What is your preferred Bible translation?

[Alive_Again]

They take out scripture in the modern translations that were quoted by early church fathers. When you consider the verses about dealing with the devil being taken out, Wescott and Hort and their funky beliefs, it is pretty suspect.

Considering the gnostic heresy headquartered in Alexandria and leaning on that text because it is older seems very shakey. They had a reputation for removing scripture that was well known. Then we take the mention of Lucifer out of the Bible, I object!

The Holy Spirit has chimed in and said that the modern translators used their doctrinal inclinations when they translated the scripture. Since their is power in the Words of God, the Holy Spirit agreeing with them, to remove scripture, imply in the footnotes that they probably weren't there, etc. it is an obvious deviation from the truth.

The NKJV is supposedly not that wonderful either and not a faithful rendering from the authorized version. If they came out with a version that just changed the thees thous and thines, I'd buy iit!

 

[Faith.Man]

Which translation of the Bible do you use most often? Or which one is your favorite?

I like the ESV but my regular Bible is the Orthodox Study Bible (Septuagint OT/ NKJV NT)

I read many translations, but prefer the Thompson Chain Reference (NIV) for reading, and the Zondervan Study Bible (NASB) for study as well as all the resources available at e-Sword.

 

[Mr Dave]

Considering the gnostic heresy headquartered in Alexandria and leaning on that text because it is older seems very shakey.

However, so did Trinitarianism with Bishop of Athanasius of Alexandria, so you can't just write them off.

 

[Alive_Again]

<However, so did Trinitarianism with Bishop of Athanasius of Alexandria, so you can't just write them off.

I won't dismiss anything outright. Given the fact that scriptures are removed, the name of Jesus taken out many times, scriptures about dealing with the devil, the name of Lucifer changed, it has serious problems. I actually like some of the words of the NIV, but I can't accept removing passages from the Bible, particularly from Jesus Himself.

 

[Julian of York]

As a long time Baptist, and newly Reformed, I cannot change from the KJV.
Reasons?
1)I have too much Scripture memorized to start all over with a different translation.
2)I have studied the Bible in the KJV edition enough to have a sort of harmony in my mind. I can often hear a single verse and know what book it is from,what the circumstances are,and so forth. I give God total credit for this,but I am "tuned in" to the KJV so I am staying put.
3)The Word has a sort of poetry about it that brings tears to my eyes often.
Like:"And the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us;and we beheld His Glory,as of the only Begotten of the Father,full of grace and truth." John 1:14
When David says that "As for me,I will behold thy face in righteousness:I shall be satisfied,when I awake,with thy likeness."
That SOUNDS holy!

I do not judge anyone that uses another solid translation,though. My church uses the ESV, and I keep the NIV beside my study chair for reference. But I is sticking to the old King James Version.(As some of my Fundamentilist friends say:"IT'S AUTHORIZED!".)

Julian of York
P.S. I have no idea why this should be an issue,as long as the translation is accurate. I suspect that,as preachers and elders are required to contend for the faith, this is the best they could come up with...to contend for their favorite translation. It draws a certain group of like-minded individuals and CONVICTS no one,so it is safe to preach in any church and offend nobody! What a gift for "conference speakers"!

Isaiah 32:17

 

[NewHope2010]

Which translation of the Bible do you use most often? Or which one is your favorite?

I like the ESV but my regular Bible is the Orthodox Study Bible (Septuagint OT/ NKJV NT)

I recommend the New Living Translation. For someone who is new to their faith, this is the plainest translation I have ever read! It goes a long way in helping people to understand God's Word.

 

[OzSpen]

Julian,

As a long time Baptist, and newly Reformed, I cannot change from the KJV.
Reasons?
1)I have too much Scripture memorized to start all over with a different translation.
2)I have studied the Bible in the KJV edition enough to have a sort of harmony in my mind. I can often hear a single verse and know what book it is from,what the circumstances are,and so forth. I give God total credit for this,but I am "tuned in" to the KJV so I am staying put.
3)The Word has a sort of poetry about it that brings tears to my eyes often.
Like:"And the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us;and we beheld His Glory,as of the only Begotten of the Father,full of grace and truth." John 1:14
When David says that "As for me,I will behold thy face in righteousness:I shall be satisfied,when I awake,with thy likeness."
That SOUNDS holy!

I do not judge anyone that uses another solid translation,though. My church uses the ESV, and I keep the NIV beside my study chair for reference. But I is sticking to the old King James Version.(As some of my Fundamentilist friends say:"IT'S AUTHORIZED!".)

Julian of York
P.S. I have no idea why this should be an issue,as long as the translation is accurate. I suspect that,as preachers and elders are required to contend for the faith, this is the best they could come up with...to contend for their favorite translation. It draws a certain group of like-minded individuals and CONVICTS no one,so it is safe to preach in any church and offend nobody! What a gift for "conference speakers"!

Isaiah 32:17

I also was raised on the KJV, attend a Baptist church, and I'm not a youngster either. However, I came to realise when the NIV was released in 1978 as a full Bible that the KJV no longer communicates with the public. So I have never used the KJV in public since then in my preaching and Bible study. Besides, I've learned that the KJV used today is the 1769 revision and not the original 1611 edition of the KJV. So, even the KJV believed in being updated as language changed. Try comparing the language of the 1611 KJV with the 1769 revision used today.

Wikipedia has an excellent, but brief, article on the production of the KJV, &#8220;Authorized King James Version&#8221;. Here is a brief example from this article of the difference in translation and spelling between the 1611 and 1769 texts of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3: below.

1611 edition: Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
​

1769 edition: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
​

As a Baptist, do you support the use of the Apocrypha? The 1611 edition of the KJV came with the Apocrypha inserted between the OT and NT.

Besides, the contemporary Bible translations for the NT are based on earlier manuscript evidence than the Textus Receptus (used for the KJV New Testament), thus making for more accurate foundational manuscripts. The Textus Receptus is not a good text on which to base a translation. I'd recommend a read of this article, "The Textus Receptus", for an explanation of why the TR is a poor foundational document for a translation of the NT.

In Christ, Spencer

 

[OzSpen]

NewHope,

I recommend the New Living Translation. For someone who is new to their faith, this is the plainest translation I have ever read! It goes a long way in helping people to understand God's Word.

The NLT is an excellent translation for those new in the faith. It is accurate as long as one realises that it uses a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation (conveying the meaning of the phrase rather than word-by-word equivalence). The NIV also is an excellent translation for new Christians - also using dynamic equivalence.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[dies-l]

NewHope,

The NLT is an excellent translation for those new in the faith. It is accurate as long as one realises that it uses a dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation (conveying the meaning of the phrase rather than word-by-word equivalence). The NIV also is an excellent translation for new Christians - also using dynamic equivalence.

Sincerely, Spencer

Personally, I prefer the NIV substantially to the NLT. I would put the NLT in a similar category as The Message, which I would never use as a standalone Bible. Although both the NIV and NLT are considered "dynamic equivalents", the NLT seems to take a lot more liberties with this than other dynamic equivalent translations.

 

[OzSpen]

dies-1,

Personally, I prefer the NIV substantially to the NLT. I would put the NLT in a similar category as The Message, which I would never use as a standalone Bible. Although both the NIV and NLT are considered "dynamic equivalents", the NLT seems to take a lot more liberties with this than other dynamic equivalent translations.

There is a great difference between The Message and The New Living Translation. The Message was translated by one man. The NLT was translated by a team of translator scholars. There is a better opportunity to get a reliable translation when there is a team of scholars than one man.

My copy of the NLT has a list of the "New Living Translation Bible Translation Team" and these scholars include Gordon Wenham (Genesis), Carl E. Armeding (Joshua/Judges), Craig Blomberg (Matthew), Darrel Bock (Luke), D. A. Carson (Acts), Robert Mounce (1-3 John/Revelation). Before his death, F. F. Bruce was one of the special reviewers.

While the dynamic equivalence used is somewhat different from that in the NIV (I also prefer the NIV), the translation philosophy that some Bible translators use when making a first translation into a new language, is similar to that of the NLT.

While the starting point for the NLT was the Living Bible, the concluding point was very different from that of the LB produced by Kenneth Taylor. I'd place the LB and The Message in the same category - one man translations. That is not the case with the NLT.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[ebia]

dies-1,

There is a great difference between The Message and The New Living Translation. The Message was translated by one man. The NLT was translated by a team of translator scholars.

Just to note that, while it is entirely Eugene Peterson's translation and he takes full responsibility for its idiosyncracies, it was run past a body of suitable scholars for checking.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I like the RSV (and the ESV hardly any difference between the two actually) . Lately I've been reading the Douay Rheims though. Thats a good classic translation.

 

[OzSpen]

ebia,

Just to note that, while it is entirely Eugene Peterson's translation and he takes full responsibility for its idiosyncracies, it was run past a body of suitable scholars for checking.

That is not the same as a translation by a team of scholars.

 

[OzSpen]

Christos,

I like the RSV (and the ESV hardly any difference between the two actually) . Lately I've been reading the Douay Rheims though. Thats a good classic translation.

Have you seen this comparison of the Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version?

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[ebia]

ebia,

That is not the same as a translation by a team of scholars.

I know, but I thought it worth mentioning to ward off possible false impressions.

 

[dies-l]

Christos,

Have you seen this comparison of the Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version?

Sincerely, Spencer

Thanks. The website explains well why I tend to avoid using the ESV, except perhaps alongside the NRSV or RSV. The ESV tends to interpret the Old Testament to better coincide with modern and traditional interpretations of the New Testament. One reason that I prefer the RSV to the ESV is that it translates the OT more independently of the NT and lets the reader do the work of interpreting and reconciling the two.

FTR, I have similar complaints about the NRSV, so I tend to avoid using it without having an ESV handy to correct the NRSV's biases. I have found the RSV to be a pretty solid middle ground between the two. But, my general philosphy of Bible study is that one should not rely exclusively on a single translation, so I tend to use the RSV alongside the NIV, NASB, NJB, and others.

 

[papaJP]

I also have many translations but I read to start the NRSV. I have over 80 translations in my computer. All have some difficulties in wording. It is almost impossible to translate from the original languages into English and not have some word decisions and these cause some difficulty for all true scholars.

 

[cyberlizard]

My preferred choice has to be New King James Version (with my Complete Jewish Bible being a read for devotional use).


Steve

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

My preferred translation right now is the ESV.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Which translation of the Bible do you use most often? Or which one is your favorite?

I like the ESV but my regular Bible is the Orthodox Study Bible (Septuagint OT/ NKJV NT)

## The New English Bible of 1970. I also use the Revised Version of 1881-95 a good deal, largely because it has a lot of marginal references, which is very good for study.

What I would like is a good second-hand, well-bound, nicely-printed Latin Vulgate.

I have a 1985 Jewish Publication Society TaNaKh, which I got because I wanted a translation of the OT not affected by Christian influence. I also have the 1935 Rahlfs edition of the Septuagint.