* (Michael Kennedy) wrote:
I don't mean to pick on you Nigel, but........ Are you saying there are better mainstream Bibles around than KJV ? Forgetting the language, I'm talking about general accruacy. (Biblical scholarship, as you put it)

There are many excellent modern translations available today, and unless you have a good command of the original languages (or even if you do) it is wise not to restrict yourself to just one.

I have posted on this before, and it has turned into a major thread, which it may do again, but for the record:
I prefer the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) as my 'translation of choice', as it represents the widest and most comprehensive scholarship. The only qualification I have against the NRSV is the use of inclusive language (for people, but not for God). I think this is pastorally appropriate, but in Bible study I have to constantly mentally translate the words back into the original to get the sense of the author's words. The NRSV is a fairly mechanical translation (ie one word in English for each word in Hebrew/Greek), so the language is not always beautiful but it is usually accurate.

For devotional reading and as alternative versions for use in worship I like the New Jerusalem Bible and the Revised English Bible (in that order of preference), both of which make much more poetic use of the language. To check the accuracy and nuance of a passage I also make use of the NIV (New International Version), which is very good, although sometimes its obvious protestant bias shows through in ways I find annoying.

I discourage my students, parishioners and group members from using the following versions of the Bible, for the following reasons.

King James/ Authorised/ 1611 version.
The discovery of older and more comprehensive manuscript copies of the scriptures of both testaments has shown that, although the scholars of the court of King James did a great job with what they had, we can do better today because we have more and better resources available. There are also many minor inaccuracies in the version, and the English language has changed a lot in the past 390 years. The meanings of words, phrases and concepts then are not always the same as they are now. I know of no other book where people would choose to use a translation nearly 400 years old when there was a more up- to- date one available.

Good News Bible
This version was originally prepared for people for whom English was not their first language. It is often simplistic in its presentation of Biblical material, because it has a very limited vocabulary, and most of the people with whom I work are capable of reading a more demanding version.

NKJV (New King James Version)
This is really just an update of the 1611 version into slightly more modern English, but deliberately maintaining the same doctrinal stance and rendering the most conservative interpretation of all doubtful passages. This is the Bible to use if your doctrine is based on the KJV and you want to keep it that way, but if you are interested in having your mind opened to the richness and possibilities of God's word, there is a whole world out there.

-- Two final comments-

1. As I said at the beginning, whilst it is good to find a version that suits your doctrinal stance and preference for prose/ poetry style, every person would be wise to consult more than one version to get a feel for the range and nuances of meanings which can be drawn from the scriptures.

2. I think that every Christian's Bible should contain the Apocrypha (which the original 1611 version of the KJV did, strangely enough). These books were almost certainly in the Scriptures of the early Church, and although they contain some teachings which protestant Christians find uncomfortable, they also contain some beautiful wisdom and stories of great courage in faith and witness. As Jerome, who first translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into the language of the peole (then Latin) said (quoted in the Anglican 39 articles of faith), the Apocrypha should be read "for example of life and instruction in manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine".

I would be happy to discuss this further, but just in case you were thinking of mentioning magic numbers, please read the following, which may give you food for thought. http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/

Cheers
N+
Goodness without wisdom
always accomplishes evil.