Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) is teaching some wrong things. I still stand with ESV and KJV of course. KJV is faithful to the heart and ESV mostly also but fits my taste more. Thou shalt have at least one ESV Bible! And all the people said: "Amen!"
I always end up back at the KJV. Easy to read (short sentences, monosyllabic words...once you get past the thees and thous which aren't that tough and a few vocab words). The prose in Luke is unmatched in the KJV.
__________________ For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. - Romans 8:18
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I used the KJV almost all of my life, or at least far as I can remember. Until recently I am starting to read the NKJV. I use the KJV in Church, but I use the NKJV when I am witnessing or even memorizing scripture. I found it easier to memorize scripture from the NKJV than the KJV, but maybe that is for me personally.
Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right)
Exactly what do you think that NLT and NIV got wrong? I'm not saying they didn't get anything wrong (especially NLT), but I'm just wondering. Or do you just object to who some of the translators are?
I used NASB from when I was in college until just a couple of years ago. Then, I learned about the deliberate mistranslation of the person mentioned in Romans 16:7. NASB and ESV both mistranslate to make the person of Junia appear to be male - even masculinizing her name into Junias a form of the name that did not exist at the time of Paul. You won't often hear me say anything nice about King James, but at least they translated her name correctly. Anyway, when I learned about the mistranslation I started wondering what else did they mistranslate to try and make scripture fit their doctrinal stances instead of fitting their doctrine to what scripture actually said?
Then, I read an article where NT Wright said there was actually a big dust-up during the translation of the 2011 edition of the NIV over whether or not to correctly translate Romans 16:7 (the 1984 edition mistranslates it) , and that they finally did the right thing. So, I briefly switched to NLT while I waited for the 2011 NIV to become widely available. So far, I'm pretty happy with it.
Zaida: Is there anything else you see mistranslated other than Junia that is significant? Also, what do you see wrong with the KJV?
__________________ But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Matthew 6:33 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hi! I only have one problem with some translations and that is that apparently many people who were working on certain versions were evolutionists who believed in theistic evolution. Don't take this comment personally please, I just think that NLT (and last I heard NIV and some others; I think ESV got most of it right) is teaching some wrong things. I still stand with ESV and KJV of course. KJV is faithful to the heart and ESV mostly also but fits my taste more. Thou shalt have at least one ESV Bible! And all the people said: "Amen!"
I will occasionally consult the ESV. I think it's accurate, but very flat and stilted. There's also a tendency to focus on obedience and there's some inclusive language (which is not always bad...it's just that the ESV tries to make the claim that they avoided inclusive language). When I don't use the KJV, I'll have the NKJV or NRSV. Even though the NRSV has inclusive language, the footnotes will at least tell you the original Greek translation and the language of the NRSV is pretty nice. Also like the KJV, there isn't one overarching theological bias, the ESV has a definite reformed slant with all the obedience language and the NASB has a different dispensational slant. (The KJV has a tendency to insist on an Episcopal polity which I don't see as a major issue).
To me the ESV seems more like a touch up job of the RSV rather than a new translation.
__________________ For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. - Romans 8:18
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The first time I saw ESV I actually wondered if it was NASB re-released with a new name.
As for any other glaring mistakes, I've got some little nitpicky ones. But, the Junia thing was big enough to make me wonder what else they'd mistranslated that I just don't know about it.
My issue with King James is more that the biggest most obnoxious, take scriptures out of context, hateful, bibilically ignorant loudmouths all seem to use King James. The folks at Westboro Baptist Church use King James as an example. I have a co-worker who thinks there's a gospel of Paul - she uses King James. I know someone else who honestly thought that King James was the original language scripture was in.
Re: Inclusive Language - I don't have a problem with it because language changes. As long as they're not doing silly things like changing it to "Our parent...." instead of "Our father..." Besides, always using the masculine form is a real stumbling block to some women coming to faith, and the scripture says not to stumble other people in their faith.
The only English Bible translation that I can and will recommend for primary use is the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Version.
The following 12 point test and correct spellings will tell whether or not you have a PCE KJV:
1. "or Sheba" NOT "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2
2. "sin" NOT "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Job 33:4
4. "whom ye" NOT "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16
5. "Spirit of God" NOT "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24
6. "flieth" NOT "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16
7. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Matthew 4:1
8. "further" NOT "farther" in Matthew 26:39
9. "bewrayeth" NOT "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73
10. "Spirit" NOT "spirit" in Mark 1:12
11. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in Acts 11:28
12. "spirit" NOT "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8
Correct spellings such as "inquire" and not "enquire," "rasor" and not "razor," "expences" and not "expenses," "counseller" and not "counsellor," and "ancle" and not "ankle" should be present. Also, "Geba" and not "Gaba" in Ezra 2:26 and "spirit" and not "Spirit" in Acts 11:12.
The Pure Cambridge Edition is widely considered the final and true edition of the King James Version. For more information on the PCE KJV, you can visit a website called bibleprotector.
Now, as my signature states, not to be confused as a King James Version "Onlyist," I'm a King James Version "Mainlyist." I use, recommend, and trust the PCE KJV above all others, but I do think it is a good idea to use other translations, such as the 1995 NASB, 2011 ESV, 1989 NRSV, and 1966 JB. All of these translations are good to consult with. I would completely and utterly avoid translations such as the NIV, CEB, and The Message.
Linear Mode
