best version of the Bible that is not denominational?

Without going into detail, I think you might be happy with these:

Spanish: Probably you would do fine with the RV, if vosotros isn't an issue. Or try the NUEVA BIBLIA DE LAS AMÉRICAS (NBLA).  

English: NKJV

Use Logos to check translations with original languages where you have concerns.  

I think the translators are quite serious about getting God's Word right, so you can probably trust all the major translations, in fact you will do well to compare several to ferret out nuances that bring clarity and are a blessing. 

There is much I could say in response to this post. You have made a lot of assumptions that are not warranted. You are not going to go far in formal Christian studies of quality if you are preoccupied with works being tainted by denominationalism. Read widely and read well prior to criticizing.

Good comments Sean. We as Christians should read more widely and not limit themselves to only reading the Bible and theology books. They can learn a lot and become better, more empathetic people by reading literature, poetry, and other sources. You need to read On Reading Well: Finding the Good Life through Great Books (Brazos, 2018). As part of my ministry, I decided many years ago to always be reading deeper in my studies to challenge and deepen my understanding. This will deepen my faith as well.

New American Standard Version is a Catholic product,

Okay, most of the available Bibles have an ecumenical group of translators behind them; a handful by their choice of text to translate are extremely denominational. But your sources are unreliable:

[quote]

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New American Bible (NAB) have different origins:

• New American Standard Bible (NASB): This translation is not affiliated with a specific denomination. It was produced by the Lockman Foundation, a non-profit organization [Wikipedia: New American Standard Bible]. Their focus was on a literal translation, prioritizing faithfulness to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

• New American Bible (NAB): This translation is sponsored by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the United States. It is the official translation used during Mass in the United States and the Philippines [Wikipedia: New American Bible]. The NAB draws on the original Hebrew and G[/qreek biblical languages, along with the ancient Greek Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls for additional insights.

The best advice I have seen is:

[quote]

I agree with you MJ. I like your quote from Gorman as that was used in my seminary studies a lot. The most non-denominational Bible I have found is the NRSV and the Christian Standard Bible. I think you need to discard this notion of a non-denominational Bible and read multiple Bible translations to determine differences and deepen your translational methodology. 

To add to what MJ said about specific versions you mentioned:

I just became aware that the New Living Translation is used by tons of non-denominational churches and is also in Spanish under "nueva Traduction Viviente", but as I'm not aware who wrote the NLT I'm not sure whether to trust it or not. Help? (I have heard the Passion translation and the Message are very easy to read but from what I understand the first is incomplete and the second is supposed to be a paraphrased rather then a translated version.)

• The NLT is a surprisingly good freer translation. (I usually prefer more formal equivalent versions but like this one.)
• The Message is beyond a paraphrase, basically one scholar's free form adaptation of what the Scriptures mean to him. It is highly idiomatic and may be nearly unintelligible to someone whose first language is not American English.
• The Passion "Translation" flat out makes up stuff and adds whole lines out of nothing at all in the original language texts.

The KJV/NKJV have some good qualities but their NT translations are based on inferior texts than what we have available today.

Almost any major "standard" translation produced by committee is going to be superior to these.

I don't know I'd filter by 'denomination'. But I would filter. What I notice, isn't theological bias, but ... well, translational bias. And I can't even define that. It's when you see a translation and you already know the game plan ... the basis for choice. I've even watched Lexham (LXX I think) bounce choices, and I'm disappointed.

So, I trudge along with my Emphasis Bible .., the gentleman (I assume) kind of just gets as close as literal and moves on. No muss, no fuss.

"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.

love your new tag line ... although your country angels was very nice

My initial reaction to the original post reminded me of an essential reference book that I had not transferred from uservoice to feedbear. Please read SUGGESTION: Encyclopedia of English Language Bible Versions by Bradford B. Taliaferro - Logos Forums and vote

The most non-denominational Bible I have found is the NRSV and the Christian Standard Bible. I think you need to discard this notion of a non-denominational Bible and read multiple Bible translations to determine differences and deepen your translational methodology. 

the CSB was actually commissioned BY A DENOMINATION. Lifeway (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention) formerly known as the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board, owns the copyright. I read at one time that it was more economical to commission their own translation, rather than pay royalties to quote other translations in their publication. From the resource information in Logos:

This list may need updating but it illustrates one thing - that in a decent translation, the denomination of the translators is invisible.

And largely, it is.

Bible versions can be a very touchy subject particularly in non-denominational/"low" churches like what I am most familiar with. When the subject comes up, I like to stress the values of translations by groups/committees as a check on bias and individual idiosyncrasies. I also remind people that they use the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in the world. We as amateurs should approach their work from a basic position of trust. I have okay-ish seminary-level Greek, and my Hebrew is pathetic. While my forays into the NT text occasionally give me some insights, it is laughable to think that I can do a better job than what they have done and correct them.

I am also extremely skeptical of new, idiosyncratic "translations" by individuals that claim to bring you the real Bible like no one ever has before. They are also inferior to the major versions. I may not agree with the philosophy or priority behind some group translations, but one should remember that these are men and women who have devoted their lives to Bible translation. They're going to do their best and are not for whatever reason trying to hide the "real meaning" of the Bible from people.

Hi all. Any version of the Bible that is modern and not written by a denomination?

I avoid paraphrase bibles more than worry about translations with a denominational bias. But I avoid "translations" produced by one person. For serious study I will avoid "natural language" or "heart level" bibles (below), even though many are produced by a team of scholars.

**  "natural English", "contemporary language",  "everyday terms/language",  "easy to understand", or "heart level translation".

I just became aware that the New Living Translation is used by tons of non-denominational churches and is also in Spanish under "nueva Traduction Viviente", but as I'm not aware who wrote the NLT I'm not sure whether to trust it or not. Help?

NLT comes under the description of "easy to read/understand", but it has a reverse interlinear from which you may gauge how "word-for-word" it is as well as its accuracy in translation. OR simply compare selected passages to a translation you trust.  I rate it #5, but it could be #4, but it is the only bible with that description that I rate!

I guess I'll be the odd person out, again. I prefer personal translations, since I know generally what they're trying for (inherent bias). And I like inclusion of approximation of early emphasis, even if poor english. Committees are good for general church use ... essentialy smooth each other out, recognizing end-use. I'm impressed Qumran got so little use, or the latin as early church interpretation is set aside.

From the resource information in Logos

Pic didn't attach  

I agree with DMB to a personal extent. The greatest approach to study the Bible is if one is able to read Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. I perform my weekly study using a variety of Bibles. Individuals and entire churches experience a growth in faith and get to know Jesus better when they have access to the Bible in the language that most resonates with them. The Bible must be translated and read in a language that people can understand if churches are to expand and engage in evangelism and discipleship.

Hi all. Any version of the Bible that is modern and not written by a denomination? For example, I like the New International Version but I don't quite trust that translation since I realized the main scholars behind it were from the Christian Reformed Church and so obviously it was written with their particular brand of Calvanism in mind. I also have seen before that the New American Standard Version is a Catholic product, and so on. Anyway I'm preferibly looking for a translation in modern English (The KJV is a classic but too old-English for me), and preferibly one that is also available in Spanish. I just became aware that the New Living Translation is used by tons of non-denominational churches and is also in Spanish under "nueva Traduction Viviente", but as I'm not aware who wrote the NLT I'm not sure whether to trust it or not. Help? (I have heard the Passion translation and the Message are very easy to read but from what I understand the first is incomplete and the second is supposed to be a paraphrased rather then a translated version.)

I would suggest using multiple translations and using a parallel bible layout or the text comparison tool. I think it is a good idea to read from differing denominations and perspectives. Sometimes it reveals to me my blind spots and opens up the word for me in surprising ways.

The Bible must be translated and read in a language that people can understand if churches are to expand and engage in evangelism and discipleship.

Careful. You're slipping into theology rather than simply answering the question. Just a friendly reminder.

Pretty sure nobody here has yet mentioned the Faithlife/Logos resource (from Jessica Parks) Major English Bible Translations. For instance, here's the article on the 1995 NASB revision: https://ref.ly/logosres/fbbibletransltns?hw=New+American+Standard+Bible%2c+1995 

I have heard the Passion translation and the Message are very easy to read but from what I understand the first is incomplete and the second is supposed to be a paraphrased rather then a translated version.

My own opinion: Stay away from The Passion Translation (TPT); in my opinion the translation is suspect for a number of reasons (I've worked through the gospels extensively and have been aghast at portions). I think The Message is OK; it is less a paraphrase and more a retelling. It can be useful but shouldn't be relied on for establishing or supporting doctrinal positions.

My own opinion: Stay away from The Passion Translation (TPT); in my opinion the translation is suspect for a number of reasons (I've worked through the gospels extensively and have been aghast at portions). I think The Message is OK; it is less a paraphrase and more a retelling.

Interesting, as I find that the Message is shocking but the heart-level TPT is definitely not OK!

Pretty sure nobody here has yet mentioned the Faithlife/Logos resource (from Jessica Parks) Major English Bible Translations. For instance, here's the article on the 1995 NASB revision: https://ref.ly/logosres/fbbibletransltns?hw=New+American+Standard+Bible%2c+1995 

I have heard the Passion translation and the Message are very easy to read but from what I understand the first is incomplete and the second is supposed to be a paraphrased rather then a translated version.

My own opinion: Stay away from The Passion Translation (TPT); in my opinion the translation is suspect for a number of reasons (I've worked through the gospels extensively and have been aghast at portions). I think The Message is OK; it is less a paraphrase and more a retelling. It can be useful but shouldn't be relied on for establishing or supporting doctrinal positions.

I would not recommend either. Just my opinion. [8-|]

The Message at least doesn't call itself a translation and is so different from one that it's easier to not think of it as a Bible. But I wouldn't use it either.

TPT--well, "translation" is right there in the name. I don't have the OT to look for it, but I remember coming across one verse in Proverbs (31:14?) where it added a whole line, not remotely related to the context, simply because they wanted the Bible to say that. And then I had to explain to my church that no, it's not in the original, nobody is hiding this wonderful idea from you in other translations, don't use it.

(And with that comment, that's as far as I'm wading into the Translation Wars.)

(And with that comment, that's as far as I'm wading into the Translation Wars.)

I learned to stay out of the translation wars when an individual sent me a copy of their translation to review for Amazon. Reading the philosophy of the translation on the back of the book, I decided that there are Bible translators whose understanding of the natural of languages is so far from my own, that I could not find a common languages to speak to their translators. Instead, I stick to my idiosyncratic test of a new mainstream translation - I read Psalm 4. Yup, that's it. Why? Because when I read Psalm 4 in the Jerusalem Bible, I found an unusual translation that had the audacity to override conventional syntax analysis in a very justifiable manner. I will admit to using Gen 1:1 translations as a test for Jewish sensitivities in the Hebrew Scriptures. Why do I use such an idiosyncratic method? Because there are so many very similar translations that the criteria to distinguish among them focus on such minutia as to be a waste of my time. It is reasonable to make some initial cuts by translators. base text, and translating philosophy and then be open that most of the remaining judgements are personal preference i.e. idiosyncratic.

And yes, I did find an update of Gordon's list:

I would not say it is the best translation. Though it is not particularly steady and thus a more reliable translation, it can nonetheless provide me with ideas and the occasional dash of insight. It is not a translation in my view though a indirect paraphrase. I brought it along for Bible study in order to gain a deeper understanding of or a clearer interpretation of certain chapters or passages. It wouldn't be the main source I used for my research. Regarding this translation, I do concur with the thoughts of Sean and Rick Brannan.

The best translation to use is the one that you will actually read and allow the Holy 
Spirit to use in the transformation of your life.

The best translation to use is the one that you will actually read and allow the Holy 
Spirit to use in the transformation of your life.

Amen![Y]

Good comments Sean. We as Christians should read more widely and not limit themselves to only reading the Bible and theology books. They can learn a lot and become better, more empathetic people by reading literature, poetry, and other sources. You need to read On Reading Well: Finding the Good Life through Great Books (Brazos, 2018). As part of my ministry, I decided many years ago to always be reading deeper in my studies to challenge and deepen my understanding. This will deepen my faith as well.

You can get this in Logos format as well: On Reading Well: Finding the Good Life through Great Books | Logos Bible Software