Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[Bootless]

Trust?

I trust the WEB (World English Bible).
What I trust about it is that I can quote from it without fear of copyright infringement law suits. Because it's meant to be public domain.

I do have a first edition of the 1971 New American Standard Bible © which was my primary reading source from 1974-1981.

For quick reference I have a Zondervan™  1990 Giant Print NIV©. It's big, so easily located. The print is big enough so that I don't need to also locate my reading glasses.

[UltraBudgie]

For quick reference I have a Zondervan™  1990 Giant Print NIV©. It's big so easily located. The print is big enough so that I don't need to also locate my reading glasses.

NIV makes "strange choices" at times. Consider Matthew 5:44:

KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

This comes down to the particular Greek source text used.¹ You'll have to decide for yourself which one you trust most. This is why I think it's important to be able to compare different translations, and refer to the source texts (especially the Textus Receptus).


¹ https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/5-44.htm

[andy06shake]

End of the day, the Bible is a book written by man with all his fears and fallibilities laid bare.

I mean it may very well be divinely inspired and contain some rather beautiful constructs and ideologies.

But it's silly not to acknowledge it's a product of man.

Written and compiled by humans and shaped by their time and culture.

It's also somewhat of a rehash of tales that came before.

[FlyersFan]

 I'll just point out that your statement there contradicts the gospels, specifically Luke 3:23-38.

Yep.  It does.  But we know there was no Adam and Eve.   So that ancestry is false.   It's not the only unreal thing in the bible.    Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, story of Jonah and the whale, Enoch, Job, Noahs Ark ... and in the New Testament we have the quote, supposedly by Jesus, talking about 'in Noahs time ...'  (Matthew 24:37-39) which is probably the most problematic quote in the New Testament.   We know there was no Noahs flood.   So that quote was either added by someone and Christ didn't say it ... or He said it and was wrong which would make him NOT God ... or He said it and was not meaning to take it literally but was instead using a reference they could understand (which is what I think probably happened).   Problematic ...

But the truth is that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written the closest to the time period of Jesus and were written by disciples of eyewitnesses so they are the ones that are to be looked to for closest to accurate about the life of Jesus.   Not historical fiction written by nobodies a few hundred years later.

[BeTheGoddess]

If I need to look something up, I go Revised Standard Edition, but if I'm going to post a quote it would be KJV because thats one most people know, I was once learning Biblical Hebrew but decades of not using it I dont think I could read it well enough now.

Now which translation of the Mahabharata do you prefer? /s

[Solvedit]

I am not claiming this way is correct, but it seems to make sense.

A modern, readable translation is for reading.  If there is a passage that seems both important and unclear, then the harder-to-read older versions like KJV or Douai-Rheims can be consulted because they are closer to the original, along with researching what respected scriptural experts have to say, as well as praying on it.

[BeTheGoddess]

Being Jewish we read the Torah.

I'm Jewish, I still sometimes read parts of the Bible. Plus Proverbs is fun.

[BeTheGoddess]

Sure.  But the only way to learn about Jesus is through the bible.
And not the gnostics.   They are obviously fakes and have been condemned.

Ohhh somebody hates Professor Elaine Pangles

[FlyersFan]

Ohhh somebody hates Professor Elaine Pangles

Never heard of her.  
Just looked her up after you said the name.

[RandomLurker]

New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition

Why?

It's one specifically approved by the USCCB.

And per one description:

Renowned for its balance of scholarship and readability, the NRSV is a trustworthy translation appropriate for personal spiritual formation and in the academy. This Catholic Edition of the NRSV bears the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and is approved for private use and study by the Catholic faithful.

I'm just a layperson and don't need to be worrying about how subtle differences in translation wording can completely change context.