What bible do you guys like?

[PacersRock44]

I like the KJV for it's poetic style and also the NIV I've been using for a while now occasionally.

 

[sicksince]

I personally DO NOT like the NIV.

In Church we use the ESV.

But I prefer the King James Version.

 

[PacersRock44]

I've found no fault in the NIV really besides some of the missing passages.

 

[sicksince]

I've found no fault in the NIV.

Then you really should do more research.

All 17 of these verses are missing from the NIV

1 Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting

2 Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost

3 Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Parisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation

4 Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

5 Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched

6 Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

7 Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

8 Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors.

9 Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left

10 Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

11 John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

12 Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Je’sus Christ is the Son of God.

13 Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

14 Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.

15 Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

16 Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

17 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[sicksince]

Not to mention the fact that the NIV is a thought for thought translation and not a word for word translation.

 

[cerette]

I like NIV.
In church we use the King James.

 

[Luther073082]

Esv

 

[Archivist]

Revised Standard is my favorite. I have, however, read several different versions including NIV, New American Standard, and English Standard Version.

 

[filosofer]

Then you really should do more research.

All 17 of these verses are missing from the NIV

1 Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting

2 Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost

3 Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Parisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation

4 Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

5 Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched

6 Mark 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

7 Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

8 Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, and he was numbered with the transgressors.

9 Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left

10 Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

11 John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

12 Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Je’sus Christ is the Son of God.

13 Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

14 Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.

15 Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

16 Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

17 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Not only NIV, but also NAS, ESV, NET, GW, RSV, NLT, etc.

But it might be equally valid to ask why those verses are added to the manuscripts behind the KJV/NKJV? If you look at the age of manuscripts including them, you will see that they are much newer manuscripts. The older manuscripts do not include those verses.

 

[PacersRock44]

nvm

 

[canisee]

When I research what is Important, KJV

I read many versions to test / search.

But I always go back to the KJV for the base.

 

[filosofer]

I like the NIV I've been using it for a while now and it's excellent and fun to read.

I prefer the BHS and NA-28.

Seriously I have about 30 Bibles here in my home office. I tend to look at translations in two major categories (the identifying names change from one generation to another):

Formal Equivalence: NAS, HCSB, ESV, NKJV, NAB, REB, NET, etc.

Dynamic Equivalence: GW, NLT, CEV, etc.​

NIV is not listed, but generally falls somewhere in between the two categories. Unfortunately some times it switches categories even in the same section, but no indication of what is happening. But when I have served congregations that use the NIV, I use that to preach and teach.

It is very helpful for study to use one from each category. Thus, possibles combinations is HCSB and GW, NAS and NLT, etc.

Because I have been using it for 36 years (and many Bible verses memorized in that), I tend to use NAS for Bible class. But I have used NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NIV 1984, GW, etc.

Because the NIV 1984 edition cannot be used any longer under copyright restrictions we are examining two alternatives for public reading. The NIV 2011 has some very positive changes, but there are some less than helpful changes (try to find “saints” in the NIV 2011), or see what subtle change in 2 Cor. 5:17 reflects a huge shift in understanding of Christology, etc. Thus, NIV 2011 is not considered (although in 2012 I conducted our summer Sunday morning Bible study to examine the NIV 2011).

So, for public reading in the worship service we use GW and HCSB (we use one for a quarter then the other). HCSB has proven to be a very good translation, better than ESV. And the translators have been willing to listen to suggestions. Soon there will be an update.

 

[Mediaeval]

I liked the NIV when I was in college. But then I studied classical and New Testament Greek. I favor the KJV for its closeness to the original text. Even the NKJV fudges a bit.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I've found no fault in the NIV. I personally don't like the King James series besides the KJV. I especially don't like the NASB.

That's a shame, because the NASB has a pretty high translation quality. It's closer to the literal/formal equivalence tradition of the KJV (which you find in the RSV, NRSV, and ESV) but also properly translates the Greek imperfect into an English past continuous (one of the advantages of the NIV).

The LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) uses the ESV in its worship materials and for its study Bible, but in seminary we used all manner of Bibles constantly comparing them to the original Hebrew and Greek. No translation is perfect, but I do think the ESV and NASB come about as close to "literal" as you can get. The NIV sounds better because its goal is readability in English, but it does contain a number of strange renderings unjustified by the Greek (1 Pet 1:6-7, Acts 3:21, Matthew 26:64).

I would highly- HIGHLY- recommend reading the following: http://www.cph.org/pdf/esv/011946analysis.pdf

It's a comparative analysis of biblical translations (NKJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB) based on various considerations, and only about six pages long. It helps explain why our denomination selected the ESV as our primary text for worship materials and other synodical publications, having abandoning the NIV is a "blind chicken" in the words of my Greek professor.

 

[Yoseft]

That's a shame, because the NASB has a pretty high translation quality. It's closer to the literal/formal equivalence tradition of the KJV (which you find in the RSV, NRSV, and ESV) but also properly translates the Greek imperfect into an English past continuous (one of the advantages of the NIV).

The LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) uses the ESV in its worship materials and for its study Bible, but in seminary we used all manner of Bibles constantly comparing them to the original Hebrew and Greek. No translation is perfect, but I do think the ESV and NASB come about as close to "literal" as you can get. The NIV sounds better because its goal is readability in English, but it does contain a number of strange renderings unjustified by the Greek (1 Pet 1:6-7, Acts 3:21, Matthew 26:64).

I would highly- HIGHLY- recommend reading the following: http://www.cph.org/pdf/esv/011946analysis.pdf

It's a comparative analysis of biblical translations (NKJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB) based on various considerations, and only about six pages long. It helps explain why our denomination selected the ESV as our primary text for worship materials and other synodical publications, having abandoning the NIV is a "blind chicken" in the words of my Greek professor.

Ok being open I went to
New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

I ran a few of my test looks, looking how some items are translated.

It passed my test.

 

[Till]

What bible do you guys like?

Lutherbibel. Revision von 1912. The last revision of Luther's original 16. century translation based on textus receptus. The text KJV translation was based on. All Lutherbibel revisions since then are based on the Nestle-Aland text.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

The Lutheran Study Bible (ESV) (and Apocrypha)
The Orthodox Study Bible
The Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition

Most of all...

The King James Version (and Apocrypha)

 

[Tigger45]

Our church preaches from the NIV but my personal choice is NKJV.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Our church preaches from the NIV but my personal choice is NKJV.

I'm divided on the NKJV. The whole idea behind it is that it uses the same word order as the original King James but with some of the archaic words updated (but still in the same order), so that when the original King James is being read out loud at the pulpit during the lectionary reading, people can follow along in their Bibles without being confused. And for that, it's a fantastic idea and a wonderful tool.

But that's really all it is. It's not really a new or original translation, and therefore doesn't take advantage of all the textual studies done on biblical manuscripts from that last four hundred years. And, if the King James Bible isn't your church's Bible that gets read from the pulpit, then it loses its whole reason for being.

I like it for what it's meant to be, and I think it's a great way for churches to hold on to the King James tradition (which is at its best when read aloud with Shakespearean gusto) without being archaic or confusing. But again, that's all it is, and as a study Bible or a personal Bible, it misses the mark.

 

[filosofer]

I'm divided on the NKJV. The whole idea behind it is that it uses the same word order as the original King James but with some of the archaic words updated (but still in the same order), so that when the original King James is being read out loud at the pulpit during the lectionary reading, people can follow along in their Bibles without being confused. And for that, it's a fantastic idea and a wonderful tool.

But that's really all it is. It's not really a new or original translation, and therefore doesn't take advantage of all the textual studies done on biblical manuscripts from that last four hundred years. And, if the King James Bible isn't your church's Bible that gets read from the pulpit, then it loses its whole reason for being.

I like it for what it's meant to be, and I think it's a great way for churches to hold on to the King James tradition (which is at its best when read aloud with Shakespearean gusto) without being archaic or confusing. But again, that's all it is, and as a study Bible or a personal Bible, it misses the mark.

I am with you on that. I like the NKJV, but not as the primary reading text.


The one thing the NKJV does provide is extensive footnotes on where the TR differs from NU (NA-UBS text), even in the strictly “text” Bibles.