The Psalms- Which English Translation Do You Prefer?

[Brian R.]

Curious to read some feedback on this. My default English translation is the KJV, but is there another translation that does a great job with The Psalms? Which handles the Hebrew best? Which has the most beautiful rendering? What's your experience?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I think the ESV does a really good job with the Psalms, and retains a lot of poetic beauty, but I agree the KJV has a unique quality.

One of my OT/Hebrew professors worked on the NLT and makes a strong case for the NLT rendering of the Psalms being one of the best, but I still haven't been able to get on board.

 

[iainduguid]

In translating the psalms, there is an added complexity as you recognize in your questions. We want our translation to handle poetry beautifully - but we also want to translate the Hebrew accurately. Obviously translations try to do both, but at some points will have to choose - and often poetry wins out over accuracy. For example, in Psalm 1:3 everybody renders it something like "a tree planted by streams (or rivers) of water", but there are no streams in Israel and the Hebrew word for river is quite different (nahar). A peleg (which is the Hebrew word here) is more like a canal or channel, usually man-made. Nobody disputes this meaning but "He is like a tree planted by canals of water" just doesn't sound very poetic...

On the plus side, those "poetic inaccuracies" make sure that preachers still have something to do: it is not just chance good fortune that placed the tree where it is - it has been deliberately put there by the gardener, who planted (or perhaps even transplanted) it in a location where he ensured it would be provided for by suitable irrigation.

 

[Joshua]

For private study, I like the KJV, but for devotional reading I prefer the KJV. The KJV is a favorite of mine, and I also really like the KJV, not to mention my use of the KJV and the KJV.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

For private study, I like the KJV, but for devotional reading I prefer the KJV. The KJV is a favorite of mine, and I also really like the KJV, not to mention my use of the KJV and the KJV.

This joke of yours is not new. Does this explain why you do not promote the New King James Version?

 

[Joshua]

This joke of yours is not new. Does this explain why you do not promote the New King James Version?

For private jokes, I like repeated jokes, but for public ones, repeated jokes. Repeated jokes are a favorite of mine, and I also really like repeated jokes, not to mention my employment of repeated jokes and repetitive jokes.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

For private study, I like the KJV, but for devotional reading I prefer the KJV. The KJV is a favorite of mine, and I also really like the KJV, not to mention my use of the KJV and the KJV.

I like you.

 

[Phil D.]

but there are no streams in Israel

Would you say that streams or brooks is not a good translation in Deut. 8:7 ?

 

[iainduguid]

Would you say that streams or brooks is not a good translation in Deut. 8:7 ?

According to the OED a brook is a small river; it cites the example: "The peace and quiet was disturbed only by a gently babbling brook". In Scotland, we'd call these "burns". Deut 8:7 has nahal, which means a wadi, a normally dry river bed, which flows with a rushing torrent during rainy season. These are not the same thing. However, in English "wadis of water" doesn't really work either (though that is pretty much what the Septuagint has). "Seasonal torrents of water" is probably technically the most accurate, but that would have your English style editor tearing his hair out. Did I mention that translation is really hard?

 

[Polanus1561]

I love the CSB but Ps. 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd;
I have what I need
--
..

 

[MyCrows]

I love the CSB but Ps. 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd;
I have what I need
--
..

The one verse where everyone knows the KJV rendering...

KJV for me.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I don’t know that it’s my favorite but I’ve been reading through the Psalms in the New Jerusalem Bible lately. I like that it has God‘s name, it’s British so it sounds more poetic to these Yank ears, and it occasionally renders the passage in a way US translations don’t.

I kind of like how the RSV uses modern-ish English but “thou” for God.

 

[ZackF]

For those untrained in the original languages, I think this question itself makes a great case for the use of multiple translations in serious bible study.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I prefer the BCP's translation of the Psalms.

 

[Polanus1561]

For those untrained in the original languages, I think this question itself makes a great case for the use of multiple translations in serious bible study.

I think there needs to be something beyond this (commentaries?). Because even if a difference is detected... what then goes on to be the judge over which is correct?

 

[Ben Zartman]

Not much help here, but I like the Psalms in Spanish best, the Reina-Valera renders them exceedingly beautiful and poetic.
The rivers of waters verse in Psalm 1 is rendered "next to currents of water," which could also be rendered "flowing waters"
It completely leaves out whether the channel that conveys them is a brook or canal or wadi or river.
One version for singing renders it (perhaps with some poetic license) "He shall be like a tree planted by rivers of living water." It's a nice play on meaning, since "living water" means flowing or coursing water, but it reminds me of the river that flows from the throne of God in glory.

 

[dsanch1120]

Single-column ESV. Apparently (according to my study Bible), single column allows for a better understanding of the poetic structure. Regardless, ESV reads easier than NAS95, though I’d like to read through the Psalms in KJV

 

[Claudiu]

I like the KJV, ESV, and BCP 1662. I've read some of LSB's psalms that are unique in using Yahweh.