# I want the most standard Bible for Christians worldwide. Which one is it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 6, 2009, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688 "2009-02-06T09:50:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Windwalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/5e9695/32.png) [@Windwalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Windwalker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/1 "2009-02-06T09:50:25Z")
My next project is to read the Bible, but I want to get the version that would be most representative/accepted by the widest swath of Christians possible. The King James version seems to be one of the big ones and would be my guess, but the language seems a bit dated now. I realize this is a judgment call, but if you had to make a pick, which would you choose, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/2 "2009-02-06T10:50:16Z")
I’m assuming you want an English translation? If so, I think King James is going to be your best bet. I’m not sure why the older modern English use is a concern, but in my opinion and experience, KJV is certainly the version that most English-speakers are familiar with. It’s the source of most literary quotes of “The Bible”, and it’s one of the most pleasurable versions to read (King James put lots of poets on the case, including Ben Jonson). ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/3 "2009-02-06T11:35:43Z")
You do know that a “Catholic” Bible has more books than a “Protestant” bible, right? If this distinction interests you, you may be interested in buying a “Catholic” Bible or a “Protestant” Bible that includes what some people call the “Apocrypha” (though the word Apocrypha itself has different meanings depending on your denomination - a Roman Catholic and a Lutheran will not mean the same books when they speak of “Apocrypha”.) King James Version containing the Apocrypha > **[The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha: Carroll, Robert,...](https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha/dp/0192835254)** > > The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha \[Carroll, Robert, Prickett, Stephen\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha From the multi-part Straight Dope staff report “Who wrote the Bible?” we learn > **[Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5)](https://www.straightdope.com/21343130/who-wrote-the-bible-part-5)** > > A STAFF REPORT FROM THE STRAIGHT DOPE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD > [@](#): > > When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel–specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. As the Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, “The test was whether a book proclaimed Christ. ‘That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic, though it be the work of Peter or Paul; and conversely, that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod.’” Thus the differences between the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox bibles. > > Some English Protestants–specifically, the Presbyterians and Puritans–took matters a step further and rejected the Apocrypha. Article VI of the Anglican “Articles of Religion” says of the Apocrypha that “the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.” The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, says the Apocrypha shall be “of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than any other human writings.” > > Consequently, Protestant bibles in English are most often printed without the Apocrypha. As a result, most Protestants in the U.S. are unfamiliar with the Apocrypha and consider it part of the Catholic Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/4 "2009-02-06T11:43:27Z")
> [@Windwalker](#): > > I realize this is a judgment call, but if you had to make a pick, which would you choose, and why? For Protestantism, the NIV. [Because it fits your OP criteria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV). ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/5 "2009-02-06T11:59:31Z")
I’ll second the NIV (New International Version), although I use the New Revised Standard Version, myself. If you like, [Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com) has some good information on various versions and you can compare versions side-by-side in it. I’ve been using it to back up arguments in debates about Christianity for years. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/6 "2009-02-06T12:25:28Z")
I’m reading the entire Bible this year for the second time. This year I am reading the KJV. It is difficult to follow at times, but certainly isn’t impossible. However, if you’re not familiar with the story that you’re reading, I’d say KJV wouldn’t be a good choice. You’ll find yourself looking things up. Most of the liberal churches I’ve been to use the New Revised Standard Version. [This one](http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Augmented-Revised-Standard/dp/0195288807/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233922246&sr=8-1) is commonly used in college courses on the Bible. I own a copy and I find the notes and maps very useful. In addition, it has the Apocrypha so you can read those Catholic books! 😃 The NIV is probably the most widely used translation among conservative Protestant denominations. A couple of other translations which are commonly used are the English Standard Version and the Revised Standard Versions. I’d strongly suggest getting a study version of translation you decide on. For each of the common translations, there are study versions which have notes and maps. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/7 "2009-02-06T13:13:50Z")
The Eastern Orthodox Bible has even more OT books than the Catholic Bible. For a standard English Bible, I’d recommend the Revised Standard Version (the “English Standard Version” is a slightly-to-the-right revision of the RSV). After that, either the New King James or the New American Standard versions. There are a lot of conservatives & liberals who regard the New International Version as too biased and more paraphrasal. Except for some jitters about Isaiah 7:14 (“A young woman or a virgin shall concieve…”), many conservatives have reconciled themselves to the RSV, not so much to the gender-inclusive language New RSV. The RSV & NRSV also come in Catholic & Catholic-Orthodox versions with the extra books. The standard Catholic translation to English now is, alas, the New American Bible. My preferred Catholic English translation is The Jerusalem Bible (or The New JB). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/8 "2009-02-06T14:39:36Z")
I would say it depends on what you are looking for. In terms of its influence on the language of the West, the KJV is far and away the first choice. If you want an accurate translation, the Revised Standard Version is probably the best bet. The RSV and New RSV are copyrighted - many other translations are available [here](http://www.biblegateway.com/). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-want-the-most-standard-bible-for-christians-worldwide-which-one-is-it/484688/9 "2009-02-06T15:18:04Z")
> [@Tracy\_Lord](#): > > it’s one of the most pleasurable versions to read (King James put lots of poets on the case, including Ben Jonson). I agree that it’s very good reading, but I don’t think it’s correct that there were any poets as such involved, nor was Ben Jonson. All of the Translators were clergymen, except for one - Sir John Savile, a classical example of the learned Renaissance courtier, was the only one not in holy orders. (See _God’s Secretaries_ by Nicolson, at p. 168.) Of course, poetry was much more of a part of the culture back then, and highly learned men like the Translators would be trained in poetry as part of their education - some would likely even have written some, just like other educated men of the period - but they were selected for their knowledge of scripture and languages, not poetical abilities. Nicolson points out that one of the reasons the KJV does have that appeal is that it was written for the purpose of being read aloud (“appointed to be read in churches”). The final editing process took place with one of the Translators reading aloud the proposed text of a particular book, and the other Translators listening. It wasn’t a written editing process, with mark-ups of the text being circulated for comment, but an oral process. If it didn’t sound right, then changes would be suggested. That emphasis on the spoken value of the text is one of the reasons, Nicolson argues, that it has had such long-lasting appeal, unlike texts of the same period such as the Geneva Bible, which was more popular at the time for private study, but has fallen by the wayside now.