Which Bible translation is best.

[soondak]

I put this here because people interested in missions would know best.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm partial to the NKJV, but that could be because I was raised on the KJV. The ESV is pretty good too.

[candlesandfish]

I'd vote NKJV too, it's a good translation and easy to read.

[soondak]

Cool thank you.

[Findo]

I'm a fan of the ESV (http://esv.org)

[Littlejoe]

I'm also a fan of the ESV...I bought one after reading a similar thread about a year ago. I think it was Jaltus who said that it was one of the best translations...but I'm not 100% sure on that. I am also a fan of the NASB...both translations are very literally accurate, but I think the ESV reads better i.e. smoother in most cases.

LJ

[gharfish]

I vote for the Amplified Bible translation as best, all things considered. But, the New English Translation is impressive too.

[Adrift]

I'm also a fan of the ESV...I bought one after reading a similar thread about a year ago. I think it was Jaltus who said that it was one of the best translations...but I'm not 100% sure on that. I am also a fan of the NASB...both translations are very literally accurate, but I think the ESV reads better i.e. smoother in most cases.

LJ

I keep hearing that the NASB is one of the better translations from the experts...

and by expert, i mean some of the crackpots who hang out in Tweb's paltalk

[Abelard]

I prefer to read the ESV or Holman but use the NRSV for academics.

I dislike the Amplified Bible because it encourages readers to select the text they prefer. You can easily distort the truth with the Amplified Bible.

[historic salve]

Stay away from the Amplified Bible, the Message Bible, and other dynamic translations.

Personally, I like the NET Bible: http://net.bible.org/home.php

[Raphael]

I also like the ESV.

HS, the Message is at best a paraphrase, not a translation.

[Alucard]

I like the New Revised Standard Version, and the New English Translation.

[gharfish]

Good grief. This isn't a debate thread. It is a recommendation one, and that's a request for what's your particular "I like..." I have virtually every last translation that there is of The Bible and each of the paraphrases too, so my vouching for the The Amplified Bible is not without this information to help me compare them.

[Glenn P]

I like the ESV, but wish it were a little more literal at times.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Soondak,

I don't think there is a "best" translation. It really depends on what you want the translation to do for you. If you want literary majesty it is tough to beat the KJV. However, if you want ease of reading or clarity as to what the translators think the underlaying text says, my favorite is the New Living Translation (I do not always agree with the NLT translation but I always know what they are saying. In others, I read the translation and I am not sure what they are saying). If scholarliness is what you want, the NIV has both a very good Study Bible and an excellent interlinear. Each translation has certain advantages and disadvantages, it is simply a matter of find which meet your needs.

I just don't think there is a simple, stock answer.



I put this here because people interested in missions would know best.

[historic salve]

Good grief. This isn't a debate thread. It is a recommendation one, and that's a request for what's your particular "I like..." I have virtually every last translation that there is of The Bible and each of the paraphrases too, so my vouching for the The Amplified Bible is not without this information to help me compare them.
I didn't see your post. Sorry, I wasn't trying to sleight you.

[gharfish]

It was Abelard's post that bugged me. It doesn't encourage readers to select the text they prefer. It doesn't easily lend itself to distortion of biblical truth by some individual or group. Nuts to these !

We both like the N.E.T. That's a good recommendation, I think.

[timspong]

I use the ESV mainly. The NASV, NRSV, and the NET bible are all good. They are literal yet very easy to read. The NRSV and ESV are very similar apart from the fact that the NRSV uses more PC gender inclusive language.

The dynamic equivalent translations like the NIV, NLT, the message etc, are more like commentaries IMHO rather than the actual sacred text. When they get it right they are great and add clarity, when they get it wrong, they are awful and completely obscure meaning.

I still like the poetic language of the KJV though and still use it occasionally. The NKJV is a good attempt at being easier to read, but still uses the same flawed greek text as the KJV and you also lose out on most of the great poetic language of the KJV. I consider the ESV to be where the NKJV tried to be.

Even the RSV is pretty good, but got labeled as a heretical bible, mainly because of the way they translated virgin to young woman in Isaiah 7:14. If you actually think about it, when Isaiah gave the prophesy, everyone would have assumed him to mean young woman. It is not until the NT and Matthew 1:23 that the full meaning of the prophesy would become apparent and virgin would have been used instead.

[Silver Hand]

- Literal translation I do in depth study from: NASB, because it's the most literal, often annoyingly so

- General translation of choice: ESV, because it's basically literal, but not annoyingly so

-Translation used when sharing my faith: usually NIV, because it's popular and widely used