For me, it's the New English Bible (1961, 1970)>modern>apocrypha included>big thick 70s paper>intelligible, preference for common terms (letter vs epistle)>single column>verse numbers in margin >good for contrarians because of obscurity
>>15897204You will never be a KJV
Orthodox Study Bible for best contentbut I do like Wide Margin NKJVs getting into matthew everhard's bible notetaking
>>15897255Do you know that the OSB copies the nkjv in many places in the old testament, while claiming to be an LXX translation? This is never disclosed.
>>15897263Yes its primarily a study bible not a unique translation.that is also why I go to NKJV as opposed to NIV or ESV
>>15897327To me that whole issue is off putting. I'm not really a study Bible person anyway but I find the ancient faith csb or the church history esv more attractive
>>15897204Dirk, why?? >rearranges verses>open paganism in Genesis 6>young woman in Isaiah 7:14
>>15897428>DOES THAT BIBLE SAY YOUNG WOMAN??>IM GONNA.... IM GONNA.... APOSTATIZE!!!!!!!!
NASB95 for life. Simple and effective.>footnotes for words / historical context, or if other translations do / do not include certain verses / words / phrases>all missing verses that the KJV does not have (no apocrypha but not a deal breaker)>makes sense and is eloquently writtenPlus, mine has a summary in the back of each books ideas and theme. It doesn't have a part in the back "for when you're feeling..." though. I like that about my KJV.
I like Brenton's translation of A and B.It's got some flaws, but his 2 Samuel 22 is marvelous. Definitely on par with the KJV 1611.Speaking of which, the Douay Rhiems has been growing on me lately.
>>15897502That's what happened to boomers. The NEB was so naff they made the REB to replace it.
>>15897502>does that bible correctly translate the word used in Isaiah 7:14fifty
>>15897222King James was gay and demonist.
>>15900188He's Reformed, they normally use the ESV