# First the NAS, then the KJV, then the ___??



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

I've only used two main Bible versions for reading and study since I was saved. I started out using the NAS, and enjoyed reading it for the first few years. Then I read some books about the KJV and the perversion of modern translations, so I started reading the KJV. The KJV has been the main version I've used over the years.

Yesterday, as I was reading the Bible, I started thinking about maybe checking out another version. I have no problem reading the KJV, I enjoy reading it, but I started thinking it wouldn't hurt to read the scriptures in language closer to the way we speak now. Quite often I come across old English words that aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I look in the margin to find out their meaning, and it seems more often than not the word in the margin is what's used in more modern translations. 

Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?


----------



## TimV (Jul 5, 2009)

> Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?



It's a question of degree. All the main modern English translations use a whole range of texual sources.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 5, 2009)

English Standard Version (ESV). It reads beautifully and is strongly accurate. I would say that would be the closest to what you are looking for.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 5, 2009)

Frankly, you're going to get a plethora of opinions on this particular topic--so here comes the flood! 

Personally, I prefer the ESV, but the NASB 95 is good too. If you want to stick with the same Greek text as the KJV, then you want the New King James Version.


----------



## TimV (Jul 5, 2009)

The NKJV doesn't use the same texual sources as the KJV. I don't remember how many off hand, but I'm sure there are dozens of times the NKJV uses the MT instead of the RT.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Jul 5, 2009)

The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> The NKJV doesn't use the same texual sources as the KJV. I don't remember how many off hand, but I'm sure there are dozens of times the NKJV uses the MT instead of the RT.



Actually it does. 

_"...the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."_ *Preface to the New Geneva Study Bible - New King James Version*


----------



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.


You don't happen to know his website, do you? I started googling, but the first site I found had this to say:
The Modern King James Version or MKJV is becoming popular among many people who want to avoid the obvious perversions in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. The only thing is that they are falling for another perversion. The MKJV is hardly a King James Version. It is another modern perversion that seeks to put secular thinking above godly reasoning.

The publisher and maker of the MKJV is Jay P. Green, a Calvinistic Bible perverter.​I'd rather bypass the commentary on the version, if you know what I mean.


----------



## TimV (Jul 5, 2009)

> the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."



Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?


----------



## VilnaGaon (Jul 5, 2009)

blhowes said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> > The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
> ...



Bibles - New Bibles - KJ3 - Literal Translation New Testament, paperback edition, Jay Green, Sr. Translator - Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc.http://http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/bibles/new-bibles/kj3-literal-translation-new-testament-paperback-edition-jay-green-sr-translator/prod_34.html
I know the New Testament KJ3 is being sold as I have a copy. The Entire Bible should be out soon if not already. Hope the website link helps.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> > the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?



This is what I understand. I have the book _The New King James Version in the Great Tradition_; they mention that they considered going MT for it, but decided on the TR due to trying to update the old KJV, and referred to the MT and CT in the notes.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> > the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?



As far as I know Thomas Nelson, Inc. hasn't changed the NKJV. I'm definately open to correction if anyone knows better. I would imagine that if they were to incorporate the MT or CT into the body of the NT text they wouldn't be able to issue it as the NKJV. It would be a completely different version. 

In any case, here's an online version of the NKJV's preface. It's the same as the preface found in my New Geneva Studt Bible. The part I quoted is found near the end of the preface.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/NKJV.html


----------



## VilnaGaon (Jul 5, 2009)

blhowes said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> > The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
> ...




Jay Green is no Bible perverter. His Interlinear Bible (4vol or 1vol) is highly regarded and is published by a Mainline Publisher.The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek-English Bible, 4 Volumes - Edited By: Jay P. Green By: Jay P. Green - Christianbook.com
An Orthodox Jewish Bookshop here in Toronto stocks a copy, and when I surprised, asked the owner why he stocked a Christian Translation of the Bible, he told me that although Christian, it was accurate. High Praise indeed from an enemy of the Faith.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

Thanks. I appreciate your responses.

You know what's the hardest part about choosing another version? Reading about why other versions are inferior, or not as good (or perversions). I know its par for the course, but...


----------



## Contra Marcion (Jul 5, 2009)

*TR vs. MT vs. CT........*

I think part of the problem is that we've gotten used to referring to these Greek manuscripts as though they were, well, manuscripts. Every time you say something uses the "TR", you're really saying that, in most cases, the particular translation makes the same textual-critical decisions as Erasmus did in the sixteenth century. There is no "TR" out there as some sort of original document. Erasmus compiled many texts, largely Byzantine, and created a new work. Before Erasmus and his own scholarly decisions, there simply was no "TR". 

Even if we were to grant that the term "TR" refers to some sort of original text-type, which edition of the TR would that be? One of several that Erasmus edited? Stephanus'? Beza's?

Each word must be evaluated in light of all the textual evidence, not because it does or does not conform to some man-made compilation of many texts. Would we really say that we may not use the same principles in translation and text selection that Erasmus used in formulating his TR? Or that the KVJ translators used in translating it? 

One may accuse the NASB, ESV, etc. of being corrupt, but they would have to provide manuscript evidence, not sixteenth century compilations, to back such assertions.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> Jay Green is no Bible perverter.


Thanks for helping me bypass such rhetoric.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 5, 2009)

blhowes said:


> Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?



Go with the NKJV. It is a faithful ('essentially literal') translation, a joy to read (in my humble opinion), and, according to Michael Marlowe @ Bible-Researcher.com, is...

"... a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the _Textus Receptus_ of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes)."


----------



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

> This is especially grievous in the Bibles like the NIV that use “Dynamic Equivalence” as their translation methodology.


This is a quote from the description of the KJ3. Just wondering which versions besides the NIV use this method.

Do most here agree that the "Dynamic Equivalence" method, regardless of which manuscripts you use, is not the best method to use?...or not?


----------



## Nomad (Jul 5, 2009)

Contra Marcion said:


> Even if we were to grant that the term "TR" refers to some sort of original text-type, which edition of the TR would that be? One of several that Erasmus edited? Stephanus'? Beza's?



You're right and that needs to be made clear. There are various versions of the TR and they are all "critical" editions.


----------



## Edward (Jul 5, 2009)

Sounds like you are looking for The New King James Version. It is close to what you are used to (both in source documents and style), but with a more modern vocabulary. 

Lots of reformed folks are infatuated with the ESV. You might want to check it out, but it's more of the family of translations such as the RSV.


----------



## Jake (Jul 5, 2009)

If you're willing to go with a critical text version, the ESV and NASBU are great. 

If you want a majority text translation, World English Bible and the English Majority Text Version are good, but you won't be able to get a good print edition. 

If you want a revision to the KJV, there are many of these. NKJV is the most common and it is a good translation from what I have read of it. There are also others like the American KJV (AKJV).

If you want a more dynamic translation, NET is a good choice.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 5, 2009)

Try to find the NKJV of the _Reformation Study Bible_ edited by Sproul. Some are still available, even used ones that are in good shape. The current version uses the ESV, but I found a used NKJV at amazon.com a few months ago.

AMR


----------



## Berean (Jul 5, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Try to find the NKJV of the _Reformation Study Bible_ edited by Sproul. Some are still available, even used ones that are in good shape. The current version uses the ESV, but I found a used NKJV at amazon.com a few months ago.
> 
> AMR



CEP Bookstore - NKJV - REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE - R.C. SPROUL, GEN. BLACK GENUINE LEATHER

With more searching you might find a better price. Ligonier is out.


----------



## Philip (Jul 5, 2009)

The ESV is an essentially literal translation of the Bible which I use. NKJV is also good (though still not quite accurate to modern usage--but my copy of the RSB is NKJV). NIV is as far as I (rarely) venture into the realm of "dynamic" translation (ie: paraphrase). 

As far as "using the same texts" goes, I tend to see it as a non-issue because the TR is flawed, but so is any other collected text simply because humans make fallible judgment calls. Only the originals were truly infallible but as it is, we have a pretty good notion of what they said anyway.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Jul 5, 2009)

Nomad said:


> Frankly, you're going to get a plethora of opinions on this particular topic--so here comes the flood!
> 
> Personally, I prefer the ESV, but the NASB 95 is good too. If you want to stick with the same Greek text as the KJV, then you want the New King James Version.



Well said!


----------



## blhowes (Jul 5, 2009)

Jake said:


> *If you're willing to go with a critical text version*, the ESV and NASBU are great.
> 
> *If you want a majority text translation*, World English Bible and the English Majority Text Version are good, but you won't be able to get a good print edition.
> 
> ...


I usually like to make informed decisions. It would appear that may not be possible in this case for quite some time. Critical text , majority text , KJV revision , dynamic translation 

Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 5, 2009)

blhowes said:


> Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being



Hey, if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul...


----------



## Nomad (Jul 5, 2009)

blhowes said:


> Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being



That would be just fine. I was raised on the KJV. It's a wonderful translation. Keep reading it. Keep studying textual criticism. Reserve judgment for some time in the future. Don't sweat it.


----------



## Grymir (Jul 6, 2009)

I stick with the KJV. Having and relying on one translation has alot of benefits. You know the ins and outs without having to relearn them. 

If I want to compare translations, I use the Geneva 1599.

There's nothing wrong with the KJV lingo, we speak it in our home, and it's actually nice to use and hear. It add's a touch of familiarity.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 6, 2009)

I prefer two Bibles: *NKJV and ESV* (with the KJV as a back up).
*
NKJV*
The NKJV is the only one I know that offers you footnotes identifying the Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Text (NU) and Majority Text (Byzantine) variations from the KJV (Textus Receptus). This can be VERY handy in that you have essentially all of the major variations for any NT text in the TR, MT, and eclectic textual traditions.

The Reformation Study Bible in genuine leather is full of GREAT study helps. My wife uses the ESV version of it. For some reason the leather in the Reformation Study Bible NKJV is much more supple and flexible than the ESV version. In fact, it is the most flexible leather of any Bible I own and one of the most inexpensive. Of the various editions of the NKJV, the Reformation Study Bible is my absolute FAVORITE.

Frankly, I find the NKJV to read aloud more smoothly than the ESV. For some reason, the cadences seem to flow more naturally more often. This came as a great surprise to me since I made fun of my wife (based on my own ignorance and lack of first hand examination); she used it for years .

*ESV*
For the ESV, you have three very good options.

1. For a sit on your desk reference edition, the recent ESV Study Bible is overwhelmingly full-featured. It has the best maps, graphics, and articles. Not completely Reformed, but essentially so, it is a good 700 pages longer than almost any other study Bible. This makes it a great desk reference and a lousy "take to church" Bible.

2. Reformation Study Bible (ESV). It has an edited version of the entire _Concise Theology_ by J.I. Packer sandwiched in as special interest boxed articles and sidebars throughout the Bible (helpfully indexed in the front, however). And, it has solidly Reformed study notes throughout. It is difficult to find fault with it on any score. And, it is not too heavy to take to church.

3. R.L. Allan, "often known to be the best bound Bibles on earth. Publishers (and customers) nationwide have noted that R.L. Allan uses techniques and materials which truly make it the 'Gold Standard' in publishing" has some ESV settings that are to die for and almost affordable too. Evangelicalbible.com (R.L. Allan ESV, KJV and NIV) distributes the Allan Bibles in the US.

Their ultra high end ESV is on sale for $160.

As far as the KJV goes, I dropped enough hints that I think my wife might be getting me an Allan Oxford Longprimer Ref Ed. (KJV) Highland Goatskin (model 53) or the Allan-Oxford Brevier Blackface Edition (Highland Goatskin)20BR for my upcoming birthday!!! Brother Underwood got me salivating after he got his Longprimer a while back.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 6, 2009)

blhowes said:


> I've only used two main Bible versions for reading and study since I was saved. I started out using the NAS, and enjoyed reading it for the first few years. Then I read some books about the KJV and the perversion of modern translations, so I started reading the KJV. The KJV has been the main version I've used over the years.
> 
> Yesterday, as I was reading the Bible, I started thinking about maybe checking out another version. I have no problem reading the KJV, I enjoy reading it, but I started thinking it wouldn't hurt to read the scriptures in language closer to the way we speak now. Quite often I come across old English words that aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I look in the margin to find out their meaning, and it seems more often than not the word in the margin is what's used in more modern translations.
> 
> Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?



What I think is very illuminating on the subject is that if you look at what sections of the WCF were changed because of newly found manuscripts, you will find ... none.

No matter what modern translation (or the KJV) you use, it should be received as the word of God. Even if you are TR only, it makes little sense to use KJV, as it is no longer the common tongue that we speak today. Staying with the KJV is very similar to the RC staying with the Latin *Vulgate* (Vulgate is the Latin from which we get "vulgar" ... common). The RC translated the Greek/Hebrew into Latin because it was the common tongue, and then tradition crept in and the Latin became the Bible to them. The whole purpose of the Vulgate was to have the scriptures in the common tongue. Now we are seeing people using a Bible that is no more the common tongue than Greek was to the early RC church, and yet insisting it is the only inspired Bible. While I don't take it to be many out there (and I don't believe anyone here would) there are those that hold the KJV above the Greek/Hebrew text. Full circle on the Latin.

So what translation should you use? Any of them that are a translation would be acceptable. When you think of the differences, they are minor. If you get into a tight spot, and are truly perplexed, you don't use English as the final authority in any case ... get a Greek or Hebrew scholar to explain the passage and go through it word-by-word, thought-by-thought with you. Compare what they translate with others that do the same (hmmm...multiple translations of the Bible anyone) and expect them to agree with very minor differences. And of course look at the whole of scripture to understand the part that is less clear.

While there are those that will be dogmatic about it, remember what I first stated ... what in all the WCF or the WLC, or WSC was changed because of changes in the text? Nothing. There may be differences between translated passages, but the translations (ones without an ax to grind) are generally all good enough to study. NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, CEV ... you name it, it probably is reasonable. Sure, some are better, and some you would need to be careful about (the new politically correct NIV I'd rather not, but I'd take it over no Bible any day).


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 6, 2009)

If you want an example of what these textual variants are all about, here are the most significant translatable variants in Romans. 

CT = the "critical text" behind most modern translations
MT = the Byzantine "majority text"
TR = "Textus Receptus" behind the Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV, NKJV

*Romans*

1:16 MT/ TR: of Christ - CT: omits

8:1 MT/ TR: [who] do not walk about according to flesh, but according to [the] Spirit. - CT: omits

8:26 MT/ TR: on our behalf - CT: omits

9:11 MT/ TR: not of works, but of the One calling), - CT: moves to beginning of verse 12

9:28 MT/ TR: in righteousness, because [the] matter having been ended abruptly - CT: omits

10:15 MT/ TR: of the ones proclaiming the Gospel of peace - CT: omits

11:6 MT/ TR: but if by works, it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work. - CT: omits

12:2 MT: [you* are] to stop conforming yourselves to this age, but [are] to continue being transformed - TR/ CT: stop conforming yourselves to this age, but continue being transformed

14:6 MT/ TR: and the one not honoring the day, to [the] Lord he does not honor [it]. - CT: omits

14:21 MT/ TR: or is made to fall, or becomes weak - CT: omits

14:24-26 MT: includes in this location - TR/ CT: includes as 16:25-27

16:24 MT/ TR: includes verse - CT: omits verse

I agree with Brian; pretty much any translation is the "Word of God" to me (even the dynamic equivalent versions). However, during the last few years I have taken the time to reconsider the arguments for and against the critical text. Hence, my openness to the NKJV and KJV in addition to my ESV.

Given a choice, I prefer a literal or essentially literal translation (cf. the arguments by Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem, and others). That leaves me with the following options:
*
Traditional (Reformation) Text (TR/MT)*
* KJV
* NKJV
*
Critical (Eclectic) Text*
* ESV
* NAS
* HCSB

Frankly, I have a bit of a head scratching experience seeing how many Reformed folks have flocked to the ESV. If the goal is a strictly literal word-for-word rendering, why not stay with the NAS? If the goal is an idiomatic essentially literal translation, why not opt for the VERY readable HCSB? Perhaps the Southern Baptist provenance has tainted the HCSB among the Reformed communities??? As it is, going against the flow is just too difficult. The HCSB is not likely to replace the ESV among Reformed Christians any time soon, so the ESV is my default critical text translation.

As for the KJV vs. NKJV debate, the NKJV is just an improvement in so many ways (replacing archaic words *and* correcting a few obvious translational errors). In the Reformation Study Bible (NKJV) edition, it is the main Bible I preach and teach from at this time. However, even with a somewhat dated language, it is difficult to beat the majesty of the KJV.


----------



## Grymir (Jul 6, 2009)

KJV as Backup? I'm watching Men in Black II right now. Gives it a whole new meaning. Armed with the word of God, The KJV is my favorite weapon!


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 6, 2009)

> KJV as Backup? I'm watching Men in Black II right now. Gives it a whole new meaning. Armed with the word of God, The KJV is my favorite weapon!


Timothy,

_Thou rank motley-minded devil-incarnate! Thou traitorous shag-haired pignut! Thou wayward toad-spotted filthy rogue! Thou mewling earth-vexing hypocrite! Thou spongey urchin-snouted whey-face! Thou dissembling spur-galled maggot-pie! Thou mammering clapper-clawed gudgeon!_

Sorry, brother. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to understand that stuff. KJV is just a little too "over my head." Remember, I'm the product of the California school system . . . for sure!

Cheer up, Timothy. I'm sure that R.L. Allan will be coming out with a Oxford Brevier Clarendon Ref Highland Goatskin-Chocolate setting for the Soul Surfer Bible (NIV), Spirit Filled Life Bible, or Message ReMix any day now.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 6, 2009)

blhowes said:


> I've only used two main Bible versions for reading and study since I was saved. I started out using the NAS, and enjoyed reading it for the first few years. Then I read some books about the KJV and the perversion of modern translations, so I started reading the KJV. The KJV has been the main version I've used over the years.
> 
> Yesterday, as I was reading the Bible, I started thinking about maybe checking out another version. I have no problem reading the KJV, I enjoy reading it, but I started thinking it wouldn't hurt to read the scriptures in language closer to the way we speak now. Quite often I come across old English words that aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I look in the margin to find out their meaning, and it seems more often than not the word in the margin is what's used in more modern translations.
> 
> Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? *Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?*



I have used the New King James Bible for over twenty years now and like it very much. It is the only MAJOR translation that uses the same Greek Text as the KJV. 

I am very much persuaded that the Byzantine Text Tradition from which the Greek Manuscripts underlying both the KJV and the NKJB were taken is of a purer transmission line that the Ecclectic text underlying the ASV, NAS, ESV, etc. There is a great debate over this issue and I am fairly familiar with both sides.

For those persuaded to follow the Ecclectic Text I recommend the NAS finding it to give a better English rendering than the highly touted (hyped) and marketed ESV.


----------



## Jake (Jul 6, 2009)

blhowes said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> > *If you're willing to go with a critical text version*, the ESV and NASBU are great.
> ...



There are two main classes of New Testament manuscripts. The critical texts are generally made from the oldest manuscripts. Majority texts are generally made from the most numerous manuscripts. King James is based off of the Textus Receptus which is very similar to the Majority Text, but includes even things that the Majority Text doesn't contain. There are virtually no new translations based off of Textus Receptus, which was a Greek manuscript complied by Erasmus. Many older translations like King James, Geneva Bible, and Young's Literal Translation are, and some have updated versions. Most modern translations are based off of the Critical Text. Here is a comparison of the two that is pretty good. However, realistically, no doctrinal differences exist between the two. Most "omissions" from the Majority Text not found in the Critical Text are found elsewhere in the Bible. 

So, if you don't mind using a Critical Text, which is probably what most Christians use (except the KJV users), here are two good choices:

1) The English Standard Version is an essentially literal translation. It tries to translate as literally as possible, but at the sacrifice of word order and sometimes phrases are replaced and footnoted when particullarly bizarre in English. For example, compare the first part of I Peter 1:13 in the ESV and KJV:

ESV- Therefore, preparing your mind for action, (footnote Greek, _girding up the loins of your mind_)
KJV- Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind,

This way, you can see the original text, but read what it probably means and makes more sense to you. I personally do not say this phrase in my English, and when our Vice President tried to, he was ridiculed!

It's important to remember that the ESV (and the RSV that it is a revision of) departs from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament somewhat often compared to other translations and looks at the Greek, Syric, and other translations to help translate. 

2) The NASB is similar in idea to the ESV. It is a higher reading level--probably high school and the ESV is middle school. The NASB is more literal in some places than the ESV and less literal and other places. The NASB has been made easier to read with the Updated version released in 1995. I personally like the ESV better, but the NASB has the strength (or weakness, depending on your perspective) of captilizing pronouns when they refer to God, whereas the ESV does not. Try both to see which you like better.



blhowes said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want a revision to the KJV*, there are many of these. NKJV is the most common and it is a good translation from what I have read of it. There are also others like the American KJV (AKJV).



These revisions generally are where the KJV text has been taken and revised to be more modern. Some are very minor changes like spelling, such as the AKJV, and others are very different like the NKJV. If you want to stay with the KJV style and source text but just want a little more modern, you could go with one of these. NKJV has high acclaim generally. 



blhowes said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want a more dynamic translation*, NET is a good choice.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Dynamic equivalent translations are where translators are focused on getting the intended meaning of the Greek into English without translating each word for word. They vary in how much they depart from being literal. Translations like the NET and the common NIV are pretty close to the original text still, whereas others depart from it much more, such as the New Century Version and New Living Translation. I recommend the NET out of these because it is still pretty close to the original, and there is a version with translator notes explaining why everything is translated as it is, where it departs from literal Greek.

But, here's a comparison of a verse I chose at random in a very literal translation (main aim is word for word accuracy, probably only would want to use this in study), a formal equivalence translation (KJV, ESV, NASB), and two dynamic translations... one less dynamic and one more dynamic. I'll through a paraphrase on there for good measure, which is where the translator basically puts the text in his own words. This can introduce theological bias and many other problems so avoid it if possible!) Romans 11:36:

Literal: because of Him, and through Him, and to Him are the all things; to Him is the glory -- to the ages. Amen. (YLT... notice forever is substituted for what may be a more literal translation of this)

Formal: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (ESV)

Less dyanmic: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (NIV... not much different in this case)

More dynamic: For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen. (NLT... tries to keep the meaning without worrying about being exactly accurate).

Paraphrase: Everything comes from him; Everything happens through him; Everything ends up in him. Always glory! Always praise! Yes. Yes. Yes. Place Your Life Before God. (MSG)



blhowes said:


> Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being



KJV isn't a bad translation, but I'd check out ESV.


----------



## KMK (Jul 6, 2009)

blhowes said:


> I've only used two main Bible versions for reading and study since I was saved. I started out using the NAS, and enjoyed reading it for the first few years. Then I read some books about the KJV and the perversion of modern translations, so I started reading the KJV. The KJV has been the main version I've used over the years.
> 
> Yesterday, as I was reading the Bible, I started thinking about maybe checking out another version. I have no problem reading the KJV, I enjoy reading it, but I started thinking it wouldn't hurt to read the scriptures in language closer to the way we speak now. Quite often I come across old English words that aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I look in the margin to find out their meaning, and it seems more often than not the word in the margin is what's used in more modern translations.
> 
> Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?



Which version does your pastor use?


----------



## blhowes (Jul 6, 2009)

KMK said:


> Which version does your pastor use?


I'm not a member of a church now. Most churches we've visited use the NIV.


----------



## Dovecat (Jul 6, 2009)

Isn't it wonderful to see such lively discussion about the Word of God? I have and read all of these translations. Our church uses the ESV as a pew bible. My first bible as a child was KJV. My conversion came at a time when the NIV was my main study bible. I guess my point here is that no matter which translation you prefer (ESV, KJV, NAS, NIV, etc.) the key is to READ it, STUDY it, and APPLY it daily!


----------



## Jake (Jul 6, 2009)

Dovecat said:


> Isn't it wonderful to see such lively discussion about the Word of God? I have and read all of these translations. Our church uses the ESV as a pew bible. My first bible as a child was KJV. My conversion came at a time when the NIV was my main study bible. I guess my point here is that no matter which translation you prefer (ESV, KJV, NAS, NIV, etc.) the key is to READ it, STUDY it, and APPLY it daily!



I definitely agree with this mostly, however it is important to not get a version of God's Word which is a distortion! No translation can be perfect, but there are many translations that incorporate false doctrine. The Living Bible, for instance:

"For from the very beginning God decided that those who came to him--and all along he knew who would--should become like his Son, so that his Son would be the First, with many brothers." -Romans 8:29 (TLB)

The Living Bible is a common evangelical translation with problems. The Voice from the emergent church, the New World Translation from Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. all tend to incorporate false doctrine. 

Thankfully, most modern translations available are still doctrinally sound!


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Jul 6, 2009)

blhowes said:


> Thanks. I appreciate your responses.
> 
> You know what's the hardest part about choosing another version? Reading about why other versions are inferior, or not as good (or perversions). I know its par for the course, but...



I would recommend you read James White's book, 'The King James Only Controversy' to see a very good and strongly conservative response to a lot of the 'perversion' nonsense. Sorry if this has been suggested already.


----------



## student ad x (Jul 6, 2009)

Hello all,
I'll just say I use the NAU, ESV & NKJV and leave it at that






I am looking forward to getting this


----------

