Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Which English version of the Bible do you like best?

I have over thirty versions of the Bible, in several languages � and have carefully excluded certain others that I know to be inaccurate. I grew-up with the King James version (KJV), and for several decades, based my Bible-study on it because all the best peripheral study references were keyed to it. Mainly out of mere habit now, I'm still programmed to turn to the KJV first � and because it's probably still the most familiar version among most Christians.

So I have two questions for y'all � consider 'em kind of a poll. (I'm honestly seeking candid answers to these questions, not aiming to start an argument or pissing match.)

� Which version of the English Bible do you like best?

� Which of the following is most important to you?
a. easy reading
b. accurate translation
c. familiarity
d. tradition
e. stately prose
f. clarity
g. understanding
h. other (in your own words)

I have what to me is a good reason for asking. As I write Christian essays and books, I often C&P long passages from the Bible. Since the whole purpose of these writings is to enliven readers' understanding, it's best to know which version does the best job with the most readers � and why.

I appreciate your attention and your help. Thanks!

I prefer the NIV, mainly for the modern language. Old English does have some advantages, like the handling of the singular/plural 'you', but for the most part, I like the NIV.

Which versions do you know have inaccuracies?

Schofield - basically a KJV with helpful footnotes.

I like the King James & New International Version.
Other's as well ...

'Understanding' comes from God's Holy Spirit MORE than any 'particular' translation.

English Standard Version/New American Standard for accuracy

New International Version for the Psalms as their translation is loose enough for readability and accuracy.

NASB familiarity.

NLT for fun.
KJV for memory.

NIV

I have favored the New King James for quite a few years in the Schofield version but recently have started using the NET.org bible. Crank it up and see what you think. It's free!

King James. It seems to be as accurate as anything we have available.

The KJV is the only one I was ever exposed to and not that for fifty years.

KJV, traditional, and somehow comforting in it's style of wording.

The King James Version. Call me a snob if you will, but later versions have, in my opinion, lost much of the majesty of the KJV. I freely admit that I am a "smells and bells" Anglican and prefer liturgy to "happy clappy" revivalism, and where I attend divine services we use the "Thomas Cranmer" Old Book of Common Prayer.

I always ask my friends who promote the NIV (and other modern versions) of the Bible as making it "more accessible", if they would favour a NIV of Shakespeare's Sonnets on the grounds of "making them more accessible"?

I think it is an error to remove the beauty of language from our understanding and worship of God.

Ken, I would choose "h. other"

The most important English version to me is the version which uses the Textus Receptus as the base Greek text from which it translates the New Testament. That means either the King James, or the New King James versions. All of the others use either the spurious 'Westcott and Hort" text or a derivative such as the Nestle text. The KJV and most of the new versions (basically the 1889 English Revised Version onward) use the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament, so there is no argument there. All of the new versions are hamstrung by not using the plenary Received Text as the basis for their New Testament translation.

I have been a big NIV guy for decades, but the new living translation is also very good IMO.

Both arer far easier to read and understand than a KJV and are more accurate in translation as well with more and older manuscripts avaialble at the time of translation, better understanding of ancient languages, and - this one is really important in my view - lots of multi denominational cross checking and oversight on both versions during translation to avoid undue or improper infulences or bents from contaminating anything or aiming the script from anything but the best possible and most true to the originals pure translation within the confines of using contemporary English.

NKJV for me.

This...

I've mentioned this here before, but doing it again won't hurt (I hope!) �

One of my Jewish friends gave me a copy of the 1985 Tanakh, "A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text" by the Hebrew linguists of the Jewish Publication Society. I find it fascinating and probably more trustworthy than the KJV Old Testament or any of its spin-offs.

For example, Genesis 1:1a reads


The footnote reads � Others "In the beginning God created."

In the front matter, the forenote Abbreviations and Terms explains that Others "Indicates a well-known traditional translation, especially if it was used in the older (1917) JPS version, that the committee does not find acceptable even as an alternative reading."

The difference seems to be very slight indeed, but I really appreciate the obviously meticulous attention to crystalline fidelity in translation � a quality proven to be appallingly lacking in the KJV and its spin-offs.

KJV - for its "familiarity" and "stately prose"

NIV - for "easy reading"

The combination of NIV and KJV for "understanding" (which is most important to me).

Ken, if you have not had the opportunity, read my post which answered your original question. The KJV is virtually the only widespread English translation that uses the plenary and ecclectic Textus Receptus as the underlying Greek text for the New Testament. An accurate translation of a spurious Greek text is just another incomplete and misleading translation. As for the Hebrew Old Testament, all of the study I have done points to the Masoretic text as the accurate Hebrew text.

NKJV

for reasons A,F,&G