There are problems with almost every English translation of the Bible. It helps to be aware of them.
I generally quote from the King James Version, because it was the standard Bible in England, known to English writers for hundreds of years and influencing numerous poems and novels, and the style is beautiful. There are errors in translation, but they are not all that numerous.
When I taught the Bible I preferred to use the Revised Standard Version. This version was agreed to by a committee of Catholic and Protestant scholars, and where they disagreed the differences are clearly noted. It is based on the KJV, but it corrects those kinds of errors. Unfortunately, it also changes “thou” to you, which I think was unnecessary.
Since the RSV, there have been numerous translations, and most of them have gone sharply downhill. The NRSV introduces numerous errors in the name of feminism and political correctness. The more recent the translation, the more likely that it has been infested by political correctness or dissent. The Catholic version used in the liturgy, the NAB, is atrocious in style and frequently misleading in translation.
The Catholic translators of the Jerusalem Bible did a good job, but it never widely caught on.
Yes, certainly it is foolish to imagine that the KJV is inerrant. But it remains a better translation than most of the politically correct junk that has been published in recent years.
Ignatius Press has put the RSV back into print, and that’s the one I’d generally recommend. It includes what Protestants refer to as the Apocryphal books, but they are clearly labeled as such in case Protestant readers are worried about that. And in fact Protestants like John Milton read and used many of the Apocryphal books without any fear of being contaminated.
As I told Protestants who were assigned this text for the class, you get more for your money, and you can decide for yourself whether they are worth reading.
I agree for the most part. I "think" scripture in King James and turn to it first when researching passages.
There is never a problem in reading the Apocryphal books, as long as one doesn't consider them equal to scripture and part of the Canon.
I have had a copy of that version for more than 25 years now. I've only read Genesis from it.
Question. Do you have information about it actually being a French translation? Was it translated into French and then from French into English, or was the English version a separate work?