What English version of the bible should I quote from?

It really doesn't matter.

That is why you're getting some fairly different answers. Some churches will favor one version. Other churches will favor another version. Unless you have a target audience more specific than "familiar believers", you're not going to have a single version that absolutely trumps all others in popularity.

For a while I felt like NIV was fairly popular. I've heard an NIV translator (on a radio show) describe it as a "living document". I've seen less emphasis on NIV in more recent times, perhaps because the NIV has released a new version so the latest release has been a bit less familiar to people who started becoming familiar with the 1985 version years ago.

The biggest drawback I know of with the NIV is that it is legally encumbered with restrictions quoting it. If that doesn't matter, you could use that. If such restrictions are undesirable, you could check out WEB.

But once you select a version, strongly consider not sticking to just it. Run a bible verse through Google, and quickly see some of the translations using BibleHub. Sometimes one translation will be more clearly written for a specific verse. Or, maybe the word choice just fits your purpose better (even if your purpose is nothing more specific than "sounding elegant and beautiful).

Some readers are likely to benefit from citations that mention what version is quoted.

So, to summarize my recommendation (of which translation to use) in ten words or less: Don't limit yourself to using just one.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

TOOGAM‭

15 reputation 0 3 3 0

It depends on the mood you want to convey, and which interpretation you want to express.

I would suggest you look at a parallel bible web site where you can read several translations side by side and pick the most suitable.

e.g., http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/25-17.htm

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

DarcyThomas‭

15 reputation 1 1 2 0

This gets back to a basic problem, in that there really is no such thing as The Bible; only translations compiled from various copies (which may or may not be consistent with each other).

Using the King James Version, as most (all?) the other answers suggest, is usually a reasonably good compromise, so its not bad advice. The KJV has a lot of problems, some pretty bad, but it has the advantage of being almost instantly recognizable, and of at least annoying everyone equally.

However, there are some important instances where you don't want to use it. For instance, probably the most recognizable passage to the general public (even when they don't know its from The Bible) is 1 Corinthians 13: Paul's "Ode to Love".

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant...

Nobody uses the stock King James translation for this, passage, because it made the utterly bizarre choice to translate the Greek ἀγάπη ("agape") as "charity" (rather than "love" as seen above).

So to be honest, what I do when I want a passage for public consumption is go to Bible Gateway for that passage, and use the dropdown menu of translations to pick the one that works best for my purposes. I try to start with NRSV because I'm partial to that one, but honestly let the best-written translation win.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

T.E.D.‭

25 reputation 0 4 5 0

Short answer: If in doubt, use KJV. Not that it is the most authoritative, or the most easily understood; but it is well-known, and has the advantage of being in the public domain, as was noted in an earlier reply. I don't know about how things are in England these days, but in parts of the USA, the KJV has a certain cultural status, for reasons too debatable to be discussed here.

Longer answer: A translation of the Bible, or for that matter a translation of any work of literature, may be under copyright protection. This is true, even if the original work is from antiquity.

This is why various online sites, which allow you to download the entire text of various bibles for free, do not have every version.

However, a short quote from a particular, copyrighted version, could still be used under "fair use" terms, at least in the USA. If you are writing (say) a work of fiction, and wish to begin each chapter with an epigraph using a few lines from a particular version, I would NOT call that fair use.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

System‭

3221 reputation 147 213 552 0

Speaking as an American who has limited familiarity with any version, I suggest King James, because that's the one the general American public would hear the most in passing outside a church context.

Also, the antiquated diction will immediately clue in your readers that you're quoting something old, whereas a more modernized version might not prompt the recognition.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Lauren Ipsum‭

2098 reputation 13 1143 397 1

If your work in progress is fiction, I would suggest the question could only be answered by the character quoting it. Which version do they seem like they would quote?

As many have already said, the language of the KJV can be both flowery and poetic. A scene between two people declaring their affection for each other can be enhanced by such. It can also be harsh and authoritative. I would probably have the protagonist quoting the KJV, personally. Perhaps the old man/old woman who appears to give sage advice or words of warning would use the KJV to everyone else's NIV. However, in normal conversation between two people, it might seem ostentatious (in a modern setting) to use 400 year old phrasing and conjugation. Perhaps the NIV or ESV or even the CEV would work better there. I would avoid paraphrases (The Message, The Living Bible). If you want to have a character paraphrase a verse, you should do it in their style.

Some people might suggest picking one version and sticking to it throughout the book for continuity's sake. I don't necessarily agree. Different people are going to read the versions that work best for them and would thus be more likely to quote in those versions. Personally, I usually quote from the NIV or use my own paraphrase, but sometimes the KJV is just the right sound for the job. If all of your characters go to the same church, they will be more likely to all quote from the same version.

This is just my two cents. Hope it helps.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Mark Anthony Songer‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

As a student from the UK taking Religious Studies, we almost inevitably use the King James version. It's the most familiar to people in the UK, even if they aren't religious.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Lydie‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

First, the KJV is most definitely not in Old English, a tongue that had not been spoken for centuries when the KJV translation was done. It is written in modern literary English. Modern English has been with us for several centuries now, so there have been many shifts in vocabulary and diction since the translation was done. However, differences in vocabulary and diction do not constitute a different language. The English of the KJV is still very much understandable to modern audiences.

The KJV is certainly the most literary of translations, the most beautiful in its language. For that reason it is the default choice for literary purposes. It will be familiar to English audiences because of its central role in the history of English literature, and to American audiences because of its widespread continued use in evangelical churches.

There are two main reasons that the KJV is not used as a standard study or liturgical bible in many churches today. The first is that its translations were not always accurate. Knowledge of the original languages has improved since the time the translation was done, leading to more accurate translations.

Second, there is a feeling in many church circles that the literary language of the KJV makes it inaccessible to most modern people. I think this is demonstrably false, and many of the attempts at making a "language of the people" translation have fallen by the wayside over the years because, frankly, they were just ugly and clumsy. The use of such versions in literature would only really be appropriate to place the story in a particular time or community where there were popular.

More accurate alternatives to the KJV fall into two classes, new from scratch translations, and modernized corrected versions of the KJV, such as the RSV and the NRSV, both of which try to preserve the essential beauty (and familiar phrases) of the original while correcting translation errors and modernizing some of the language.

If you are concerned about striking a balance between beauty and modern diction, or if you care about accuracy of translation, you should probably look at the RSV or the NRSV as your sources.

posted almost 7 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4351 reputation 12 1104 742 58