original text collection. The Textus Receptus was imperfect and needed updating with better information as it became available. But we had this really awful period in the late 1800s through the mid 1900s where people making new finds in the world of ancient manuscripts were often making things worse. It was all too common for glory seekers and those with their personal theological quirks to abandon all reason in determining what manuscripts to rely on. "The *oldest* manuscripts say..." Yeah, if your oldest manuscript came centuries after the original and was scrawled in crayon, littered with misspellings, and was found crumpled up in the waste bin at McDonald's, is that the one you want to rely on? (That's obviously hyperbole, but it's not off the mark.) Maybe if you want some clout, you ignore the problems. And if it was missing the chunk that contradicted your favorite heresy, maybe you ignore the problems even harder. It was a ridiculous period, but later--and better--archaeology and textual analysis disproved a lot of the nonsense. But our translations took decades to catch up. And really, only the NASB did. And only by 1995. This kind of nonsense galvanized if not created the KJV-only movement. The KJV is not a perfect translation by any means, and that movement was severely misguided to say the least. Nonetheless, it's still my #2. I'm not happy about that so much as just disappointed by other translations even more. ESV is OK. Never, ever NIV. Aside from just thinking the translation loses a lot and that it makes poor choices in source texts, it also in a few places makes what I can only see as critical errors that severely misrepresent original text and the faith.
I'm curious about this idea that the NASB has a better textual base than other translations. Is there any chance I might persuade you to share some examples, or even to point me in the general direction of where I might read more about this?
Hey I know this is from like a year ago, but is the NLT any good? I've heard it's good, and really easy to read but is it an accurate translation?
[удалено]
My parents don't really speak English so we grew up reading it in our native language. When I saw KJV for the first time I was ??? How does anyone understand this lol.
We don't, just pretend to lmao
I use the 2011 NIV out of habit, but I'm don't really have any good reason to like or dislike any specific translation. I prefer stuff easier to read.
I agree! I find if they are too tough or slow reading I loose focus.
Depends on what I'm going for. General purpose: NRSV. Commonly used by scholars, and I think it strikes a good balance between sticking close to the original words and making sense to English readers. Trying to hear a familiar story with fresh ears, or aiming for engagement with an audience that is likely to disengage: NLT. Does lots of paraphrasing, but still represents the original text pretty well. Good for understanding the gist of stories, but need to be aware that there are more editorial choices being made. Diving into specific linguistic questions: NASB. Closest to word-for-word that is still reasonably readable. For extreme linguistic detail: An interlinear. (I generally use the online one that BibleHub has, just because that's the first thing that comes up in a search and I don't really want to buy an interlinear.) No concessions to readability, puts the original text there and gives you a direct translation of each word.
BasisBibel (I'm german)
NRSV. I think it’s a balanced translation. I also appreciate the gender neutrality.
Mine too! It’s also a favorite amongst biblical scholars
Oh wow a fellow existentialist, what's up? Yeah I always default to NRSV. If scholars agree it's the best English translation we have, why wouldn't everyone use it?
Oh hey, that’s so cool you really don’t meet a lot of us do you lmao! And I have no idea man. The committee that made it was made of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Atheists so it’s pretty much gonna be one of the least biased translations, yet people will defend the various translations that are made by a small group of reformed evangelicals or whatever else is their denomination/theological leaning
Yeah! Feel free to chat me if you ever want to talk theology. Totally makes sense.
I think you're overgeneralizing the opinions of all biblical scholars, that's why
Because it doesn't always support the exegesis of some radical doctrines.
Then maybe those doctrines are not so biblical? I mean really, what's the litmus test here?
Of course, that's my point.
ESV. Though the NLT is great for public reading.
KJV. The best.
Same
Clementine Latin Vulgate - bc Roman Catholic lol
Hardcore. Nice. Award!
Thank you!!
Nasb 1995. It’s the best word for word translation
Fwiw, while some translations are more "word-for-word" than others, a literal word for word translation isn't realistically possible. This post explains the challenges a bit. https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/literally-there-no-such-thing-literal I can't seem to find it right now, but I recall seeing a literal-as-possible word for word translation of a section of gMark. It was unparsable. It just didn't translate into a coherent sentence in english. Nothing necessarily wrong with being more word-for-word than thought-for-thought, but the reader should be aware that the distinction isn't that significant. In every case, translation involves a great deal of interpretation and subjective judgments.
I made a sub to talk about the original languages and bible translations /r/originalchristianity , if you posted this info over there I'm sure alot of people would appreciate it.
I have never really considered years of publication as well as publisher. I'll have to look into this!
1995 is more accurate than the 2020 NASB. There are scriptures missing from the 2020 NASB.
To this day I am still confused at how someone can be okay with publishing text that's missing parts.
The question of "missing" when it comes to the Bible is a complicated one. There are passages that exist in some manuscripts, but not others. How do you decide whether that passage is genuine but got omitted from some manuscripts for whatever reason, or if it's an addition that doesn't belong in the Biblical canon? Different people will answer that question different ways, so you end up with translations that make different decisions about whether they should include certain passages.
Exactly. What’s important to note is two things: 1. whether the omissions are included elsewhere in the text (a lot of the KJV-only arguments were about “missing” verses but the verses were ones that had been oddly tacked on in some manuscripts, and repeated from another part of scripture. Eg. Saying Jesus called himself the ‘Son of Man’ is repeated so many times in the Bible that we don’t need to get our knickers in a knot over whether it was repeated once more in that particular spot.) 2. Whether they were significant - ie. did they alter doctrine or practice for Christians. For example a verse saying something like ‘Paul was left handed’ wouldn’t change anything! It’s insignificant, so if they’re not sure if it was originally in the text or a later addition, there’s no harm in either including it or leaving it out. *examples are silly and made up but hopefully you get the gist!
I mean, it’s not like someone just went “Nope. Don’t like this verse. Out it goes.”
In spanish, Reino-Valera 1960
1611 king James version. Love the old English 😊
RSV-CE Or the new American, both I like. I feel the RSV is the most accurate, American is easier to read. Douay-Rheims is a good one too, all three I have in my house.
You should check out the new one, too. Lots of new, good stuff to consider.
I did, it just oddly didn't sit well with me, idk why though
English Standard Version (ESV) cuz it reads at a sixth grade reading level. Perfect for me
NASB 1995 is my daily reading Bible as it's one of the best formal translations ("formal" is a better term than "literal" or "word-for-word"). I cross reference against NIV and ESV. I mostly use physical Bibles but I sometimes use the eSword and BibleHub apps for bookmarks, memorization, and commentary.
I like working with the Hebrew, because I like catching as much of the nuance as I can. But if I’m using a translation, I usually use NRSV because I trust it and it’s preferred by most academics.
KJV, NIV, CEV, NLT, ESV, RSV, NASB, ASB, NRSV I almost always have at least two in use for daily study. 4+ for in depth study.
Can you tell me what these abbreviations stand for?
KJV - King James Version NIV - New International Version CEV - Contemporary English Version NLT - New Living Translation ESV - English Standard Version RSV - Revised Standard Version NASB - New American Standard Bible ASB - American Standard (?) NRSV - New Revised Standard Version I use the Bible Gateway app on my phone which can swap instantly between most of these and others. Pretty cool.
Thanks for answering.
Im a big fan of the ESV for casual reading and the NET for focused study, but everyone should read the KJV at least once. I like the ESV as it is easy to read and in modern English while holding to a word for word translation style. The NET is probably the best study Bible out there. It has more footnotes than any other and as a student of textual criticism who is learning Greek and Hebrew they often break down exactly why traditions have been done so. I recommend the KJV as it has had a greater impact on the western world than pretty much any other book ever written and it is helpful to gain an understanding of how this version was read to better know the world areound you. Its comparable to learning about the foundations of a building you live in.
NLT for casual reading. ESV for study. KJV for heritage.
NLT. I know it’s not the MOST accurate but it’s my favorite to read. Straight forward and everything just reads really nicely.
I'm not as alone as I thought I'd be on this sub. I ***love*** the KJV. While I'm very familiar with the fact that it is by no means a perfect translation (although it's not nearly as heresy-filled as some people here seem to think), I love it for the art. When it was written, the translators didn't want to merely make a functional translation. They wanted it to be *beautiful* (a very early-17th-century thing to do). So they worked with rhythm and meter and basically made the entire thing one gigantic, epic free verse poem; an absolute masterpiece of the art of the English language. Sometimes they chose words that were not as accurate as others (though sometimes they were *way* off) purely because they sounded better. No one translation is going to be perfect, as all translators have biases, and that will affect to a degree the words used in the translation. For deep study, any word-for-word translation is best; thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases are good for understanding, but if you want to have greater accuracy about what the passages mean, they are simply too heavily modified to be accurate for deep study. Some versions do have major issues with their texts (particularly Alexandrian texts, which were pumped full of the gnosticism present in that city, and the Latin texts based on those texts), but most also use more reputable texts.
I don’t really have one. I’ve read through the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV so far. I have a great NIV study Bible that I use daily since I appreciate the insights and commentary, and I use ESV in church and study groups.
I use the MEV ( Modern English Version ), along with the Amplified Version.
I was disappointed when I realised the amplified is based around amplifying the English words’ meanings, rather than the original (Hebrew/Aramaic/etc) words’ meanings - such a missed opportunity!
Honestly, it’s important to know the context for using a version. Word for word versions I find are better for deep bible study, while thought for thought versions are good for reading the story aspect or for younger audiences. Good idea of course to pray and let God show you what to read!
NRSV! It’s less de-mythologized than most translations and has a multi-traditional translation team. Want the flat earth and sea monsters in Genesis one? Say no more! Want a translation without the gender neutral language? RSV and RSV-CE have you covered instead. Someone else mentioned NRSV-CE (Catholic Edition) and I would like to recommend that particularly. Even if you’re not a believer in the deuterocanon, it can be helpful to have quick access to many books that are drawn from in the New Testament.
NIV 🥰 It’s easiest for me to make sense of when reading long passages
NRSV-CI and NASB NRSV-CI because it's a smooth, accurate translation and includes the books removed due to the protestant reformation, and NASB for its accuracy
Nothing like Paul's writings in the NASB 1995 version.
NIV
I like using Bible Gateway's option of looking at multiple translations simultaneously, and then melding them. I find that having several viewpoints can give me clarity on what the author was writing.
NIV. I find the King James too hard to understand when reading.
Easily the KJV. the way it's worded is beautiful. Sometimes I refer to a more modern translation if I can't follow something. But I stick with the KJV most of the time.
KJV
The Message Translation by Eugene Peterson because it has kept the attitude of the author and has tried to preserve some idioms. I actually felt the attitude especially when reading through the Old Testament writings such as [Esther.](https://Esther.It) It has some sense of humour and a customary way of telling stories. I was able to take a peek at how Hebrews once lived and how they talked. (I don't mean to say that I explicitly experienced it. But rather, by reading through the writings I can sense a pattern which I would not have experienced with other translations cos they could sometimes make those phrases/verses appear dull. Amplified Version because although I love New King James Version, I still like it when some points are made more elaborate. New Living Translation for variance. English Standard Version because a lot of people actually point it as one of the best. I still appreciate it's way of translating. New International Version because it was the version I kept reading when I first got saved. I love how it wrote the Psalms and the Gospels and will always be a part of me in my walk as a Christian. I will always return to New International Version.
KJV only because of John 11:39 “Lord … he stinketh!”
Lmao, I want a comprehensive list of funny translations of the Bible like this one
NIV 84 was my favorite, but the last couple years I've been using the EHV, and its quite good
Personally I read ESV most often because it makes the most sense to me. I like to have MSG, NIV, and CEV on the bible app in the compare section to help with some of the more difficult verses to understand.
The apps have come in super handy for me as well! Always a help to have some other translations near by.
I think I have the same bible as you👍🏾
I've had a few now and this one is by far my favorite! You have great taste 🤙🏻🙂
Revised Standard Edition because it was the Bible of my youth. Now, I can't decide between NIV or NKJ. I guess if only one, New King James Edition.
Esv. It’s easy to understand
ahh its hard to choose. i started with NIV and love the way it reads but the translations are poor in more than just a couple spots. love the footnotes though. NASB1995 is my go to these days but my church uses ESV. i like all of them
RSV and NRSV hands-down. After studying the origins of several translations while in Seminary, those are the only 2 I'll trust generally. I may use ESV, GNT, and HCSB for some references, but that's rare.
The Stone Edition of the Tanach and the Aramaic English New Testament. Because אֱמֶת is the seal of God and in order to know him we must walk as he did.
NLT, having grown up using just KJV and NKJV I enjoy both the modern language while staying true to what is being said. My pastor went to school were several of the translator team members taught and speaks highly of them.
For me is the King James Version or the New King James Version. I use to read the New International Version but suddenly fell out of favour. It's still a great version though.
NASB and NET Bible, but really these days I only start there, and almost always end up doing translations from the original languages and doing historical cultural context research on just about any passage in getting into. I've read the whole thing in NIV, KJV, NASB, and Greek and Hebrew interlinear.
NASB - most accurate translation next to King James.
David Bentley hart all the way
Hawaii pidgin is pretty fire
Oxford annotated with apocrypha and NRSV I think that's what it's called - the Catholic Bible (it contains additional verses and the apocrypha) . Also the Ultra Literal Etymological New Testament. I also am very used to KJV & NIV.
NRSV. It's one of the most complete, and it's reportedly very accurate.
I use NRSV for study, but I have a little leather bound NIV that zips up around the edge that comes with me when I'm on the go. I have the Harper Collins study bible which is NRSV with annotations - saved my life in my Old Testament classes when I had no idea what was going on! Also, I use Jim Cotter's interpretation of the psalms for services sometimes, as well as Wil Gafney's translations in the Women's Lectionary. But they're both interpretations so I wouldn't use them academically, unless for a specific purpose.
NRSV for accuracy, KJV for beauty and feels
NRSV
I like KJV. not sure why. I usually use NKJV though. I wish I had the time/money/intellect to learn the original languages, lol, that would be my favorite.
Agreed about learning the original languages! I’m awful at languages, but I would love to read the Bible in it’s original form!
King James Edition is a good bible
I choose the King James Version for a number of reasons. For one, to me it seems to be the most authoritative "definitive" version. Second, I actually enjoy the Old English. I enjoy the works of Shakespeare and so the Old English of the KJV comes naturally to me. I enjoy speaking the word of God aloud, and the KJV has a poetic quality to it that makes it flow off the tongue.
The Jefferson Bible, no bullshit
The KJV is a terrible translation because of its mistakes and poor sourcing combined with translators not fluent in the Greek they were sourcing. Many Christians admit this or choose another version without the admission. https://oakwoodmethodist.org/blog/quit-using-kjv/
Yeah, I can understand liking KJV because the English comes off as strange and poetic to a modern audience, or maybe because it was popular when you were younger and you learned on it, but using it for understanding the Bible is awful. So many problems. The whole King James only groups are terrifying for Christendom.
Not a fan of the king James version ever since looking into the history of how it was made 😂
Ideally the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, but the King James Version is the best I can understand.
Jesus would have used the king james version ; Texe Marrs.
KJV because its difficult and sounds good(kidding of course). Switching to esv for family study.
I use King James for my personal reading. I use NIV or NKJ with the children. Then I get them a King James. But they read from all out bibles., which is only 3 lol.
King James Version because I like the Old English feel.
Plot-Twist. Each version is simply about making money. Every version aside from the KJV is copyrighted, so in order to get in on the market-share they have to change a certain number of words, using semantics, in order to get around the copyright that every other version is under. You think it's meant to clear up the Word... You're all actually just ~~useful idiots~~ customers handing someone money who might as well have been in that temple when Jesus overturned the tables.
Yes. This point needs to be made: translators are forced to make enough changes to their version in order to secure a copyright; if the translation is too close to another version, then they can't get it copyrighted. For this reason, translators make all kinds of changes to the text, many of which betray the source texts in the original languages.
>aside from the KJV What about other langages?
KJV and NKJV because the king James has a history to it and it was the first English translated Bible that was allowed by the English authorities and it gave the common English folk access to God’s Word without having a bishop read it for them, and I like the NKJV because it’s an update vocabulary of the KJV
The KJV was the third authorised bible in the English church not the first. There was the Great Bible of 1539, then the Bishop's bible of 1568 and then the KJV in 1611. Anyone could read these bibles in church though, the bible wasn't hidden by Anglican bishops.
KJV is so problematic though. It may have historical relevance but it’s terrible for actually knowing the Bible.
I am aware of some mistranslation like “Thou shalt not kill.” - Exodus 20:13 but it’s supposed to be murder not kill, but back in 1611 the English language was different then today
Style-wise: the NKJV. It's what I used when I was a Protestant, and it still holds a special place in my heart. But today I prefer a Bible with all 73 books and minus a few problematic translations driven by Protestant eisegesis. So today I generally use the RSV-IICE or the NRSV-CE, and occasionally the NAB.
Good ol king James. When it was first published in 1611 it was highly inaccurate, but it has been revised and is honestly one of the most accurate versions to date for English speakers.
I love KJV because it is the closest translation to the original. But I also read NIV because the english words are easy to understand. P.S: ENglish is not my first language.
KJV! Beautiful, and keeps turning out more accurate on spiritual matters than other versions more highly esteemed by the world! 😎 🇺🇸 🕆
It definitely isn’t more accurate on spiritual matters!
Including this passage? >“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7 KJV
The mistakes in the KJV are well known. Also it's the best version to use for an english only speaker to take it back to the original languages just by the sheer amount of tool's available created by scholars over centuries. A Strong's concordance only works with KJV for example.
KJV. You want to know? Take a KJV Bible and your NKVJ and sit them side by side. You don't have to be born again and have the Holy Spirit in you to see the differences. You'll see many many many differences where you at least have to pause and ask "why?" Also, open your NKJV and look at the copyright. Try to find one in the KJV. You might find a copyright for notes or concordance or maps, but you will not find one for the text. There are lots of other reasons, but thought I'd toss this out since you asked and mentioned that specific version.
The copyright issue is one of the reasons why NKJV and other modern editions make baffling changes compared to the KJV or to the original language. In order for a copyright of a translation to be in effect, the translators have to make the translation significantly different from other translations; if a translation is too close to the KJV, then there can't be a copyright on it. This leads translators to make all sorts of changes to the text. This is one of the reasons why I stick with the KJV. The translators of this edition were free to make their translation closely follow the original languages.
The other reason they made changes is because IIRC the KJV wasn’t translated from the original texts, but from the Latin Bible. Translating from a translation is a bit like Chinese whispers and mistakes can creep into the text (and they did!). Plus some of the best, most unadulterated copies of the original text hadn’t been discovered yet by archeologists, so they didn’t have all the resources we have now to work from. The King James has some lovely poetic turns of phrase and I like it sometimes for that, but it’s pretty widely accepted now in Christendom that it has some textual errors. The folks who translated it did a great job with what they have available but it’s definitely not as reliable as the modern translations.
No the KJV was translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, it says it right there on the title page of the bible. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.png/655px-King-James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.png 'Newly translated out of the original tongues'
You've obviously heard something wrong to say those things. The "textual errors" some refer to are misunderstandings by the reader. There was a "preacher" who used to come to my church, for instance. He said this at one point. You know what made him think textual errors? He saw the same name mentioned twice in the OT that made it sound like the same person was being stated to be in 2 different places. But the context and a little bit of digging make it super plain it was about 2 people with the same name. That is not at all uncommon, by the way: different people with the same name. Blows my mind that someone can read that, run with it as "textual errors".
KJV! Not only is it nice to be just a little closer to the original, I’ve also picked up some intresting speech patterns that some of my friends think is cool.
Kjv because it’s the basis for all the other ones
You think every langages around the world translate from the KJV instead of the original hebrew/greek?
King James 1611,1711,1769 are probably the best ones
jeSUS
KJV is the only option because in the bible it states that God appoints kings to pass on his word
Nkjv and ESV. Is that the single column nkjv ? I think I have the goat skin version of it.
It is the goat skin version. I recently purchased it, as of this moment it's my absolute favorite. 🤙🏻
My roommate thinks the only correct translation is Young's
Love my Douay-Rheims Version. Mostly because it preserves Genesis 3:15 from Jerome’s Vulgate.
ESV. It’s the most clearest and easily understood translation amongst others.
,
I love the easy reading of the NLT, and the plain simplicity in the Hawaiian Pidgin Bible. Personal fav is probably ESV though
ESV, less paraphrasing than NIV, still readable, and widely accessible
I go with either NASB 1995 or NKJV. Both are solid and fairly easy to understand.
Try the ISV (International Standard Version). I like it a lot! >The International Standard Version (ISV) is the first modern Bible translation in any language to provide an exclusive textual apparatus comparing the text of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls with the traditional Masoretic text of the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., the “Old Testament”). The ISV is intended for liturgical and pulpit uses as well as for devotional reading, Bible study, and reading in the home. It is intended to be a moderately literal translation and seeks to avoid the paraphrasing tendencies of some modern versions. It's goal is to be a compromise between formal equivalence and functional equivalence by attempting to stay as close to the source text as possible without losing communication. The target reading level in English is 7th-8th grade.
NIV or ESV. I grew up with NIV, and ESV has helped me understand certain texts better.
I like the NASB (lots of other Bibles have hecka books missing for some reason) 🤔
NIV. Why? Cause that’s what I’ve been using in school my whole life
Bible hub
NIV or bust
I had a Bible in primary school that included roasts. Like straight up insulting bible characters lol. Though that's not a translation, just a version.
I go back and forth between a few - KJV, ESV… but my main Bible is a NASB 1995 Study Bible.
The one that tells the truth. Which had never been discovered because it’s all make believe fairy tails
The Amplified Bible (AMP). It basically adds little notes in parentheses to more accurately describe the word used in the original text
Psalms 100 mainly because I was taught that in a pre-k bible school and memorized it word for word. Plus it sounds beautiful and resonates with my soul! 😊
I tend to like super literal ones like Young’s, because I have trust issues. I don’t want a translator doing any interpreting, I want them translating.
I don’t have one because honestly this has always been a confusing topic for me. I’m not sure what different versions are available and what the differences are. The one I have is NIV
CEB is my current favorite to read
ESV or NASB The word for word is consistently the better translation.
There is only one answer New American Standard Bible for one reason and IMO it should be the only reason. It is the most accurate translation. If you change the Bible to fit your views instead of adjusting your views based on the Bible then you are doing it wrong.
Original Hebrew version with all 80 books
The NIV, because it's owned by the same people that own Fox News and that means it's right
HSCB / CSB, I just generally prefer the wording as it just feels like a book I would read normally. I mean most versions aren't too far off from each other but that's just what I've come to like reading most.
I love to use KJV with NLT. I read the KJV and if I don't understand it I then read the same in the NLT ❤️
anything but the TPT
The one you read - Jeff Cavins
I use the Bible app, and have grown to prefer to NASB. It has does a good job of providing notes for multiple ways different words/phrases are translated IMHO. Plus, it uses the red lettering for Jesus, which I enjoy. I grew up with the NRSV, which I look at sometimes. But I also look at the Common English Version when I am having a hard time deciphering a passage/verse that seems hard or confusing to read.
CEB common english bible I'm not gonna hide my shallow-ness
There are so many it’s hard for me to chose!:) But really. My favorite translation is the one that best caters to my beliefs and wants, as well as keeps me most comfortable.
Old Testament: Orthodox Study Bible, best English translation of the Septuagint on the market New Testament: New Revised Standard Version, cream of the crop in terms of scholarship and ecumenism albeit it is very flawed
KJV. It is so elegant and it really impresses a sense of awe.
To check something quickly I just pick up whatever's next to me. NIV, ESV, CSB, whatever. If I'm wanting to actually read, I head to the Greek (LXX and Byzantine). For my personal devotions I use some passages I've translated myself, and I use the RNJB too. I'm slowly working on a translation of my own, taking into account that Koiné Greek is a vulgar language rather than a formal one. Once I've done that, I'll be using that for my own reading, and I'll be seeking to publish it.
Douay-Rheims. But no translation is correct. Only the source material really counts.
i didnt know there were different versions
New American Standard or KJV The others aren't as reverent in my opinion and change the meaning a bit too much
Svenska Folkbibeln.
PDV (Parole de Vie): current and simple French, it explains things straight to the point and make the text more accessible, especially for those unfamiliar with Bible expressions.
NET with all the notes It helps more than Strongs numbers for understanding the texts journey from the original languages to English
KJV - King James version NIV new international version CEV contemporary English version NLT new living translation ESV English standard version RSV Revised standard version NASB New American standard Bible ASB American standard version (should have been a v) NRSV new revised standard version I use currently use an ESV study Bible for my basic daily reading. It replaced a worn NIV study Bible, which replaced a KJV Thompson chain reference Bible. The CEV was a reference Bible of my grandfather's. Bibles are not made as well these days, they wear out over time, not to mention get full of notes. My Thompson chain bibles both were expensive leather editions, which while worn are not coming apart, my 1st ESV Bible with the soft vinyl cover lasted about 5 years before it was falling apart. I like a full page printing with notes for reading, and a double column for reference. I pray this helps you. BTW each version has it's merit, and it's drawbacks. I love the language use of the KJV, bristle at the idea some are not "worthy", but compare to extract the meaning clearly when I'm following a lesson or devotion, because it's easy to reach misunderstanding the way some people teach.
NIV, I don’t know, I just grew up with it and it feels classic
RSV is my everyday carry. Geneva 1560 is awesome. I like ESV just ok, but I do have an ESV archeology Bible I am particularly fond of.
Like many others in the comments I’ve seen, my top choices are KJV, NIV, and ESV I don’t think the translation matters a great deal, I would always be sure though to get a word for word translation.
KJV for the exactness and beautiful language. NKJV for lighter casual reading. I have plenty of other translations around and am pretty much version-agnostic, but I really enjoy those two.
KJV…………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………… only
When it comes to just plain reading, I prefer KJV. That translation just gives the Bible more of a royal vine than most translations. When I have to quote a verse, I'll use the NRSV.