# What is your favourite Bible Translation



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 10, 2017)

Just curious to see what are the favourite translations. Feel free to briefly comment on why you love a particular traslation, but I don't want this to be a Bible translation debate.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 10, 2017)

Because I believe the TR and the Byzantine texts to be superior, I prefer the AV or the NKJV. When I want to see how a more modern translation words a particular passage, I will normally use the NASB or ESV.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (Mar 10, 2017)

I put the ESV, though I am torn between it, the NASB, and the KJV. It's like asking which of my children I love most.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 10, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just curious to see what are the favourite translations. Feel free to briefly comment on why you love a particular traslation, but I don't want this to be a Bible translation debate.


The main translation that I had been using for majority of my time saved has been the 1977 edition of the NASB version, but also did use the 1984 Niv for just skimming purposes, and noe also using quite a bit the Esv version, as to me it read much like a modernized version of the KJV...


----------



## Branson (Mar 10, 2017)

The AV, of course. If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Jack K (Mar 10, 2017)

I start with the ESV for personal study and devotional reading, and nearly always use it in my writing. So in terms of the amount I use it, the ESV is far and away my top choice.

But when I teach children under the age of 12 or so, I often turn to the 1984 NIV for classroom activities or for reading along, because most kids find it easier to follow and take to heart. I collect, repair, and keep repairing old NIVs for that purpose, and travel to Bible camps and such with a small suitcase full of them.

Finally, I love the sound of the KJV, probably the greatest English translation ever made, which is sheer beauty at times for reading aloud.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 10, 2017)

Note for clarification: I realise many (myself included) love more than one translation. I was just courious to see what generally is you most preferred translation


----------



## Edm (Mar 10, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> I put the ESV, though I am torn between it, the NASB, and the KJV. It's like asking which of my children I love most.



I agree with this 100%


----------



## Beezer (Mar 10, 2017)

My favorite translation is the KJV hands down. There isn't really a close second. I've tried to like the ESV, but keep going back to the KJV. Most of the commentaries, sermons, lectures, etc. that I read are from guys long dead who used the KJV, so I suppose its just what I'm used to.

That said, for casual reading I've been enjoying the NIV lately -- not the 1984, but the 2011. Not long ago I received a RL Allan NIV Proclamation Edition as a gift and it's been a joy to read through.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 10, 2017)

I had to give it to the AV, though I like the NIV quite a bit, and use it to make sure I'm 'getting' passages that I might find obscure. I also use the NASB and NKJV. The ESV not so much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 10, 2017)

NASB, but I think knowledge of KJV is essential to follow earlier English scholarship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NoutheticCounselor (Mar 11, 2017)

I bounce between the ESV, the NASB, and the NKJV. Right now, I lean towards the ESV.


----------



## Shane2336 (Mar 12, 2017)

The KJV will always have a firm place in my heart, but the NASB has become my favorite because of its readability and formal equivalence to the original text (s).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 13, 2017)

I see the HCSB has not received any votes. I thought its Optimal equivalence approach may appeal to some on the Puritanboard.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 13, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I see the HCSB has not received any votes. I thought its Optimal equivalence approach may appeal to some on the Puritanboard.



I know there are a few who do appreciate the HCSB, but perhaps it is just not their favorite. It might seem that a middle of the road approach, such as optimal equivalence, might appeal to a large audience, but in my experience most people would prefer either a fully literal version or a fully idiomatic version. As Lyle Lovett once wrote "If you're going out to California, then don't linger in New Mexico."


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 13, 2017)

Bill, I appreciate your colorful analogy, but I think the HCSB reads the way language naturally flows today. I think it has the right balance between acknowledging that individual words mean something, and yet also is aware of idiomatic expressions, and larger levels of discourse. Of course, most of the translations listed in the poll have such an awareness. It is merely a question of degree. I like the ESV, but I have just enough annoyance with some of its English choices (as in bad English), that it cannot be my first choice.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 13, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Bill, I appreciate your colorful analogy, but I think the HCSB reads the way language naturally flows today. I think it has the right balance between acknowledging that individual words mean something, and yet also is aware of idiomatic expressions, and larger levels of discourse. Of course, most of the translations listed in the poll have such an awareness. It is merely a question of degree. I like the ESV, but I have just enough annoyance with some of its English choices (as in bad English), that it cannot be my first choice.



Rev. Keister,

What are your thoughts on the new CSB?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 13, 2017)

I am excited to see it. I think that going back to LORD from "Yahweh" is actually a good move, making it a more standardized translation. I also think removing "Holman" from the title will make it more attractive as well. I would really like to see more resources available in that translation. Until they come up with a Study Bible as good as the ESV Study Bible, the translation will probably not take off as I think it should.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## manito2000 (Mar 13, 2017)

None of the above...I use a Spanish translation - which we all know is the language we will speak in the eternal state! 

NVI, La Biblia de las Americas (similar to NASB), Reina Valera 1960 (Similar to NKJV) - in that order.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 13, 2017)

I put AV but my favorite modern translation is NASB.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 13, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> HCSB reads the way language naturally flows today. I think it has the right balance between acknowledging that individual words mean something, and yet also is aware of idiomatic expressions, and larger levels of discourse.


I wonder who did the 1 vote for the HCSB


----------



## Djenks (Mar 14, 2017)

I use the NASB for everyday reading and study. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> ...and now also using quite a bit the ESV version, as to me it reads much like a modernized version of the KJV...



That's an interesting take. Perhaps the ESV is what the NKJV should have been.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 14, 2017)

I prefer the ESV, having read it regularly since just after it was first published in 2001.

I note that the NKJV is 35 years old this year (published in 1982) and that the translators haven't tinkered with it at all, as far as I know. It's the same text as first published 35 years ago. Very unusual for a Bible translation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 14, 2017)

bookslover said:


> That's an interesting take. Perhaps the ESV is what the NKJV should have been.



More precisely, the ESV is what the RSV should have been.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 15, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I prefer the ESV, having read it regularly since just after it was first published in 2001.
> 
> I note that the NKJV is 35 years old this year (published in 1982) and that the translators haven't tinkered with it at all, as far as I know. It's the same text as first published 35 years ago. Very unusual for a Bible translation.


They claimed to have used the same text sources as the KJV had, so no surprise that they have not updated anything, as their source material has not changed!


----------



## kodos (Mar 16, 2017)

I love the KJV (and much prefer its text family) but I simply have too many difficulties with it to use as my daily Bible even though my favorite print Bible is a Clarion KJV that I use especially when I check my translation work from Hebrew or Greek thanks to the more meaningful pronouns in the KJV compared to contemporary translations.

Anyhow, as such, I use the NKJV for my devotions and family worship, which I find to be a very much under-appreciated contemporary translation. As it also comes from the TR texts, it like the KJV, is in conformity with my Confessional Standards (see the Lord's Prayer). As noted by the brothers earlier, it also doesn't have a shifting edition put out every couple of years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 16, 2017)

kodos said:


> I love the KJV (and much prefer its text family) but I simply have too many difficulties with it to use as my daily Bible even though my favorite print Bible is a Clarion KJV that I use especially when I check my translation work from Hebrew or Greek thanks to the more meaningful pronouns in the KJV compared to contemporary translations.
> 
> Anyhow, as such, I use the NKJV for my devotions and family worship, which I find to be a very much under-appreciated contemporary translation. As it also comes from the TR texts, it like the KJV, is in conformity with my Confessional Standards (see the Lord's Prayer). As noted by the brothers earlier, it also doesn't have a shifting edition put out every couple of years.


Have you tried out the Modern version Bible, as believe that it is the KJV put into current grammar? Also, have you tried the WEB bible, as that is based upon the Greek Majority text?


----------



## kodos (Mar 16, 2017)

David, I have not looked into either. Though I believe that one of my professors at the Seminary, Dr. Watt, was involved with the MEV translation project. Between the NKJV and the KJV, I am more than satisfied with my English Bibles, so haven't felt a need to look elsewhere.

When a Reformed Church gets involved in a translation project then my interest would be piqued!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2017)

kodos said:


> David, I have not looked into either. Though I believe that one of my professors at the Seminary, Dr. Watt, was involved with the MEV translation project. Between the NKJV and the KJV, I am more than satisfied with my English Bibles, so haven't felt a need to look elsewhere.
> 
> When a Reformed Church gets involved in a translation project then my interest would be piqued!


They did, as the Reformed Church was involved, along with Baptists, in the original Niv translation!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> They did, as the Reformed Church was involved, along with Baptists, in the original Niv translation!


Just because some of the committee members were from churches in the Reformed tradition is not implying a church-sanctioned and driven activity. Do you see the distinction?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## josiahrussell (Mar 17, 2017)

NASB for sure. Its less clunky than the ESV. I also love the NKJV and the KJV.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Just because some of the committee members were from churches in the Reformed tradition is not implying a church-sanctioned and driven activity. Do you see the distinction?


Yes, as that would not be seen as the standard version to be used by the reformed church/community. like say the HCSB was by/for SBC, and Lutherans now making their own translation!


----------



## joebonni63 (Mar 21, 2017)

I like the ESV like everyone else here but really like the 1599 Geneva Bible I try to use this 90% of the time


----------



## Taylor (Mar 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> ...Lutherans now making their own translation!



Where and who?


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 21, 2017)

The Evangelical Heritage Version


https://wels.net/nph-to-print-lutheran-bible-translation/
http://www.wartburgproject.org/



Taylor Sexton said:


> Where and who?


----------



## Herald (Mar 21, 2017)

I'm a CT guy. I've been reading the NASB since 1979, but I appreciate the literary structure of the KJV.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 21, 2017)

kodos said:


> I love the KJV (and much prefer its text family) but I simply have too many difficulties with it to use as my daily Bible even though my favorite print Bible is a Clarion KJV that I use especially when I check my translation work from Hebrew or Greek thanks to the more meaningful pronouns in the KJV compared to contemporary translations.
> 
> Anyhow, as such, I use the NKJV for my devotions and family worship, which I find to be a very much under-appreciated contemporary translation. As it also comes from the TR texts, it like the KJV, is in conformity with my Confessional Standards (see the Lord's Prayer). As noted by the brothers earlier, it also doesn't have a shifting edition put out every couple of years.



Thanks for your thoughts. We use the KJV for family worship (I'm there to explain things). I want my family to be exposed to where the great men of our faith have walked. I refuse to raise a child who cannot read a text dated before 1930 like many adults find themselves today. Listening to many folks speak is painful as like well you know like really painful. For learning and reading on her own, I insisted that my daughter grow up using NKJV instead of NASB that my wife uses. It just reads better. In a few years we'll get her a NKJV Ref study bible. Why NASB needs an "update" in 2018 is beyond me.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 22, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Where and who?


Looks like they will be adopting a mediating position on the scriptures, maybe the same way the Niv and the HCSB took in translation?
Wonder if they will try to translate into the text their own distinctives?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Mar 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Looks like they will be adopting a mediating position on the scriptures, maybe the same way the Niv and the HCSB took in translation?
> Wonder if they will try to translate into the text their own distinctives?


 
I did a little digging around on the official website and it does not seem apparent that they are going out of their way to impose their theological distinctive onto the text. TBH this looks like it might end up being pretty good.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 23, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I prefer the ESV, having read it regularly since just after it was first published in 2001.
> 
> I note that the NKJV is 35 years old this year (published in 1982) and that the translators haven't tinkered with it at all, as far as I know. It's the same text as first published 35 years ago. Very unusual for a Bible translation.


Although it does not usually show up on the copyright page, I think they had a revision ca. 1984. And they've engaged in some unofficial tinkering since then as well, although I understand that they've never released a list of changes. 


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 23, 2017)

I used the NKJV for years but had to abandon it when I found that my eyes couldn't tolerate red ink anymore and couldn't find an acceptable black letter NKJV. (There aren't many.) So I've been using the KJV and the NASB for a few years. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Although it does not usually show up on the copyright page, I think they had a revision ca. 1984. And they've engaged in some unofficial tinkering since then as well, although I understand that they've never released a list of changes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


That they have not officially updated their translation would make sense, as their textual sources used were pretty much fixed, as not not being revised at all!


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 23, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> I used the NKJV for years but had to abandon it when I found that my eyes couldn't tolerate red ink anymore and couldn't find an acceptable black letter NKJV. (There aren't many.) So I've been using the KJV and the NASB for a few years.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Evangelical Bible has the Schuyler and an Allan with the single column text block. The Schuyler comes with either black letter or red letter, and if I understand the description correctly the Allan is in black letter.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That they have not officially updated their translation would make sense, as their textual sources used were pretty much fixed, as not not being revised at all!


Updated translations have nothing to do with the textual basis, which remains essentially stable for all translations. The differences between NA 28 and NA 27 are hardly sufficient to motivate a change. Revisions are primarily driven either by a desire for greater readability, or to correct mistakes in the original translation, which were precisely the reasons behind the original NKJV.


----------



## Swifty357 (Mar 23, 2017)

My favorite Bible translation is the HCSB. I'm also a big fan of the KJV, and the NKJV. I use a 1984 NIV as my church bible but that is just because that's what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible uses which is my favorite study bible to take to church because it's a manageable size, top grain black leather is kinda plastic type veneer but was actually the best binding zondervan used, my church uses the ESV but I've never been a fan of how it reads. If I want to read a very church English bible I would rather use a KJV or NKJV personally. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor (Mar 23, 2017)

Swifty357 said:


> ...the ESV but I've never been a fan of how it reads.



For some reason, that's been the case with me, as well. I don't know if its because it is more formal English, or what. I was called upon to read a passage aloud in my Synoptic Gospels class Tuesday and, reading from the ESV, I stumbled a bit in my speech. I can't exactly pinpoint what the issue is I am having with it, but I had a significantly better time reading the (H)CSB.


----------



## Swifty357 (Mar 23, 2017)

Yeah the HCSB was so good at being almost as literal as the NASB, according to graphs made by bible sellers. While also being almost as easy to read ad the NIV. It filled a niche and with its use of Yahweh in the OT, and the translators not being afraid to tweak well worn verses like John 3:16 to make them more accurate. The HCSB also didn't bow down to political correctness like other gender neutral translations. Making the HCSB very modern english to read but never comprising the gospel for easier to read english. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2017)

Swifty357 said:


> Yeah the HCSB was so good at being almost as literal as the NASB, according to graphs made by bible sellers. While also being almost as easy to read ad the NIV. It filled a niche and with its use of Yahweh in the OT, and the translators not being afraid to tweak well worn verses like John 3:16 to make them more accurate. The HCSB also didn't bow down to political correctness like other gender neutral translations. Making the HCSB very modern english to read but never comprising the gospel for easier to read english.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Think that the HCSB was in the same position as the 1984 Niv was, as a mediating translation, but was more formal than the Niv...

The biggest problem with the Esv is that is is neither as formal/literal as the NASB, nor as smooth reading as say Niv/HCSB, so stuck somewhere in not being good enough either way!


----------



## Christian Teegardin (Mar 24, 2017)

King James Version and the Gideons version of the ESV are my personal favorites.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Mar 25, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Although it does not usually show up on the copyright page, I think they had a revision ca. 1984. And they've engaged in some unofficial tinkering since then as well, although I understand that they've never released a list of changes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



Thanks. I did not know that.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Mar 25, 2017)

ESV is my main reading Bible, and the translation I use for work, however, I often use the AV and NKJV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> Evangelical Bible has the Schuyler and an Allan with the single column text block. The Schuyler comes with either black letter or red letter, and if I understand the description correctly the Allan is in black letter.



They do. There are a few more editions out now, but almost all of them aren't workable for me. For example, the Cambridge Clarion looks nice, but the print is too small for me. And I may be too used to double column text to ever really be comfortable with single column. To me, the print and spacing has to be a good bit larger for a single column setting to be as readable as a good double column setting. 

The Schuyler Quentel NKJV looks very nice, but it's sad that I'd have to pay $214 (currently) to find out. I wonder if Schuyler will ever come out with a more "budget" cover the way that Cambridge (and even Allan) does with Morocco, Split Calf, etc. 

By contrast, among KJVs, I've acquired the "Dollaro leather" RHB KJV Study Bible, a calfskin TBS Westminster Reference, several TBS Concords and a Cambridge Concord for less than $300, I think. These are all semi-premium rather than premium, but readability and durability are the big issues for me, not how buttery smooth the cover is and how nice the art gilt is. I'm not saying I wouldn't spend that much on a Bible, but I won't if that's literally the only text block that I think might work in a particular translation. 

As for the single-column, I had the Schuyler several years ago, (apparently the Allan single-column is exactly the same thing) but got rid of it because:

It is too big for my taste (it's basically the same size as a MacArthur Study Bible, or Thompson Chain Reference, albeit somewhat lighter.) The paper in my early print run MacArthur is more opaque. I think I would have liked it a lot better if it were the same size as the one that Nelson published, which was more of a common "hand size." 

It doesn't have cross references (although this is much less of an issue for me now)

It doesn't have the full set of NKJV marginal notes. If I recall correctly it may even lack some of the textual notes.
The paper has a lot more ghosting than I'd expect in a premium Bible, and it the text block isn't line matched.


----------



## Berean by Grace (Mar 29, 2017)

I use the NASB: 1) it is an updated translation; 2) it capitalizes pronouns for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) it doesn't completely cut all the verses from the KJV that other modern Bibles cut out. A second translation I use is the NA 27 & UBS 4th Edition for Textual Criticism. (I also use the Byzantine Majority, the so-called TR, Stephanus 1550, Tregelles, and Alford for Comparison)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Berean by Grace (Mar 29, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Rev. Keister,
> 
> What are your thoughts on the new CSB?


I personally think the CSB is going in the wrong direction. If I wanted a Bible like the ESV, then I would just go with the ESV. Since that is what the CSB is trying to copy. It looks no different on the inside than does the ESV, except for differing word choices, of course. Maybe they are trying to take the place of the NIV 1984, since the NIV 2011 went out on its feminist movement. I have several HCSBs and I have the CSB on Kindle, but I won't buy a CSB because it has lost its uniqueness. That's my opinion. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 29, 2017)

Since I started this post I should give my preferences.
My favourite is the ESV. I also use the NASB and the HCSB.


----------



## psycheives (Mar 30, 2017)

Almost what Bill said, "Because I believe the TR and the Byzantine texts to be superior, I prefer the [Geneva Bible] or the NKJV. When I want to see how a more modern translation words a particular passage, I will normally use the [1984 NIV] or ESV.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 30, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Although it does not usually show up on the copyright page, I think they had a revision ca. 1984. And they've engaged in some unofficial tinkering since then as well, although I understand that they've never released a list of changes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



Yes, there was a revision, but it was very minor. I have an old Thomas Nelson Imperial Reference Bible printed in 1983 that I like to preach from, and every once in a while I will notice a slight variance. For example, this week I am preaching from Judges 12:1-7. Verse 7 in the original NKJV reads "And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in _one of the cities_ of Gilead." In the updated edition, the same verse reads "And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried _among the cities_ of Gilead."


----------



## timfost (Mar 30, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just curious to see what are the favourite translations. Feel free to briefly comment on why you love a particular traslation, but I don't want this to be a Bible translation debate.



I generally use the NKJV, though I sometimes use ESV and AV. However, the gender neutrality of the ESV concerns me since the concept of federal headship is becoming an obscure doctrine these days. The farther we get away from representative relationships, the more difficulty we have with the concept of substitution.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2017)

Berean by Grace said:


> I use the NASB: 1) it is an updated translation; 2) it capitalizes pronouns for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) it doesn't completely cut all the verses from the KJV that other modern Bibles cut out. A second translation I use is the NA 27 & UBS 4th Edition for Textual Criticism. (I also use the Byzantine Majority, the so-called TR, Stephanus 1550, Tregelles, and Alford for Comparison)
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


My favorite is the 1977 edition of the NASB, as it still uses those old thee and thous, bit seems to be a degree more literal/formal than the 1995 revision was..

Are you interested in the new update coming 2018, that will smooth out the OT readings?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> ...it still uses those old thee and thous...



Unless I am mistaken, the NASB 1977, like the RSV, uses these types of pronouns only in speech directed toward deity. It does not use them in any other context. So, because of this, you will not find "ye" (second-person plural) in the NASB 1977.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 1, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Unless I am mistaken, the NASB 1977, like the RSV, uses these types of pronouns only in speech directed toward deity. It does not use them in any other context. So, because of this, you will not find "ye" (second-person plural) in the NASB 1977.


Believe that you are correct, and also have read that when they smoothed over the reading tone of it in 1995, there was some loss of the literalness...

The Nasv can be hard to read at times, due to them trying to preserve into English the Greek Verb tenses it seems!


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 1, 2017)

EVS. I want to get the single column journal bible. I'll have to wait for my birthday bc it's pretty pricy.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 3, 2017)

Herald said:


> I'm a CT guy. I've been reading the NASB since 1979, but I appreciate the literary structure of the KJV.


What did you think of the update done in 1995 to Nas, and think another one due out 2018? just trying to figure out just when a bible version should actually be updated, as should that be done only when they is a real and legit need for such?


----------



## Taylor (Apr 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What did you think of the update done in 1995 to Nas...



Just putting the two translations beside each other in Accordance (Accordance has this awesome comparison feature that highlights differences between two texts of the same type and language), the differences are so minuscule and few-and-far-between that, had I not had the comparison tool in Accordance, I wouldn't have even been able to find anything.

The most notable (and common) changes are in English usage. For example, nobody uses the word "shall" (1st person future tense; 2nd and 3rd person imperative) anymore. Most of them have been changed to "will." Also, as has been previously noted, the older forms of the 2nd person pronouns have been changed to common usage (for better or for worse). As I said before, these pronouns were rendered useless by the fact that they were only ever used in prayer or speech to deity; they could only then ever be 2nd person singular.

The translations are really hardly different, as far as I can tell.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What did you think of the update done in 1995 to Nas, and think another one due out 2018? just trying to figure out just when a bible version should actually be updated, as should that be done only when they is a real and legit need for such?



Anymore that is conservative. In that time frame the ESV would have had 10 updates.


----------

