Favorite Bible Version

As a Protestant, this will seem a touch odd, but my favorite translation is the (Catholic) Jerusalem Bible. It has some odd touches, but the first editions (with some tremendous explanatory notes) keep the flavor and beauty of the original without being distracting, in my opinion. The fact that J.R.R. himself worked on it (in a minor role, I think, but still involved) shows the level that they were aiming for, and in my opinion, achieved. I'm not sure that I'd use it for complete textual examinations (NASB is supposedly the best for that, but since I don't know the languages I have no opinion) but for simply reading I think it is my favorite.On the subject of the NIV, I wonder if it is biased towards the literalist interpretation: compare Gen 2:17 in the NIV with the New American Standard, KJV, or New Revised Standard translations as a perfect example. One of them has a very different meaning from the other three (those four being the four most popular translations in use by modern American Protestant churches, as I understand it). While I don't know enough Hebrew to have an opinion, it leads me to suspect that the NIV translators allowed their interpretation to color their translation (this has probably been discussed to death before here).Chris

I think that what gets me is the removal of any reference to it being the same day. And that that does make quite a difference, at least to me. Looking at it from the NASB, NRSV, or KJV, it would appear that God had mercy on the poor humans, changing their fate and allowing them to live when previously he had foretold death. The NIV, on the other hand, makes support for one literalist interpretation (that it was the Fall that introduced Death into the world) much more palatable, IMO. It can much more easily be read to support that belief, though it does not enforce that belief.(This is not the proper place to discuss the two different interpretations of the Fall, though I briefly touched on it above. A good discussion of this has already been started, I see, over at http://EvC Forum: Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II -->EvC Forum: Is Genesis to be taken literally Part IIYou can read what they've written and we can discuss it over there, if you wish, though I warn you that both my knowledge and faith about this topic are beneath that of many of the posters on the group, and so my end of the discussion would be below what is currently there.)Chris

One thing that is actually on topic that I forgot to mention above- the Jerusalem Bible now comes in many different forms, as is common with Bibles. The Readers Edition removes many of the wonderful notes, so I don't recommend it. The early editions I do recommend; the current version (link to amazon for paperback at: Amazon.com) has removed some of the notes (but still has many of them). My Dad has the original edition; I use the newer one. I'm not sure which of the many versions available at Amazon is the one that has all of the notes of the original edition- I tried to purchase one second hand from them but ended up with the readers edition. If you see an old one with lots of notes at a second-hand book store I recommend it.And its always fun to read the Deutero-Cannonical books, no matter what you think of their spiritual quality. I would never have encountered Ecclesiasticus' Let Us Now Praise Famous Men section (starting in Chap 44), which I like, if not for this translation.Incidentally, MyMonkey, is that your kid in your avatar?Chris