What Bible is Right for Me?

[Dee Dee Warren]

NATURAL SPIRIT MINISTRIES (http://www.naturalspiritministries.com/)

WHAT BIBLE IS RIGHT FOR ME?

By Adam Quigly, NSMinistries

In my line of work I help bookstores match the kind of Bible their customers want purchase compared to their needs and wants. Most questions called into Bible Hotline are easy such as "Can you find me a Bible with large print and red lettering in the New Testament?". Others become more detailed such as locating a Bible that uses the name ''Yahweh'' or ''Yeshua'' for the name of the Lord. Each phone call is a different challenge and triumph.

So how does one pick a Bible for his or her self? The first question we ask is what is this Bible going to be used for; study, devotions, reference, or just for carrying to church. After that determination has been made we can narrow down a list of Bibles to the personality of the buyer.

After determining the type of Bible we move to what kind of binding they would like. There are many bindings to choose from in Bibles these days. There is paper back, hard back (also known as cloth bound), imitation leather (plastic or laminated covers), bonded leather (two or more pieces of genuine leather chemically bond together), and genuine leather (including standard leather Bibles made of pig skin to the more luxgerious ones made of Moroccan leathers or calf skins), also there are specialty cover such as metal and rubberized covers.

Of the many features in a Bible the most popular is the thumb indexing. This is the cut out tabs on the pages of the Bible that mark the books of the Bible. There is also the sticky tabs that can be applied to the pages to help locate the books as well but are not as popular due to them sticking out of the edge of the Bible. Other features that are popular are concordances and maps. Instead of having to lug around extra books these are built into the Bible. This has become the norm for most Bibles since the late 1960's.

The difference in study Bibles varies as greatly as people do. The most common types are the Commentary study (such as the NIV Study Bible from Zondervan), Life Application (put out by both Zondervan and Tyndale), Reference Study (interlinear, and chain reference Bibles). They can also be branched into Bibles edited by certain people (Matthew Henry, Spiros Zodhiates, and others), for certain groups (such as men's & women's study, personal study, and devolvement or age).

Reference Bibles are the standard for most non-specialty Bibles these days. Most common of these are the center column reference Bibles that have the references in the middle between the two columns of text. Other types include verse end reference, side column reference, and end of page reference. These types of Bibles give the locations of other verses that are similar to ones read or show the fulfillment of a passage or prophecy.

Devotional Bibles also come in many formats from one year reading through the Bible to daily devotions and Bible verses. As with study Bibles devotional Bibles can be arranged to fit certain groups by age, sex, and personal taste. These types of Bibles are becoming fewer than they have been in the past.

The less common Bibles such as pew Bibles and plain text Bibles have seen a new come back these past few years where people have started carrying lighter weight Bibles to church instead of the bigger bulkier study and reference Bibles. By far the thinner Bibles such as Zonervan's Thinline, Broadman & Holman's Ultrathin, Nelson and World's Slimeline have become the most popular for carrying to church due to being so light weight and compact.

As it turns out there is a Bible for just about anyone. Like sports try the Sports Devotional from Zondervan (it even comes in a basketball and football bonded leather covers). Want to understand the meanings of the original languages get an AMG Publisher Key Word Study Bible or Interlinear Bible from Sovereign Grace Publishers, or how about adding your own notes to the Bible, try a loose-leaf Bible or Biblesoft's Pc Study Bibles software that you can add I your own notes to the search features.

So take your time in researching the kind of Bible you are looking for. There are all kinds of Bibles but you must be comfortable with what you choose or you run the risk of putting it on the shelf and forgetting it.

Adam Quigley NSMinistries

For futher reference please check out the Bibles (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6673) thread for a wealth of information on the various Bible.

300
TheologyWeb is very grateful and blessed for its partnership relationship with both Adam and his ministry. He has been a faithful and fun member of this site since its inception and a longtime friend prior. Thank you Adam.
300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.
300
Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[NSMinistries]

Oh, I didn't think it was going up so fast... :nsm:

[NSMinistries]

wow didn't expect to see this article pop back up on the search...

[Amazing Rando]

The tags at the bottom of the OP need to be fixed.

[DeiSponsa]

I wish I had read this years ago! Alas, I now have 3 or 4 bibles, and that's ok :) I'm a fan of my NIV Student Bible by Zondervan.

[DBinder]

I wish I could get in contact with the translation committee of the NIV. I have found some places where they mistranslated the clear Hebrew to force a faulty interpretation. In Job they translate 'sons of God' as 'angels'. Also in the new 2010 NIV in Genesis 6 they say that the 'sons of God' married the daughters of 'humans' implying that the sons of God are not humans. In doing this they force the interpretation that the sons of God are angels and are able to marry and have sexual relations with humans disagreeing with Jesus! Mark 12:25 in the resurrection there will be no need for marriage "they will be like angels" in that angels do not marry, they do not procreate. Angels also are not called "son" according to Hebrews 1:5-9. Only humans are sons, only Jesus Son of God fully human and fully God, only human believers in God can be sons of God. In Genesis the sons of God were believers who married unbelievers (daughters of men). And in Job the sons of God present before God, Job was one of them that is why God points him out to Satan.

[Jayaruh]

I've been through a lot of different bibles in my life. Now, I am getting away from all the specialty Bibles and getting back to the basics. I did by my first NKJV about three years ago after using the NIV since the 70s. My NKJV is a large print with a concordance and maps. It contains cross references and book intros, but other than that it is a basic Bible. I enjoy it greatly. It reads pretty naturally. I am not a fan of the enclusive Bibles. Bibles are so expensive today. Find one that works for you, read it, understand it, and live by it.

[kyleisnotdead]

I like using the NIV just because it's so universal. I like ESV or NRSV more, but the fact that NIV is kind of the de-facto translation and is used just about everywhere makes it my number one choice. It works fine, and strikes a nice point of balance between ornate and informal. What's not to like?

[Fortoggie]

It Has been said, that as long as you have only one time piece, you will always know exactly what time it is; are at least will assume that you know the exact time. Now that we have several time pieces, there is always some doubt as to which one is most accurate. I think that it is that way with the bible translations, they all get us close enough to a spiritual truth so that we can benefit from the message. Yet there is always the question; was it written in a context for our time? Was it written before men knew that the world was round; i.e, the four corners of the earth are were the stories told before mankind knew the real meaning of time? As in Gen.10 where men presumably lived to 500 plus years.

In the case of Genesis 10, the question is not which translation states it best but rather; should we take it literally?

[Cow Poke]

In the case of Genesis 10, the question is not which translation states it best but rather; should we take it literally?

Good point, but I always like to point out that we, in our age, continue to use phrases that, to somebody not familiar with our world, might think odd. Think about the phrase "at sunrise". We fully understand that the Earth revolves, and the Sun is "fixed" (relative to Earth), but it would be very awkward to refer to "that point of time where the Earth has sufficiently rotated so as to allow the first views of the light coming from the sun to appear on our horizon" (or whatever the proper definition would be).

By the way, I noticed that the sun is setting a little earlier each day. :smile:

[Jicky]

Bible Translations Guide

At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed. Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation, but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier.

There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order.

Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.

The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):

The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."

The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."

Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."

The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.

For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.

The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.

Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.


Finding a Balance


Both literal and dynamic equivalence philosophies can be carried to extremes. One translation that carries literalism to a ludicrous extreme is the Concordant Version, which was translated by a man who had studied Greek and Hebrew for only a short time. He made a one-to-one rendering in which each word in the ancient originals was translated by one (and only one) word in English. This led to numerous absurdities. For example, compare how the Concordant Version of Genesis 1:20 compares with the NIV:

"And saying is God, ‘Roaming is the water with the roaming, living soul, and the flyer is flying over the earth on the face of the atmosphere of the heavens’" (Concordant Version).

"And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky’" (NIV).

At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones (like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture with items of modern ones.

Compare the NIV rendering of Matthew 9:16-17 with what is found in the CPV:

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (NIV).

"Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage" (CPV).

Between the extremes of the Concordant Version and the Cotton-Patch Version is a spectrum of respectable translations that strike different balances between literal and dynamic equivalence.

Toward the literal end of the spectrum are translations such as the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard (NAS), and the Douay-Rheims Version.

Next come slightly less literal translations, such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and the Confraternity Version.

Then there are mostly dynamic translations such as the New International Version (NIV) and the New American Bible (NAB).

And finally, toward the very dynamic end of the spectrum are translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the "Good News Bible," whose translation is called Today’s English Version (TEV).

One translation that is hard to place on the spectrum is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The basic text of the NRSV is rendered literally, following the RSV, but it uses "gender inclusive language," which tries to translate the original text into a modern "gender neutral" cultural equivalent. When you read the NRSV you will often encounter "friends," "beloved," and "brothers and sisters," and then see a footnote stating "Gk brothers." The NRSV also shows a preference for using "God" and "Christ" when the original text says "he."

There is also a host of minor versions, most of which are dynamic equivalence translations. These include well-known ones, such as the Moffat, Philips, and Knox translations, and also unique, specialty versions such as the Jewish New Testament (JNT, translated by David Stern), which renders New Testament names and expressions with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Yiddish equivalents.

Finally, there are a selection of paraphrases, which are not translations based on the original languages but are paraphrased versions of English translations. These tend toward the extreme dynamic end of the spectrum. The best known is the Living Bible (TLB), also known as "The Book."

The basic question you need to ask when selecting a Bible version is the purpose you are pursuing. If you simply want a Bible for ordinary reading, a moderate or dynamic version would suffice. This would enable you to read more of the text quickly and comprehend its basic meaning, though it would not give you the details of its meaning, and you would have to watch out more for the translators’ doctrinal views coloring the text.


What is the Best Bible?


If you intend to do serious Bible study, a literal translation is what you want. This will enable you to catch more of the detailed implications of the text, but at the price of readability. You have to worry less about the translators’ views coloring the text, though even very literal translations are not free from this entirely.

A second question you will need to ask yourself is whether you want an old or a modern translation. Older versions, such as the King James and the Douay-Rheims, can sound more dignified, authoritative, and inspiring. But they are much harder to read and understand because English has changed in the almost four hundred years since they were done.

One down side to using certain modern translations is that they do not use the traditional renderings of certain passages and phrases, and the reader may find this annoying. The "Good News Bible" or TEV is especially known for non-traditional renderings. For example, "the abomination of desolation" referred to in the book of Daniel and the Gospels is called "the awful horror," and the ark of the covenant is known as "the covenant box."

Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me," or, "My King James Version corrects your Greek text."

They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version" (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call "Douay-Rheims-onlyism." The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.

The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the "Douay-Challoner" version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize).

For most the question of whether to use an old or a modern translation is not so pointed, and once a decision has been reached on this question it is possible to select a particular Bible version with relative ease.

We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and suggest using the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. This is a Church-approved version of the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament. It has been reissued by Ignatius Press under the title The Ignatius Bible (available from Catholic Answers in both hardcover (http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0189.html?E+scstore) and paperback (http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0181.html?E+scstore) formats).

In the end, there may not be a need to select only one translation of the Bible to use. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot collect several versions of the Bible, aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each. It is often possible to get a better sense of what is being said in a passage by comparing several different translations.
So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.
<HR>

[Jayaruh]

So, which Bible is the best? Perhaps the best answer is this: The one you’ll read.


Ditto!

[elija.wattson]

Personally, as a new Christian, I started with a NIV (New International Version) which is a good blend of readability and faithfulness to the original text. If you are completely unsure or overwhelmed by the number of translations, I would recommend the NIV. Many of the Scriptural citations on this site are from the NIV. There are some problems with it that I won't get into here, but for a new Christian, the NIV is very inexpensive and easily accessible. I currently use a NASB (New American Standard Bible). Although it's slightly more challenging to read, there are some benefits that I personally prefer. In addition to being a more word-for-word translation, I like the fact that personal pronouns for Diety are capitalized. For example, when The Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are referred to in the text it will read as "He" or "Him". It does two things for me - one is that it aides in my understanding of the passage as far as who is speaking or being referred to. Also, it is a good reminder of the reverence and respect that I should have for God.

[elija.wattson]

The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about—but not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).’ To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."If the erg- derivatives were translated consistently as "work" then it would be clear that the passage says God will judge "every person according to his works" and will give eternal life to those who seek immortality "by persistence in working good"—statements that support the Catholic view of salvation.Even when there is no doctrinal agenda involved, it is difficult to do word studies in dynamic translations because of inconsistency in how words are rendered. Beyond this, the intent of the sacred author can be obscured.

[Josheb]

There are difficulties in every translation. That's why serious study always requires at least two translations (one literal and one dynamic - and both contemporary language, imo) plus a Greek text. You seem to already realize this (how would any of that post be known if a Greek text hadn't been consulted. Rather than develop a bias against or a preference for one ofer the other use both. There's no tyranny here except that which is taken on. Personally, I use the NIV and I use it often. I use my NAS right along side it, though. I use both daily. I also use four or five other translations intermittently (YLT, ESV, HCS, NLT, sometimes KJV) and just to prompt myself out of my comfort zone I'll use something other than my NAS or NIV as my carrying-around Bible (the one I read over coffee or standing at the gas pump). I increasingly use an e-reader (Kindle) and now have several translation always at hand. It doesn't replace the e-Bible on my desktop for fast study and searches, but I'm never without the word in diverse form.

[arnoldo]

For the Kindle e reader I would recommend the following free bibles. The Holman Christian Standard Bible Kindle Edition (http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bible-Christian-ebook/dp/B0045U9UES/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338157250&sr=1-1-fkmr0) reads and flows well in an e book format and would be ideal for someone who wants to just read a particular book of the bible all the way through. For someone who would wants to check cross references while reading the bible and perhaps have a more in depth study, then the ESV Bible (with Cross-References) , Kindle Edition, (http://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338158761&sr=1-1-fkmr0) is a must.

[Josheb]

For the Kindle e reader I would recommend the following free bibles. The Holman Christian Standard Bible Kindle Edition (http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bible-Christian-ebook/dp/B0045U9UES/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338157250&sr=1-1-fkmr0) reads and flows well in an e book format and would be ideal for someone who wants to just read a particular book of the bible all the way through. For someone who would wants to check cross references while reading the bible and perhaps have a more in depth study, then the ESV Bible (with Cross-References) , Kindle Edition, (http://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1338158761&sr=1-1-fkmr0) is a must.
Amen. I have both on my Kindle, too. However, I also have the NASB and use that most often. It's nice to have a Bible (or three) handy but I still think the advantages of a desktop/laptop eBible are immeasurable.

[Cerebrum123]

If you are in a hurry http://www.biblegateway.com/ can get you not only the verse you want, but the translation as well(not sure if they have all translations). I have memory problems(mostly short term), and I find the site highly useful.

[Josheb]

If you are in a hurry http://www.biblegateway.com/ can get you not only the verse you want, but the translation as well(not sure if they have all translations). I have memory problems(mostly short term), and I find the site highly useful.
Yes, biblos.com is also good.

[jesusfreak]

For me my dad told me a great thing that has helped me out when picking a translation. He said when you are picking out a translation pick a few different scriptures and read the same scripture in the different translations that you are looking at and pick the one that you understand better.

as a disclaimer the message translation wasn't out yet when he gave me that advice. I do like to look at the message every now and then to see what their paraphrase is of what I just read in my New American Standard Bible but I don't really use the message for actual study

[Racer X]

I've been more concerned with having a literal word for word translation. The last version I used was the NASB and it read okay for me, but then I picked up the ESV and it was all over after that. I like the way it reads and it's a literal translation, bonus.

Concerning paraphrase bibles, Lockerman's (NASB) Amplified version has always been a favorite, but then my daughter got me the "Action Bible" for Christmas, but I never bring it to church. http://theactionbible.com/

[joshhuntnm]

There are lots of good choices and few choices of bad bibles. the more the better. there is no perfect translation.

[ObamaAntichrist]

*incorrectly posted*

[ObamaAntichrist]

I have the New World Translation. Thought it was the King James Version until I read the inner writing just recently, but thats the only copy of the Bible I use.

[Cerebrum123]

I have the New World Translation. Thought it was the King James Version until I read the inner writing just recently, but thats the only copy of the Bible I use.

And it's altered in such a way as to support Jehovah's Witnesses' false doctrines. I would say that it's even less reliable than the KJV.

[Cow Poke]

I have the New World Translation. Thought it was the King James Version until I read the inner writing just recently, but thats the only copy of the Bible I use.

The NWT is probably the most egregious example of a group editing the Bible to fit their unorthodox beliefs. It was "translated" by an anonymous committee, but defectors have reportedly identified the "committee" as the then officers of the Church. There was little or no scholarship involved at all.

[manish1983]

A New Living Translation is also good. It is a paraphrase, so it's pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

You also might want to look into the Contemporary English Version.
He rejoices over you, with singing !

Choose you this day whom you will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.!

[Jaecp]

I'm a fan of the NSRV personally.

[Debbaux]

I have the New World Translation. Thought it was the King James Version until I read the inner writing just recently, but thats the only copy of the Bible I use.
ObamaAntichrist, whatever version you have at hand is fine if it speaks to you personally. You are in our prayers right now. God bless you.

[Debbaux]

I'm a fan of the NSRV personally.
You have a copy of the Catholic version of the bible? No argument there Jaecp, I'm impressed, really.

[foudroyant]

I use the King James Bible.
I'm not KJV-Only for if I debate I most always cite the NASB.
The KJV is simply what I prefer to read.

[Dee Dee Warren]

You have a copy of the Catholic version of the bible? No argument there Jaecp, I'm impressed, really.

Ask Catholic apologists what they think of that translation. Its an eye opener. They run away from it as fast as Mormons from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

[Debbaux]

Ask Catholic apologists what they think of that translation. Its an eye opener. They run away from it as fast as Mormons from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.
There you go, we learn something every day. My amazement is to do more with the fact that Jaep has a bible at all (no offence Jaecp). I keep clear of the scholarly bible threads here except to peep in on John Reece’s comments sometimes when my mouth drops in awe of his detail and expertise. The scholarly work of arguing points of translation differences in the various versions is beyond me. I just compare versions if one is unclear in meaning, and look further into a quote from someone reliable here if the verse is of particular interest. You can’t help but learn things here, that’s for sure.

My home copies are:
Knox version, 1954 – my old Catholic college copy

Good News Bible, Catholic Australian edition – a gift from my father

King James Version, pocket edition with hardcover sleeve – bought travelling 40 yrs ago. Still used for bush camping trips when my big treat is to read the gospel of John over the week alone. The paper is tissue thin and I need glasses to read it these days, but I still love this beautiful little book.

[KingsGambit]

I like the NIV. I know it's not perfect but I like to balance what I read with scholarly commentary wherever possible so my main goal is just to get the main thrust of what I'm reading, and to work out the exact details later.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I like the New King James. It retains the poetry of the KJV but with updated language. For translational accuracy I live the NASB. But it can be awkward.

[Jedidiah]

I have read and studied with several different versions. Guess what. Contrary to what some may say, I got the same message from each one. Even the New World can not hide the true message.

[elysian]

I like the Amplified Bible for study, as it gives a bit more nuance and depth to the text which is helpful because I don't know Hebrew or Greek.
The main disadvantage of the Amplified is that it can be a bit cumbersome, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs.

At church we use the NRSV, which I wouldn't call a Catholic Bible per se, though mine includes the Apocrypha. The Catholics I know generally use the NAB- New American Bible (http://nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.shtml)- which was translated by and for American Catholics. It does have a distinctively Catholic bias, especially if you get one of the study bibles.

The only issue I have with the NRSV is, while easier to read than the Amplified Bible, it panders a bit too much to gender neutrality in places. It's OK to say "brothers" if it is a group of all men, rather than "brethren." I think most women understand that when one talks about "mankind" it is normally in reference to "humans"- male and female- unless otherwise specified.

The NIV is the version we use at church with the elementary and middle school catechism kids because it's easy to understand and it's a good literal translation. There are some really good NIV bibles for kids and teens out there also.

Some people at church like The Message, but I really don't care for it if I have more literal translations available.

[arnoldo]

For those people on the run perhaps an audio bible you can put on your ipod is the right choice. Bible.is gives you the choice of picking different bible translations to listen to in addition to whether the books are dramatized or not. The best part is that the app is absolutely free and you can even listen to it on your computer at the following link below.

http://www.bible.is/ENGESV/Matt/1

[ikaika777]

My “go to” Bible translation is the NASB 1971 version and my second would be the ESV.

[ikaika777]

Sorry, I meant to say the 1977 NASB Version.