I like the KJV because it's very poetic. The 1611 version is so much fun to read!

I am currently in the process of translating one for the gay community called the "transsexual translation." It is "seeker sensitive" and includes the special "they were not hospitable" interpretation of Sodom and gemorrah.

For the OT I love NETS. In the NT, I really like the NKJV though the EOB includes several translations I've wanted for a looong time. I just don't enjoy it as much as the NKJV, because it's too colloquial.

@TheLuckiestWomanEver@xanga - I like the KJV because it's very poetic. The 1611 version is so much fun to read!

Agreed

One of the never ending tasks of the Church is to preserve the Tradition that was the wellspring from which Scripture came from.

God's Revelation to man wasn't written down until after it was taught first by preaching and example.  All of Moses' adventures weren't written down until years after they were lived out by the Chosen People.

Without a Living Tradition to guide us, we can assign any meaning we want to the Bible.  And assigning personal interpretation and meaning to Scripture, it loses its orginal mean, the meaning God gave it.

New Living Bible. Easy to read, not a lot of abstract nouns. For serious study, maybe the NASB.

@canicus@xanga - It actually is a translation (as opposed to a paraphrase), only formatted unusually (with dialogue in script format).  Any words not actually translated from the Greek are italicized.  There is also embedded commentary, but it is clearly marked, so it's not unlike your standard Teen Study Bible in that way.

@SirNickDon@xanga - I do not consider it a translation, but if I were to discuss it as such, then I would be scathing. It is irresponsible in the extreme. A translation is supposed to convey, as best as possible, the thoughts and ambiguities of the original into the target language.

The presence of italics does not cover all the issues of translation. They are limited to words not given through a dynamic method of translation, as the preface states. They are certainly not inserted from a literalist method of translation. From where do they come? Italics in translations to designate the insertion of a word cover such things as "is" in a phrase like "his name was John" in v. 6 (incidentally, one of the places where it handled the Greek acceptably). The Greek is ὂνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης, which is literally "name to him John." It has to be handled in a creative way. The dynamic method is used by necessity, and the italics indicate that this was done, because "is" is necessary in English but not present in the text.

That is not how The Voice uses italics. It uses italics to mark words inserted by the "translators" for no reason other than to color the text.  There is no grammatical reason to insert "blazing through murky bottoms" in v. 5. There is no contextual requirement for it. It is simply a plus, as the technical word goes, which is neither implied nor required. The italics are actually one of the reasons I would not classify it as a translation.

Its treatment of Greek words is equally loose. The word λόγος does not mean "voice." Period. It can mean "word," "story," "reason," "account," "purpose," or even "revelation." There are, however, other words for "voice" such as φονή.  The entire phrase καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν is entirely omitted. I realize πρὸς τὸν θεόν is extremely hard to translate and is almost universally translated poorly, but it's vital to the passage's meaning. Its omission is inexcusable. "His speech shaped the entire cosmos" has no Greek vorlage. The best you can get is πάντα δι΄ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, but that is not the same thing (and no doubt what the text is interpreting). The phrase καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν is a double entendre and cannot be accurately translated, but both sides of its meaning are completely lost in The Voice, beccause instead of κατέλαβεν it translates the text as if it it had some form of ἠδυνήθη εσβεσθῆναι and thus occludes the point of the passage to something you can still derive from it but not the primary thrust of it. This is just the first few verses. I could be much more brutal.

Not everything is bad. For instance, it handled John's name well. Its translation of βάπτισμα is justifiable and shouldn't have been in italics by the rules the translation gave (well, "ritually" should have), though I wouldn't have used it. Instances like this are few and far between, though. The Voice seems pretty free-wheeling in its approach to the text.

So, no, this is not a translation. I can compare it to midrash, targums, or the Heliand without much of a problem (though I question its merit in comparison), but it is not a translation by any means.

I prefer the NLT or the ESV.  I just got my ESV a few weeks ago and like it a lot.

I'm all about the Douay-Rheims version. How much more accurate can you get than this one? 

@Nathanmon - NIV? that stands for Non Inspired Version right?

i have my eye on that version, i'll probably have to pick one up for myself before too long. :]