# Do you struggle with which version to use?



## BG (May 2, 2009)

I can't seem to settle this issue KJV, ESV, NKJV which one? I have used the KJV for most of my Christian life but I prefer a modern version.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 2, 2009)

To answer the title question: No, I don't struggle with which version to use.


----------



## Whitefield (May 2, 2009)

I have used the NASB since seminary days (almost 30 years), but of the three you listed, I would go with the NKJV.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 2, 2009)

No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 2, 2009)

I really like the NASB, and the pulpit Bible I uses is a giant print NASB (which is helpful b/c it is easily readable). I have often thought about switching to the NKJV (since it takes a "best of both worlds" approach to translation, and the psalms read much better than the NASB). However, what I have found is that congregants like the NASB so much (or the fact that that's the one the preacher uses!) at my last two churches that they have taken upon themselves to "switch" (i.e., buy a new Bible) to that translation. So, at present, I am "stuck" with the NASB, but would think about switching to the NKJV (or possibly the ESV) if and when my giant print Bible finally falls apart.


----------



## reformedminister (May 2, 2009)

I preach from the KJV, and mostly study from it. Sometimes I will study from my ESV Reformation Study Bible. I have other translations but rarely use them at all.


----------



## BG (May 2, 2009)

[1


----------



## Theognome (May 2, 2009)

No struggles. Keep lots of bible versions handy. Use what works at the time. Make comparisons between them. Read them even the more. Buy nice leather bound bibles. Post pics of them so we all can drool at the cybersmell of a fresh bible.

Theognome


----------



## fredtgreco (May 2, 2009)

WDG said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.
> ...



What is the pulpit version? Which version does the pastor preach from? When you include Scripture in the bulletin, which version do you use?

If it is a hodge-podge, I would suggest that the Session take up the issue and decide on an "official" version. Not that it is the only one allowed to be used, but it would be the version used in public church documents and preaching.


----------



## BG (May 2, 2009)

In.


----------



## Rich Koster (May 2, 2009)

I do not struggle, I use several. However, when teaching I currently use NIV and would also use ESV because of the reading level of most in the class. If I read from Gen. or KJV, I'll probably frustrate the class.


----------



## ZackF (May 2, 2009)

I don't think multiple translations are a problem for the most part. They serve to enhance study. The largest catch I've ran in to is allowing them to interfere with memorization. Then I say "which translation?"


----------



## reformedminister (May 2, 2009)

I did struggle in the past. I have studied from different translations but always went back to the KJV. If I were to use a modern translation I would use the ESV. It is a great translation. I was preaching from the ESV so that it would be more understandable to those in the pews. However, most people in my congregation use the KJV. Since that is my favorite I now preach from the KJV, and explain archaic words when I come across them. Personally, I feel studying with the KJV has encouraged me to dig deeper in the Word. Early in my Christian walk, I would look up the English words and compare them to the Hebrew and Greek. Any Christian can learn to use a good dictionary and a Strong's Concordance, unless they are a lazy. If they put those to use they can purchase word studies and lexicons and dig even deeper.


----------



## ubermadchen (May 2, 2009)

No struggle here. I love my NASB but use the ESV for when I'm at work since the website is easier to navigate and compare translations. Our church uses ESV. Both translations are similar enough for me to not get distracted during public readings.


----------



## SolaGratia (May 2, 2009)

This book might be helpful.

Product Description
This commentary is especially useful for pastors and teachers who know that the members of their audiences use a variety of different English versions. It is also a helpful tool for serious students of the Bible, including laypeople and seminary students. In addition to this passage-by-passage commentary, the reader is introduced to the art of textual criticism, its importance for studying the New Testament, and the challenges translators of English versions face.
Presented in a clear, easy to read manner. All major English translations are surveyed & tabulated.

Amazon.com: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Philip W. Comfort: Books


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (May 2, 2009)

I have been through most of them- KJV, NIV, KJV (again) NKJV, ESV. At church we use the ESV and it is also popular at seminary. I have used the ESV for a number of years now and I like it but from time to time I miss the NIV.
I like the idea of using the same translation that your church uses and I guess I have more or less followed that pattern.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 2, 2009)

Yes, I have struggled. My struggle relates to the faithfulness of the English translation and the correct textual tradition to use.

* The ESV has just about become the de facto translation for contemporary Reformed believers and Calvinists generally (the TR and BR ). I find it to be an annoying translation to read, however. It seems inartful, choppy, and irregular from a stylistic perspective.

* The HCSB is a WONDERFUL Bible to read, essentially literal, and up-to-date. However, it is unlikely to capture the largest share of the market and that is a consideration. Who wants to use a Bible that few people reference, read, or memorize? If I could wave a magic wand, I would make the ESV disappear and the HCSB take its place. But, alas, my wand got broken the last time I sat down too fast and forgot that it was in my back pocket.

* I have recently found the NKJV to be a superior Bible in most respects: it reads (to my ears) much more smoothly than the ESV and offers a fairly full poor man's equivalent to an apparatus regarding textual variants in the majority, textus receptus, and critical text manuscripts. However, if you are in the vast majority of folks who are certain that Aleph and Vaticanus are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the Greek New Testament," then it would be a less than ideal solution.

Since your church evidently uses the KJV (textus receptus) already, I would suggest that you try the NKJV. Beware, it is not simply a washing of the "thees and thous" out in favor of more contemporary English. It makes textual corrections in places and corrects mistranslations in the KJV. For example: "deliver us from evil" becomes the more exegetically accurate "deliver us from the evil one." But, for me as a *NON*-KJV only person, that is an argument in favor of using it.

From a study Bible perspective, you have an abundance of riches.

* ESV Study Bible = the FINEST study Bible ever devised in the English language. Superior in every way, albeit not exclusively Calvinistic.
* Reformation Study Bible (available in either the ESV or NKJV versions) = my favorite for a number of reasons (put out by my hero R.C. Sproul, containing virtually an entire theology book by J.I. Packer in the form of nearly 100 boxed discussions of doctrinal topics distributed throughout the volume, and it is thoroughly Calvinist!).


----------



## Galatians220 (May 2, 2009)

*Never.* What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among _so _many others, is good enough for me.

Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.



Margaret


----------



## JM (May 2, 2009)

Galatians220 said:


> *Never.* What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among _so _many others, is good enough for me.
> 
> Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
> 
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.



This is one of the first questions I always ask churches in which I am going to fill a pulpit. That way I can tailor the structure of the Sermon around the way the text flows in the translation they use.


----------



## larryjf (May 2, 2009)

Galatians220 said:


> *Never.* What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among _so _many others, is good enough for me.
> 
> Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
> 
> ...



Dr. Hills' student, Dr. Theodore Letis also explains it quite well. A review of what i consider his best work is found here...
The Ecclesiastical Text


----------



## jwithnell (May 2, 2009)

No, it's not a struggle for me. After drifting around (guided mostly by what was being used in the pulpit) I came back to the NASB and would be greatly saddened to see anything happen to my current Bible. My advice would be: find a good translation you _like_ and stick with it for most purposes. If you don't know the original languages (I don't) keep several translations on hand for comparison while studying.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 2, 2009)

Not really. The AV works for me, although I consult other translations.

Add this to your library and you can then have them all at your fingertips for the New Testament:

1. Oxford University Press: The Evangelical Parallel New Testament:


----------



## LawrenceU (May 2, 2009)

For preaching and teaching I used the NASB for my English Bible from 1981 until three years ago. Then I began to use the ESV. It is accurate and much less 'woody' than the NASB. I still use it some, but I have begun to use the KJV/AV a good bit in the past year. It is not a TR/CT issue. I just like it. I have used it as my personal study translation for most of my life. I have been finding that in our new little church when I preach from the KJV it seems to require people to pay stricter attention. That is especially evident with the younger ones. People have commented that they are able to remember the text better and the attendant exegesis and application.

Sorry Dennis. I can't stand the HSCB.


----------



## cih1355 (May 2, 2009)

I don't struggle with which version to use. I usually read the NASB because that is what my church uses. I sometimes read the ESV and the NKJV.


----------



## Skyler (May 2, 2009)

WDG said:


> I can't seem to settle this issue KJV, ESV, NKJV which one? I have used the KJV for most of my Christian life but I prefer a modern version.



Our church mainly uses KJV; at the moment I have a KJV-NIV parallel Bible, because I found the NIV more easily readable than either the KJV or the NASB. I've run into a few difficulties with its dynamic equivalences though, and I'm considering switching to the ESV, owing to recommendations from here and elsewhere.


----------



## Grafted In (May 2, 2009)

I cannot help but wonder if the plethora of English translations available is a hindrance to the Church and has shown to be a symptom of denominationalism. The appeal of any given translation is dependent upon the subject theological and presuppostional preferences of the reader. 

I agree with what others have said in this thread, that the Church (via the elders) should decide on a translation that the congregation is encouraged to read so that there can be almost a common "tongue" among the members of a given church.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (May 2, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.
> ...





I recently was informed the leadership of a particular congregation expects guest preachers to use the NIV, which is the version available in the pew. To this, I replied in part:

... the choice of version of Bible to be read in a service or as text for preaching goes beyond the authority of a council, consistory or session to dictate, unless it may be a version inconsistent with the scripture as a whole or not true to the original text, or in an unknown tongue. The actual words read or used by a minister leading a service may not be dictated. This is a matter of powers of office (those held by virtue of office) and liberty of conscience. I for one will not read in public worship any version of scripture based upon the critical text, unless I am convinced otherwise.​
I read and preach from the AV exclusively in public worship.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.



Nah... you're putting the cart before the horse! To demonstrate that YOU are the pastor, the shepherd, the point man, etc., not to mention that you are the one who has actually studied these things and so you know better than they, you should compel the church to use the version YOU prefer.


----------



## christiana (May 2, 2009)

When I first attended my church the pastor was using the NASB so I bought one as well. Shortly thereafter he was gifted with a ESV and I decided, No I would not be going there but would return to my favorite of all, the NKJV and have remained with it, very contented.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 2, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



Glenn,

That being your point, you would never read or preach from my pulpit and usurp my authority, or the authority of my Session.

I assume that you would allow a guest preacher in your church the same liberty, and let him preach from the NIV as a matter of "liberty of conscience?"


----------



## Montanablue (May 2, 2009)

Can someone tell me what the HCSB is? I googled it and the only thing that came up was a bank.


----------



## Rich Koster (May 2, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Can someone tell me what the HCSB is? I googled it and the only thing that came up was a bank.



Holman Christian Standard Bible


----------



## sgtdabney (May 2, 2009)

I use the ESV, NKJV and NASB during private study (I don't care for the NIV for various reasons). However, when teaching or preaching I use only the NKJV only as that is the version our session has decided to be used in our church. I think a multitude of good translations is wise for us lay preachers and ruling elders, as most of us don't know Greek and Hebrew. But I would agree with my brethren above that a church should use one version for ecclesiastical functions.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Glenn,
> 
> That being your point, you would never read or preach from my pulpit and usurp my authority, or the authority of my Session.
> 
> I assume that you would allow a guest preacher in your church the same liberty, and let him preach from the NIV as a matter of "liberty of conscience?"



Ooh... that is a very good question! I hope he replies!


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (May 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> That being your point, you would never read or preach from my pulpit and usurp my authority, or the authority of my Session.
> 
> I assume that you would allow a guest preacher in your church the same liberty, and let him preach from the NIV as a matter of "liberty of conscience?"



I nor my session has ever objected to a guest preacher using a translation other than the AV, provided it is not something like the New World Translation (JW). 

A session certainly may set a standard for ordinary use in public worship. I doubt a Free Church of Scotland Continuing congregation would favor something other than the AV being used in their public worship.

My objection is to the absolute imposition of a modern translation as a requirement for a guest preacher. The primary concern should be the faithful preaching of the word from a faithful translation. To set an absolute requirement may make joint services or pulpit exchanges difficult, even within the same denomination, not to mention with churches with which they have fraternal relations..

To dictate the version of scripture one may use is similar to the attempted imposition of a prayer book upon ministers and congregations by civil and ecclesiastical authorities in Presbyterian history. The Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians rightly objected, not because they opposed written prayers, but because civil and ecclesiastical authorities lacked scriptural warrant to do so. The minister leading a service, reading the word or preaching can not have the words he uses dictated beyond the requirements of faithfulness to the scriptures themselves.

This became apparent last summer as the OPC GA was considering amendments to their proposed Directory of Worship. Though there is some desire on the part of many for clearer guidelines, adherence to the Regulative Principle, and uniformity in OP worship, legitimate objections were raised to language dictating specific forms to be used. The final language incorporated instructions, “these or similar words” for forms, recognizing the church had no warrant to deny Christian liberty where scripture provided none.

Secondly, to require the use of a particular translation adds an extra confessional qualification to a minister of the word. We are confessionally obligated to read scripture from a faithful translation in the common language of the congregation. The most faithful translation for given texts seems a power of office, belonging to the minister.

Thirdly, a session or other minister can not bind the conscience of another in matters not explicitly commanded in scripture. As I have conscientious objections to the critical text, to require its use is a violation of my liberty. The historic AV, used by the Westminster Assembly itself as the basis for its proof texts, is hardly an imposition upon an English language congregation, especially as an occasional matter by a guest preacher.

I respect a sessions right to decide who will preach from their pulpit. There may be congregations which would not consider calling me over this issue. I accept those inconveniences; but regard dictating which version of the Bible I might read and preach from as a guest an imposition on my ministerial office, Christian liberty, and a hindrance to potential fellowship by an extra-confessional, non scriptural and unwarranted requirement.


----------



## bookslover (May 2, 2009)

I only struggled with which translation to use back in the days when the NIV seemed to be everywhere, used by everyone. I went to the NIV because I disliked the woodenness of the NASB. But, as time went on, I became disenchanted with the NIV because of the many liberties it takes in the translation (much paraphrasing). So, when the ESV came along, I took it for a "test read," after which I more than willingly dumped the NIV. I've been happy with the ESV ever since.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 3, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> * The ESV has just about become the de facto translation for contemporary Reformed believers and Calvinists generally (the TR and BR ). I find it to be an annoying translation to read, however. It seems inartful, choppy, and irregular from a stylistic perspective.
> 
> * I have recently found the NKJV to be a superior Bible in most respects: it reads (to my ears) much more smoothly than the ESV



I find this a little strange. I changed to the ESV from the NKJV as I found the ESV easier to read. Romans 9 is a good example, if not all the NT epistles. The NKJV tends to have 'greek sounding' english. This is true also of the ESV, but to a lesser extent.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 3, 2009)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I find this a little strange. I changed to the ESV from the NKJV as I found the ESV easier to read. Romans 9 is a good example, if not all the NT epistles. The NKJV tends to have 'greek sounding' english. This is true also of the ESV, but to a lesser extent.


I have a the NKJV and the ESV Reformation Study Bibles, but after marking them up with respect to some items pointed out here, I realized that my trusty AV was more than adequate.


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2009)

If you want a Bible that you can be sure will still be around in 25 years, choose the KJV.

Plus it appears to be your church's Bible.


----------



## jwithnell (May 3, 2009)

> I agree with what others have said in this thread, that the Church (via the elders) should decide on a translation that the congregation is encouraged to read so that there can be almost a common "tongue" among the members of a given church.



I think it's important to distinguish between the use of the Bible for public and private worship. it seems well within the authority of the local session to say, we use such and such translation for the public reading of the word in worship. it seems like an important personal choice (and a matter of Christian liberty) to decide what you want to read personally. 

In group settings, like a Bible study, I think its a matter of courtesy to identify your translation as you start to read or quote. My pastor actually takes advantage of the multiple translations when looking at a less-clear text -- "Doug, how does the NKJV handle this ... " trying to see which English translations comes closest to the original language.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 3, 2009)

Our church uses the NIV, so I take that to worship. I also use it for devotions. When reading on my own, I go for the NASB, Jerusalem Bible (not bad for a papist production), and lately, the ASV of 1901.


----------



## bookslover (May 3, 2009)

Eventually, you should all switch to the Zuelch Translation, once it's ready several decades from now.

As a sample, here's my first rough draft of Genesis 1:1 - "Right at the very start of everything, God made a whole bunch of stuff."

Not bad, eh?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 3, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have a the NKJV and the ESV Reformation Study Bibles, but after marking them up with respect to some items pointed out here, I realized that my trusty AV was more than adequate.



This website states "*A more thorough analysis of Scripture changes in modern versions which affect the interpretation of Bible prophecy is presented in New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger. (AV Publications, Box 280, Ararat, VA, 1993, 1-800-435-4535)"

Are you kidding me? The Puritanboard has no respect for Gail Riplanger or her books. The Trinitararian Bible Society and even David Cloud (an anti Reformed KJV only man) distance themselves from this foolish woman.

Sorry to be blunt but I know of no serious Reformed person who has respect for Riplanger. It is a fact that Riplanger has SLANDERED godly Reformed people and theologians. The way of wisdom is to flee from her.


----------



## jackyond32 (May 3, 2009)

i thought the esv would last a long time too. i dunno but the KJV is tough for me. i dont struggle with which version, i think esv is good.


----------



## Igor (May 4, 2009)

I have been struggling with it for years, but up to this moment I have not found any substitute for the NIV - and I have tried almost everyhting. Though it was sort of discredited in my eyes because of its later gender-neutral revisions, I still use it as my primary translation for private reading, meditations and memorization. The others seem too "woody" and unnatural from the pioint of view of the English language - though who am I to judge? My intention is to shift to the KJV some day - when my knowledge of the Early English is sufficient for that.


----------



## drmackulin (May 4, 2009)

*ESV Study Bible rocks yo*

Dude, The ESV is the version I would recommend. It is "Essentially Transparent" in its translation philosophy which means you are getting an accurate literal rendering as well as one that reads very well. This makes it great for memorizing, preaching, reading etc. The NASB would be my #2 choice only because it is a bit "wooden" in its rendering of the English. However, a wise old Pastor once told me, whichever version you like to read and *obey* is the one for you. Don't sweat it brother. It is about the person of Christ not the english version you read! dm


----------



## RTaron (May 4, 2009)

I like the AV. no problem. My children learned AV type english from when they were little babies. No problem, we just discuss what the meaning of words are in family worship. 
At church it is still unsettled though. We preach from the ESV but the Lords prayer is recited from the AV.  

I wonder why?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 4, 2009)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > I have a the NKJV and the ESV Reformation Study Bibles, but after marking them up with respect to some items pointed out here, I realized that my trusty AV was more than adequate.
> ...


Of course I agree with you. My point of the link was to give a place where the translations are compared in a tabular format that anyone can easily use to make their decisions as to the efficacy of the text being presented with respect to the topics. I ignored the editorial discussions at the site and only leveraged the tables provided, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2009)

Margaret, I don't want to speak for Pastor Glenn, but



> I'm also very saddened at the disuse, virtual shellacking and vague disrepute that the AV has become subject to among Reformed people. Spurgeon himself had no ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc. I wonder what he would think about all of these different versions that allow us no longer to say, as to "every jot and tittle," "thus saith the Lord." Either "every word of God is pure..." and we "add...not unto his words" (Proverbs 30:5-6) or we say that that doesn't really count.



he posted something some months ago which I interpreted to mean that calling the TR the perfectly preserved Word of God down to the last jot and tittle would be tantamount to the heresy of claiming a second act of inspiration.

I may be wrong, though, and would enjoy his comment.

You might want to reconsider the 



> Either "every word of God is pure..." and we "add...not unto his words" (Proverbs 30:5-6) or we say that that doesn't really count



part of your post, because some of that "shellacking" the KJV gets is due to assaults launched on other Christians which take the form of "If you don't admit that my KJV is the word for word perfectly preserved Word of God then you're calling God a liar" and it gets a bit irritating. 

Just last Sunday we had a family show up for the first time, but when the Pastor didn't use the KJV he threw a hissy fit and didn't come back. 

It's way past time to put to rest the extreme AVer position. If someone wants to believe the KJV is the best out there, more power to them. But if someone is going to say that the versions most of the rest of us use aren't really the Bible, or are setting the stage for us getting carted off to concentration camps or are going to get the (at least) editors thrown into the Lake of Fire then you shouldn't be surprised if the reaction takes the form of pointing out perceived deficiencies of the KJV.

You are right in that the phenomenon of the extreme AVer position is way more popular in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist groups than in Reformed groups. Part of the reason is an emphasis on scholarship, but at least a part is a reaction against hysterical claims made against these other versions.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (May 4, 2009)

I, generally, use the ESV. My study and devotion Bible is an ESV journaling Bible and my "preaching Bible" is the Reformation Study Bible. But I also own some NASB and HCSB as well.


----------



## Jon 316 (May 4, 2009)

KJV What was good enough for Jesus is good enough for me!


----------



## OPC'n (May 4, 2009)

No, I don't struggle with this one. I just use the correct one!....ESV


----------



## Skyler (May 4, 2009)

Jon 316 said:


> KJV What was good enough for Jesus is good enough for me!


----------



## Galatians220 (May 4, 2009)

TimV said:


> Margaret, I don't want to speak for Pastor Glenn, but
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm not an "extreme AVer." As I've said in many, many other posts, I don't try to convince others who dislike the KJV that they're wrong. It isn't my place to do that.

And I am definitely not one who thinks that God did a new work of inspiration in 1611. I just think that TR Bibles are the best, and why would someone want less than the best? 

It's we AVers who are the besieged, I think, not the other way around. We've lost the battle and the war as well, I think, at least for the time being. No one is going to come after you, but they will marginalize and ostracize us. That's okay, though; I'm used to it after all these years.

Anyone who throws a hissy fit when they go to church and don't hear the KJV read from is not living in the real world and is very ill-mannered to boot. We frequently attend a Reformed church (an EP, no-instruments one) that uses the NKJV. I would never dream of questioning the pastor about it or asserting my preference for TR Bibles only. I've learned from experience not to do that.

People should keep to the substantive issues when they talk about Bible versions and not allow the bad behavior of some KJV-only people to influence their opinion of the KJV. Can any of us get anyone thrown in the Lake of Fire?  I personally was saved while reading the NIV exclusively (what can I say? I didn't know any better!) & I am never going to pass any judgments on anyone else. I'm only a sinner saved by grace, like everyone else.

One thing that weighed heavily on me as I pursued the over 10 years of research and verse comparisons that I did was that as a little Catholic and through undergrad and some grad courses in theology at a Jesuit school, I was repeatedly told not to read the KJV, that it would "lead (me) astray and away from Catholicism." I was told that the other versions were "okay, because they were close to the Douay (and the New Jerusalem Bible, the St. Joseph Confraternity version, i.e., Catholic bibles)." And indeed they were. I have 2 different Catholic bibles and I do compare them to the newer versions. I deplore the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement - and these Bibles, in my opinion only, set the stage for that. I *treasure *the KJV that the nuns and priests, and my mom, truth be told, kept from me for so many years. Not to go into specific verses here, as that would be tedious & I've done that _ad nauseam_ before on the PB, but to see the doctrines of grace, God's plan of salvation, etc., etc. laid out, untampered with, in the KJV and the old Geneva -- this ex-Catholic is _overwhelmed_ every time she reads the Bible. 

Well, I'm going to sign off on this lengthy post. I'm off to a women's Bible study tonight, one at which I'll be _*the only one*_ there with a KJV...  

Blessings, peace and grace in abundance to all,

Margaret


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 4, 2009)

Spurgeon made regular reference to the ERV, as I understand.


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2009)

I appreciate that interesting and well written post, Margaret. Still



> I wonder what he would think about all of these different versions that allow us no longer to say, as to "every jot and tittle," "thus saith the Lord." Either "every word of God is pure..." and we "add...not unto his words"



most of us here and in orthodox Christendom think we can still say "every word of God is pure" without choosing one of the 106 different editions of the TR and claiming that it got "every jot and tittle" exactly right.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 4, 2009)

Such an argument. Would it help is I loaned you all my copy of the autographs?

The problem with our generalizations is that they are so subgroup specific.
In most broad evangelical circles . . . KJV people are marginalized and treated like loons. The NIV reigns.
In some of the Willowcreek type places . . . the NLT is emerging as the standard.
In many Reformed locales . . . you better use an ESV (for critical text) or KJV/NKJV (for non critical text types).
If you are in a church like that of the uTube guy (Pastor Steven L. Anderson), you are an heretic UNLESS you only use the KJV.


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2009)

> Such an argument. Would it help is I loaned you all my copy of the autographs?



Wow, Dr. M. I knew you were one of the best educated of us, but I had no idea of the quality of your connections.....could you put in a good word for me


----------



## bookslover (May 5, 2009)

Galatians220 said:


> Spurgeon himself had no ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc. I wonder what he would think about all of these different versions that allow us no longer to say, as to "every jot and tittle," "thus saith the Lord."



Spurgeon was committed to the KJV. However, when the Revised Version was published in 1881, he found things to appreciate about it and said so, from the pulpit. Depending on the sermon and the text he was preaching from, he would use each to correct the other, when needed.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (May 6, 2009)

TimV said:


> Margaret, I don't want to speak for Pastor Glenn, but
> 
> ...
> 
> he posted something some months ago which I interpreted to mean that calling the TR the perfectly preserved Word of God down to the last jot and tittle would be tantamount to the heresy of claiming a second act of inspiration.



Tim:

Don’t know what you have in mind I might have written.

A faithful copy of the Greek text can’t be considered a “second act of inspiration,” as it is a faithful representation of the first act of inspiration. 

The KJO folks do make the English AV translation of 1611 equivalent to a post canonical act of divine inspiration, which is a heresy.

I’m not stuck on the TR as the perfect text; but do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism, and one should take an exception to it. 

When I’ve found the NIV, or some other modern translation, does a good job of expressing in English what the original text says, I’m not beyond quoting from it in a sermon to further clarify the text. At one time I used the RSV, then NIV; progressed to the NKJV and used it for years, before settling on the AV exclusively for public reading.

My point in posts above was NOT to question the authority of a session, in consultation with the pastor, to decide on the typical version of the Bible to be used in their public worship. Nor would I have a problem with a church forbidding the use of modern translations from their pulpit.

My concern was that an absolute prohibition of the historic common English translations may prevent ministers from churches with which we have fraternal relations from ever preaching in our pulpits on extra-confessional grounds which may violate their consciences.

With a visiting preacher, better to express preferences and discuss what can be done without compromising anyone’s conscience, taking into consideration pastoral concerns, rather than making an absolute prohibition.


----------



## TimV (May 6, 2009)

> The KJO folks do make the English AV translation of 1611 equivalent to a post canonical act of divine inspiration, which is a heresy.
> 
> *I’m not stuck on the TR as the perfect text*; but do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism, and one should take an exception to it.



Thanks, that's what I remember you saying some months ago. And since you're here, how would you address the claim that all the promises by God to preserve His Word are to be taken to mean the exact, word for word reading of the TR?

On of the guys here who is an AVer said that if someone could prove that, say, Rev. 16:5 had a reading not found in any Byzantine manuscript, then he'd be willing to make those sorts of few and minor changes in the TR. Others disagree with him, and say that any changes to the TR are tantamount to adding and subtracting to the exact Words of God?


----------



## RTaron (May 6, 2009)

Glenn said:


> but _ do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. *If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism,* and one should take an exception to it._


_

Right on, I agree. 

If we are Reformed then we are serious about Sola Scriptura, and thus this verse has no authority to teach us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only, and in our prayer to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power and glory to Him; and, in testimony of our desire and assurance to be heard, to say, Amen._


----------



## FenderPriest (May 6, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> To answer the title question: No, I don't struggle with which version to use.



Same here. The ESV was a no-brainer for me, but I'd also second using what the preaching Bible is in your church.


----------



## tgoerz (May 6, 2009)

Does not the NKJV have neutral gender issues among other translation problems?


----------



## Igor (May 7, 2009)

tgoerz said:


> Does not the NKJV have neutral gender issues among other translation problems?


As far as I know, it is the NRSV that has those issues, not the NKJV.


----------



## Clay7926 (May 13, 2009)

Great thoughts, all.

I struggled for a few years on which version to use. I alternated between the KJV/NIV prior to becoming Reformed, and once i crossed the river, I became a NASB guy. I do own and use the NASB, ESV and NKJV for studying, and also plan to get a HCSB sometime in the future. 

I think the ESV is a great translation, but am not a fan of how the publishers placed some verses in the footnotes rather than in brackets in the main text like other translations do. 

One thing I think would help assist folks struggling with Bible translations is if publishers would be nice with each other and publish more Parallel bibles. I had an NIV/KJV parallel bible I used for years until it fell apart. What was nice about it was the ability to have the two translations side by side so I could compare the translations. 

I personally would love either a ESV/NASB or a NASB/NKJV parallel bible to use in public worship and private study. Or better yet, how about a Parallel NASB/ESV with the ESV Study Bible notes?


----------

