Best Parallel Bible?

[dies-l]

Why do you teach from a hard to understand, poorly sourced, four hundred year old anachronistic book?

MagusAlbertus,

Uh-oh! Now you've done it!

Everyone knows that Moses went up Mt. Sinai, received the Law and then came down and translated it from KJV into Hebrew.

Can we please avoid turning this thread into a KJV or KJVO debate? The OP has presented a valid question that should not be sidetracked by debating the merits of the KJV or of KJVonlyism.

 

[DeaconDean]

Why do you teach from a hard to understand, poorly sourced, four hundred year old anachronistic book?

Lets see here.

From 1968, until this present day, I have attended churchs where the KJV was the only version used.

Is this right?

Probably not, but it is the version I read. It is the version I study from. It is the version I feel the most comfortable with.

And yet, I'm being condemned for using "a hard to understand, poorly sourced, four hundred year old anachronistic book".

So, the KJV is hard to understand?

Not if it is the version you were raised on. Once upon a time William Shakesphere was taught in schools. He quoted from the King James Bible. Are we going to stop teaching Shakesphere in school because it is "hard to understand" being as since it is written in the old Kings English?

To me, its not hard to understand, poorly sourced, and archaic. Its message is as valid today as it was 400 years ago.

It served the church well 400 years ago, and it will continue to serve the church for another 400 years.

That is my position, I stand by it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[student ad x]

I like the readability of the ESV better than NASB. Not that NASB is difficult, but the ESV flows better.

The ESV is more fluent in the O.T ....... very little difference from the NASB 95 in the N.T.

 

[dies-l]

The ESV is more fluent in the O.T ....... very little difference from the NASB 95 in the N.T.

Actually, I have found the NASB 95 to be all around a rather stiff and sterile translation. It is invaluable as a study tool, but much too rigid for daily reading and devotions. The ESV can be a bit rigid, but is a pretty good compromise between the readability of the NIV and the literalness of the NASB. My only problem with the ESV is that, like the NRSV, the translation committee seems to have had a pretty deliberate and strong theological/political agenda. That is why I tend to prefer the RSV over both. But, all in all, I think each translation has its benefits.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think that since I am also so wrong for using, teaching, and preaching from a version that is:

hard to understand, poorly sourced, four hundred year old anachronistic book

I'll just bow out gracefully.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Bridgit]

I like to read from the paraphrase bibles (NLT, the Message, ..) as much as the other translation ones.

 

[torcot]

I agree with largetrout

 

[christian73]

NLT is considered a translation, not a paraphrase.