Favorite non-KJV Translation


andypg
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if anyone here has a favorite non-KJV Bible translation that they like to use from time to time. My personal favorites that I use when I don't have a KJV on hand (like now where I'm on Christmas break and left my Quad behind)is the Douay-Rheims translation, which predates the KJV by 2 years and the Revised Standard Version.

Anyone else have any favorites and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't actually used it, but I looked through a Jerusalem Bible fifteen or twenty years ago and was greatly impressed.

Tolkien translated the Book of Jonah in that translation. Actually, that one remains a top favorite of Catholics. I haven't read of it, but from what I've heard, it's a great translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I like a version that was railroaded out of existence by a kind of reverse political correctness. Today's New International Version (TNIV) is basically the NIV, but the pronouns were made neutral whenever the original language texts (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) allowed it. "My brothers" might be "My people" since the original language and context clearly showed it was meant for all the people in the church. Alas, as a reaction to political correctness, a movement arose decrying this "cave" to liberalism and gender confusion, and actually campaigned against the translation. I believe the publisher discontinued it after only a few short years.

For new Christians, for those with limited education or English, I recommend the New Life Version. It's written at a 4th grade reading level, but is intended for all ages. It uses the 850 most common words in the English language, and yet, it is not a paraphrase. It's a true translation, and has gained favor with leaders and scholars of several denominations. I would not use it for deep doctrinal study, but as an introductory Bible, and for devotional purposes, its clarity is great.

New Life Version - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I like a version that was railroaded out of existence by a kind of reverse political correctness. Today's New International Version (TNIV) is basically the NIV, but the pronouns were made neutral whenever the original language texts (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) allowed it. "My brothers" might be "My people" since the original language and context clearly showed it was meant for all the people in the church. Alas, as a reaction to political correctness, a movement arose decrying this "cave" to liberalism and gender confusion, and actually campaigned against the translation. I believe the publisher discontinued it after only a few short years.

For new Christians, for those with limited education or English, I recommend the New Life Version. It's written at a 4th grade reading level, but is intended for all ages. It uses the 850 most common words in the English language, and yet, it is not a paraphrase. It's a true translation, and has gained favor with leaders and scholars of several denominations. I would not use it for deep doctrinal study, but as an introductory Bible, and for devotional purposes, its clarity is great.

New Life Version - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

I have not heard good things about the TNIV. As a general rule, I steer clear of any translation with inclusive language, which is a problem that plagues too many translations today.

I have a NLT New Testament (got it in the mail from Greg Laurie's Harvest Ministries). I like it, but like you said, it's a beginner's Bible and now really suitable for my needs. I tend to prefer a literal translation (or a literal translation with dynamic when it's appropriate, the RSV is an example of that).

it's interesting to find and read new translations I never gave a second thought to. As a Catholic I tried to stick to Catholic only Bibles, so my knowledge of non-Catholic translations is lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For literal translations, the New American Standard Bible--NASB--is a favorite of more conservative Protestants. It's a word-for-word version that was so good, when I took Greek, we'd check our translations against it to see how we did, before we'd go to class. The downside for more literal translations is that they tend not to read as smoothly. Since I mainly work with folk that are not so advanced, I tend to look for versions that are intentionally accessible to readers who may have less formal education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For literal translations, the New American Standard Bible--NASB--is a favorite of more conservative Protestants. It's a word-for-word version that was so good, when I took Greek, we'd check our translations against it to see how we did, before we'd go to class. The downside for more literal translations is that they tend not to read as smoothly. Since I mainly work with folk that are not so advanced, I tend to look for versions that are intentionally accessible to readers who may have less formal education.

I think what translation you use depends on what you use it for.Some ate better than others depending on its use. Personally, I'm a big intellectual theology guy so I prefer more literal and most accurate translation possible. Which is why I prefer the RSV and Douay-Rheims. I need to check out the NASB since before I was restricted to Bibles that included the deuterocanonical books. Now I have somewhat more freedom.

I'm curious, why haven't LDS scholars (and I'm sure there are many that know the language and Biblical texts) made their own translation instead of relying on one made during the great apostasy? Or use the Joseph Smith Translation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I used the Duay-Rheims (what I have at home), The Catholic Living Bible (what we used in school), and the New American Bible (used in Church) growing up.

I went to the KJV only after becoming LDS. And since then, I haven't used any other Bible for private devotion/study. I sometimes use the New American Bible to read with the kids because it is just easier for the kids to understand the text but we skip over the deuterocanonical stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the Duay-Rheims (what I have at home), The Catholic Living Bible (what we used in school), and the New American Bible (used in Church) growing up.

I went to the KJV only after becoming LDS. And since then, I haven't used any other Bible for private devotion/study. I sometimes use the New American Bible to read with the kids because it is just easier for the kids to understand the text but we skip over the deuterocanonical stuff.

I like the Duay-Rheims a lot, though I barely used it as the one I have is very small and expensive so I can't write in it. Though when writing reports for school or referring to a Bible verse, it was usually the one I would use.

Never heard of the Catholic Living Bible. From a quick Google search, it seems like a dynamic and thought for thought translation. Can I ask when you went to school? For us, in school we generally used the New American Bible because it was easier to use the one we hear at Mass. However, for personal study I hated the NAB as it isn't the best translation and (from a Catholic standpoint) had questionable footnotes. So for personal study I would use the NRSV-CE mainly because I was too lazy to by a RSV-2CE.

Personally, I'm considering looking into a good, accessible yet accurate translation just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, why haven't LDS scholars (and I'm sure there are many that know the language and Biblical texts) made their own translation instead of relying on one made during the great apostasy? Or use the Joseph Smith Translation?

Latter-day Saints do not have a tradition of scholarly scriptural erudition, as so many other Christian churches (especially traditional churches) have. This is not coincidence. Much of what we call "philosophy" was introduced into the early (we would say "apostate") Christian church as a replacement for revelation.

In his outstanding talk on "Leaders and Managers", Nibley quotes Augustine as finding rhetorical education (the foundation of the schools of philosophy) to be commodior et multitudini tutior, or "handier and more reliable for the public", than revelation. But we are a Church founded on revelation. The scriptures, per se, are not nearly as important to us as the living revelations from God.

So the very idea that we Latter-day Saints would establish a "theology" or seek God primarily through analysis of ancient languages is absurd to us. God lives, and God speaks, and we seek him through his living voice. The scriptures teach us to come unto Christ, but only by actually coming unto Christ do we experience God. All the rest is, to use Nibley's term once again, "eyewash".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Leaders and Managers article was pretty good. I enjoyed the comparison between Capt. Moroni and Amalickiah. Personally, I have always had some small reservations about Moroni. Didn't he quell an internal rebellion by putting a bunch of dissidents to the sword? (I could be mistaken.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't he quell an internal rebellion by putting a bunch of dissidents to the sword? (I could be mistaken.)

If you're thinking about the Kingmen, you're mistaken. They were tried and executed by the duly recognized government in accordance to the laws of the land during a time of war (Alma 51:5-7; 62:8-10).

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reread Alma 51 and these are the verses which give me a reason to ponder:

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

16 For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.

17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.

18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.

19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

It seems like Moroni declares war on the political minority, compelling them to battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moroni marches down to basically conscript them (with draft dodging being a capital offense) with the support of the duly recognized government. They (or at least some) take up arms against Moroni's forces and four thousand are slain in battle, surviving leaders are thrown into prison as there isn't time for trials. If Moroni was marching down there to simply put them all to the sword it's rather curious that leaders where placed in prison because there is no time for trials. In other terms the MPs showed up to make sure people reported for duty, it turned into a shoot out and when the smoke cleared the surviving leaders are put jail, he didn't just run down there and start chopping off the heads of everyone who happened to be a King-man.

Also, before feeling all oogy over them being singled out for conscription, what would have happened to any group of several thousand (at minimum four thousand by the account) Nephites that decided they didn't feel like defending the country? Was Moroni's warrant a special case where everyone else was free to sit out the war? Or was he asking to be given authority to apply the standing law and/or obligation? I'm inclined to give the benefit of a doubt because a universal expectation and obligation in such a society doesn't seem out there, particularly given their past wars with the Lamanites. If you see it as akin to the Tea Party loosing an election and being rounded up to serve in Afghanistan because they rub some officer the wrong way I can understand a double take, but I don't see it that way.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that Moroni's executions were not of mere "dissidents". These men were traitors, openly working to overthrow the government and then openly calling for the people not to help the government defend against an invading enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you see it as akin to the Tea Party loosing an election and being rounded up to serve in Afghanistan because they rub some officer the wrong way I can understand a double take, but I don't see it that way.

I think it's just one of those circumstances where I struggle to suppress my natural cynicism. Since our Book of Mormon isn't a detailed secular history, the reader is not going to get a glowing account of the king-men or an opposing view of Moroni, the Nephite hero. Since I don't want to derail the discussion too much I will probably do a forum search for king-men/conscription; there is probably an existing thread that covers the issue.

Dravin and Vort, your comments have encouraged me to investigate this period of Nephite history in greater detail. There may be a subtext that I have left unexplored.

To get back on topic, when reading the Bible with my non-LDS friends, I use whatever version the other person prefers. Right now, I'm reading the NIV Old Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never heard of the Catholic Living Bible. From a quick Google search, it seems like a dynamic and thought for thought translation. Can I ask when you went to school?

Started Catholic school in the 70's. CLB and NAB were used in school. But we don't get the whole Bible as a textbook. We get printed chapter/verses on copy paper with teacher commentary or the nuns would write the chapter/verse on the board and we copy it down to our notebook as we discuss it in class or the teacher would read from it and we just listen. So, the only reason I knew it was CLB and NAB is because as I got older, I started looking for the Bible that matches what I remember was taught to me.

I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten all the way through college.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the first Moroni was a follower of Christ and a righteous man. The Holy Spirit inspired Mormon to write the following in the Book of Mormon about Moroni:

"Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." -- Alma 48:17

That being said, I am not much on the New International Version of the Bible. I have stated in the past why I believe it to be an inferior translation and I can give examples if you wish.

I also like studying from the 21st Century King James Version Bible.

If you want to read from that version go here:

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different translations have their advantages. Older old-English type translations like the KJV and Douey-Rheims tent to have more poetic language, but can be tougher to follow. Contemporary versions like the NAB or NIV tend to be easier to follow but lack in poetry. I tend to gravitate toward middle ground translations like the RSV, though opting for that feels a bit like cheating on this question since RSV stands for "Revised Standard Version," and the "Standard Version" being referenced is the KJV.

I also like the RSV since I'm Catholic and it typically includes the deuterocanonical texts, and a bible just wouldn't feel whole without them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I was wondering if anyone here has a favorite non-KJV Bible translation that they like to use from time to time. My personal favorites that I use when I don't have a KJV on hand (like now where I'm on Christmas break and left my Quad behind)is the Douay-Rheims translation, which predates the KJV by 2 years and the Revised Standard Version.

Anyone else have any favorites and why?

Yes any children's bible, that has massive color in the animations and simplicity to telling the Gospels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the KJV is far from my favourite translation.

For a literary reading of scripture, the KJV isn't bad, if you don't mind its many quirks. I used the King James Version extensively when all I cared about was getting the basic message of the text and didn't know much about bibles, but there are better versions out there for this if you're living in the 21st century.

The translation I choose depends almost entirely on the purpose I'm reading for.

If I want a good and accurate translation that is easy to read and has the approval of a large circle of scholars, I'm going to go in the direction of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), or if for some reason you can't, the Revised Standard Version is respected too.

If I'm looking for a literal translation (called formal equivalence, the NRSV also uses it to an extent) that matches the text in Greek, prisonchaplain mentioned the NASB (New American Standard Bible). It's a fairly good translation and can be used for serious study, but as prisonchaplain said the problem with literal translations is they don't read quite as smoothly. That and some of the wordings can be interpreted as misleading since it translates the exact wording which is not always taken to mean the same thing that the person who wrote it meant (from a different area of the world, who spoke a different language, at a different time in history).

There are some people who think that most bibles say basically the same thing (just in a different way) and therefore all bibles are good. I'm not one of those people, at least to an extent I'm not. Most bibles do say much of the same, but not all of them are good for serious study.

If your intent is serious study, please avoid bibles like The MESSAGE, the NIV, or the KJV. Sorry, I'm pretty sure the KJV is the bible comes packaged with LDS, but it's from the 17th century. Great bible in its day, even a great literary work in this day, but it's not a good study bible. I'm not a Mormon so I'm not sure how much importance is placed by the Church on the bible version you use or if they even recommend the KV these days. I know it's a public domain bible so they may just package it for that reason, if so I'd love to know.

Edited by GrayMars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share