Good Bible translation?

by grey matters 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • grey matters
    grey matters

    I quit reading the bible when I left the org. I would like to start again, but am averse to reading the NWT. Has anyone found a translation they like?

  • fullofdoubtnow

    Hi gray matters,

    I don't read the bible nowadays, but there are plenty of decent translations around, and you can look at quite a few on the Gateway passage look up site here:

    Take a look and see which one takes your fancy.

  • Narkissos

    Hi and welcome grey matters,

    I'm not familiar with many English translations, but I generally enjoy the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I think the Jerusalem Bible (which is based on the excellent French Bible de Jérusalem) is a great one too.

  • evergreen

    Narkissos ,

    In what ways have is the Jerusalem bible good as i like to get differnt translations?
    I have thought about getting this translation.

    Also if im not mistaken , dont they use the name Yahweh in their translation?

  • Mysterious

    I personally have no real opinions beyond that the NWT is junk..but asking my Christian friends here (evangelical and mainstream protestant) they seem to prefer the NIV bible to any other translation so it might be one to look into. From what I understand it's easy to read and written in modern english, upholds the "word was god" translation of john 1:1 etc.

  • Narkissos


    I mostly appreciate the French Bible de Jérusalem (1998 edition) for its introductions and footnotes which offer a fairly good view of current mainstream (and especially Catholic) scholarship. The (French) translation is generally good, but not highly consistent because it is the work of many experts. And yes they use Yahvé (Yahweh) consistently where it belongs (i.e., in the OT).

    The introductions and footnotes of the NIV Study Bible reflect strong evangelical, conservative, apologetic and harmonising bias which I don't share. I have not practiced the translation very much but I sometimes came across passages which were affected (sometimes in an even worse way than the NWT) by the same tendencies. For instance, the use of the pluperfect in Genesis 2:19 ("now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts...") betrays a deliberate will to harmonise the second account of creation with the first one.

  • grey matters
    grey matters

    Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I'll check them out.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    I like the Good News translation for a starter when leaving the org. Really helped me see the bigger picture.

  • evergreen

    Thanks for your comments on the Jerusalem bible Narkissos, i may evetually get one. I currently have the KJV modern and old, RSV, and the american standard version.

    I use the Up todate KJV version as a study bible which i can mark and write comments in.

    Has anyone got the version called "the scriptures". ?

    It is relatively new and produced in south africa. It uses all the Hebrew names throughout and is quite an interesting bible to refer to.

    I downloaded it onto my pc through E sword which is a package programme for free.

  • Forscher

    I've kind of liked the NIV every since I first got a copy of it. It has its problems like just about every version otu there, but it is easy to read and does try to avoid really egregious errors by utilising a number of translators from diverse Evangelical traditions. The criticism that it is of an Evangelical orientation is justified. But the Publishers did try to avoid the worse of that by the diversity within that tradition of the translators them selves. No version is perfect.
    Another one I like is the Revised American Standard Version. Again, they used a simliar diversity of Scholars in the preparation of that version and produced a work which is generally acknowledged as one of the best out there. It has its problems as well, but is a reasonable bible to use as long as you are cognizant of its flaws.

Share this