# Bible Translation Poll - 2020 Edition



## Username3000 (Feb 15, 2020)

I am curious to know the state of English Bible translation usage on the PB in 2020. 

Please vote for your primary translation, and comment on _why_ it is your primary choice. 

Thanks.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 15, 2020)

I'm in my 6th consecutive year of doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan. Each year was a different primary translation (Formal Equivalent) and a secondary (Functional Equivalent). This year my primary is the NRSV, secondary is the NLT.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Feb 15, 2020)

My primary translation in 2020 is the NKJV. I too am using it in my M'Cheyne Bible Reading Plan. This is my first year reading the NKJV and I'm puzzled at what took me so long to use it -- I really enjoy reading from it! 

As for reasoning, I prefer the traditional received text and find the NKJV easier/smoother to read than my KJV, which has always been a perennial favorite. I also REALLY appreciate the footnotes in the NKJV showing where the text differs from the NU, which I find interesting.

In years past, in addition to the KJV, I've spent a lot of time in the NIV, ESV, and to a lesser extent the NLT. I'm a BibleGateway geek as well and use it daily to compare passages across four or five different translations at a time.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 15, 2020)

I generally alternate between the ESV, NKJV, and NIV. The others I tend only to use them either for consultation or when I want to quickly read through a book. While I like the NIV a lot as a Bible to read in private, I am of the opinion that it is not the best for reading in church. 

Some people hit the cry button whenever I say anything positive about the NIV. But, remember, that nobody likes a crybaby - except for their mammas and Democrats.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## ZackF (Feb 15, 2020)

I personally use the KJV for reading and personal study. We use CSB in family worship. In the Sunday School class I teach most often the ESV.


----------



## Jonathco (Feb 15, 2020)

I recently transitioned from the NASB to the ESV for my primary translation and have no regrets. I grew up on the NKJV and still cross-reference that translation a lot in my personal study as well. 

To be honest, the ESV, NKJV, and the NASB are all solid translations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dekybo (Feb 16, 2020)

I’ve enjoy the wording of the ESV so it is my primary but I sometimes use the NASB. I use the NLT in family worship for my little girls


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 16, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Please vote for your primary translation, and comment on _why_ it is your primary choice.



Throughout my life, the King James has been my primary translation, but in 2019 and 2020 I've been using the ESV as my primary. Every time I open it--and I mean every time--I open the ESV I mumble under my breath "I really don't like this translation." I kid you not. I'm committed to going through it about three times and then hopefully back to my KJV. I use the NASB, NKJV, YLT and several other translations check with. Surprisingly, the NIV occasionally hits something right on the nose but rarely. I have done enough reading to be persuaded that the ESV really has many redeeming qualities, but there's so much I don't like about it. I absolutely despise the gender-neutral readings, the missing verses really bother me even though I understand the research of why they are not there. It always seemed to me that for a scribe to innocently omit a verse would be more likely than to do the unthinkable of adding in their own thoughts. So there you have. The ESV is my primary translation for 2020 but as I said, I really don't like it.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## kodos (Feb 16, 2020)

NKJV - I have come to appreciate it more and more every year. It is from my preferred text family, it tracks with the Confession proof texts, and has the textual notes which helps if you are following someone who is reading from the CT or are in a room with those who are using the CT.

I like the way it reads and I can follow along if someone is preaching out of the KJV and those who use the KJV can follow along easily if I read from the NKJV.

I like the KJV more and more each year. I don’t know if I’d switch, but it is possible. I’d still preach from the NKJV if I did. Oh, and my favorite preacher (Kenneth Stewart) also uses the NKJV. So there’s that 

I was converted under the NIV and I do occasionally remember its rendition due to having memorized verses out of it. I occasionally will turn to it to check its rendition of a text when I do translation work. It sometimes has good insight.

I used the ESV for two years. My impression is the same as Ed’s. Especially with the psalms. I just can’t like it. I’ll use the NASB or NET instead when I need to consult a CT English translation.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Poimen (Feb 16, 2020)

I grew up with a mix of NKJV (home and church) and NIV (school). I have been a member in churches that use the ESV and NKJV, and have pastored churches that have used the KJV and the NKJV.

The KJV is now my pulpit, home and study Bible for the following, positive reasons: 1) fidelity a) to the preserved text & b) to scripture's doctrine of inspiration 2) literalness without sacrificing ease of reading 3) popularity amongst a wide variety of Christians & thus staying power 4) use of distinct plural and singular pronouns 5) italics used when words are introduced into the text for clarity.

Negatively, I do not trust committees, especially those influenced by papists and liberals, to keep and render the word of God pure and undefiled.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## jambo (Feb 16, 2020)

For years I used the NASB and when the ESV was published I moved onto it. I was never altogether happy with it as it has some odd renderings of some verses. I persevered as long as possible but when my bible fell apart 6 weeks ago I reverted back to the NASB. One of the biggest gripes I have with bible versions is that it is now very hard to get Anglicised versions of bibles. Our church uses the ESV and I do have an Anglicised ESV that I bring to church, but you can only get plain ones without cross references.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 16, 2020)

kodos said:


> I like the KJV more and more each year. I don’t know if I’d switch, but it is possible. I’d still preach from the NKJV if I did. Oh, and my favorite preacher (Kenneth Stewart) also uses the NKJV. So there’s that



Any particular sermons you recommend by Kenneth Stewart? There's a bunch on Sermon Audio just want to know where I should start.
Thanks


----------



## CovenantWord (Feb 16, 2020)

I use NKJV consistently for personal and family devotions, because I believe it is the best available combination of literal, TR, respect for Church history, and accessibility to the modern English reader. For research, I often also review three other literal translations: KJV, NASB, and YLT.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Minh (Feb 16, 2020)

My favorite is the NASB because of its readability and literalness. While the KJV is the greatest monument of all English translation and God's gift to the English speaking world, I find it difficult to understand the exact meaning of the text in archaic form, though it is the official translation of my faithful denomination.


----------



## Claudiu (Feb 16, 2020)

KJV because The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible.

I grew up mostly on the KJV, then jumped ship to ESV. A few years back I kept alternating between the two. Made the switch back to KJV.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Feb 16, 2020)

ESV, because it is the standard at our church. 
My preferred translation is the NKJV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Feb 16, 2020)

I use the KJV for family and personal devotions, and it is the translation used in my church off the pulpit and in Bible studies. I love listening to my young children recite whole chapters of the KJV. Because they are growing up in a context where the KJV is used for preaching, catechism, and home worship, they readily understand this translation.

This year I am also reading through the Scriptures using the ESV Reader's Bible. It has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Brian R. (Feb 16, 2020)

Made the switch from ESV to KJV about 8 years ago and never looked back. My family and I use KJV 99% of the time, our church holds to it almost exclusively, and I believe it's the best English translation we have today. There are other reasons, but I'll stay brief.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## kodos (Feb 16, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> Any particular sermons you recommend by Kenneth Stewart? There's a bunch on Sermon Audio just want to know where I should start.
> Thanks



His series on either Esther or Daniel are a good place to start in my opinion. But I've profited from pretty much everything I've heard from him.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 16, 2020)

I don't know as I approve of all this new fangled translations! The Latin Vulgate was plenty good enough through from the 5th century on, so I see no reason to deviate now!

Well, not really. NASB 1995 update and NIV (1985). But I have at my finger tips 35 versions I can use (not counting any in foreign languages). Yes, I use software as my Bible. I only use paper if I don't have a computer or my cell phone with me (very rare indeed).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 16, 2020)

Oh, I also ought to specify ... I'm dyslexic, so I tend to do "reading" by listening. I can listen to the Bible while driving to and from work and get through it 3 times a year. I can hardly wait until I can get an autonomous vehicle so I can concentrate completely on it.


----------



## Kinghezy (Feb 16, 2020)

ESV. I have dabbled in the NASB at times. I recently became annoyed by the translations choice in dropping the word "gird" from 2 or three passages (see below), that NKJV & KJV are an option that I am considering. Despite being on the literal end of translations, it baffles me why that is needed, since it seems unrelated to translating into English.



NASB:
LUKE 12:35 -- "Be *dressed in readiness*, and _keep_ your lamps lit.
EPHESIANS 6:14 -- Stand firm therefore, HAVING *GIRDED YOUR LOINS* WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
1 Peter 1:13 -- Therefore, *prepare your minds for action*, keep sober _in spirit,_ fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus 

ESV
LUKE 12:35 -- “Stay *dressed for action* and keep your lamps burning,
EPHESIANS 6:14 -- Stand therefore, having *fastened on the belt of truth*, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
1 Peter 1:13 -- Therefore, *preparing your minds for action*, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

NKJV
LUKE 12:35 -- “Let your *waist be girded *and _your_ lamps burning;
EPHESIANS 6:14 -- Stand therefore, *having girded your wais*t with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness
1 Peter 1:13 -- Therefore *gird up the loins of your mind*, be sober, and rest _your_ hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 16, 2020)

The reasons I use the NKJV primarily are here:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-bible.97564/#post-1192122



> For me I had several reasons:
> 
> 1. I like how the NKJV includes “added” English words in italics, that can be very informative in prepping for family worship or a SS lesson, so I don’t dogmaicaly emphasize an English word that was added for sentence flow and was not even in the manuscripts.
> 
> ...




Also I read a lot of Matthew Henry commentary, so I also end up spending a lot of time with the KJV, which I like as well.

Our church uses the ESV for preaching.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Feb 16, 2020)

I have used the ESV since shortly after it was first published in late 2001. It is both accurate and eminently readable. I enjoy it more each year.

UPDATE: Our pastor preaches from the NASB and that's the translation in our pew Bibles, but I'm part of the resistance! Heh.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Feb 16, 2020)

I primarily use the ESV for reading since I did not grow up with the KJV, and I use the NASB when studying. 

My hope is that one day there will be a high quality Geneva, that would instantly become my favorite Bible.


----------



## CJW (Feb 17, 2020)

I use the KJV exclusively, and it is the version our church uses. Reasons: it’s a faithful translation of the received text, it differentiates between 2nd person singular and plural, it’s easy to read aloud from, it’s what I grew up with, and I’m a snob about languages.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 17, 2020)

Minh said:


> My favorite is the NASB because of its readability and literalness. While the KJV is the greatest monument of all English translation and God's gift to the English speaking world, I find it difficult to understand the exact meaning of the text in an archaic form, though it is the official translation of my faithful denomination.



I agree with both things you said about the KJV. It is beautiful and designed to be read aloud. Did you know that there's a revised version of the NASB coming out shortly? I am really looking forward to it although I don't know anything about it yet. I'm old enough to remember when the NIV was all the rage in many churches. But in time it fell out of favor and the switch was made to the ESV. But the perennial NASB just won't go away and it seems to be making a comeback these days.

Does anybody else know about this NASB revision?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 17, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I agree with both things you said about the KJV. It is beautiful and designed to be read aloud. Did you know that there's a revised version of the NASB coming out shortly? I am really looking forward to it although I don't know anything about it yet. I'm old enough to remember when the NIV was all the rage in many churches. But in time it fell out of favor and the switch was made to the ESV. But the perennial NASB just won't go away and it seems to be making a comeback these days.
> 
> Does anybody else know about this NASB revision?


Here is a bit of information on some of the textual decisions ;

https://opened-heart.com/NASB-2020-update-news-and-review/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2020)

The ESV is my primary translation, supplemented by the NASV and the KJV. I need to look into the NKJV.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## smalltown_puritan (Feb 17, 2020)

I love the Geneva Bible (1599), which is what I use for private study and family worship. I find it to be a simple and accurate translation, with excellent marginal/study notes.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Feb 17, 2020)

Main is, and probably always will be is the ESV. I have tried switching to the NASB, CSB and NKJV in the past but always come back to the ESV. There's something about it that I find poetic and beautiful to read. Still love those other translations still.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 17, 2020)

KJV, for the same reasons others who use it have said in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 17, 2020)

ESV because of its tradition of the Tyndale/KJV line, but its use of the older manuscripts.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 17, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I agree with both things you said about the KJV. It is beautiful and designed to be read aloud. Did you know that there's a revised version of the NASB coming out shortly? I am really looking forward to it although I don't know anything about it yet. I'm old enough to remember when the NIV was all the rage in many churches. But in time it fell out of favor and the switch was made to the ESV. But the perennial NASB just won't go away and it seems to be making a comeback these days.
> 
> Does anybody else know about this NASB revision?


Preview posts are on facebook. https://www.facebook.com/TheLockmanFoundation


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 17, 2020)

I had been using the ESV since I was saved about 6 years ago, with some dabbling in the KJV. 

But recently I’ve been using the *NASB77*, and I like it very much. I think I will be switching my family over to it full time. 

I find it interesting that people both praise and dislike the ESV for its English usage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 17, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I had been using the ESV since I was saved about 6 years ago, with some dabbling in the KJV.
> 
> But recently I’ve been using the *NASB77*, and I like it very much. I think I will be switching my family over to it full time.
> 
> I find it interesting that people both praise and dislike the ESV for its English usage.


Just curious why you switched to NASB77?


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 17, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Just curious why you switched to NASB77?


Just because I found a nice used 77 that I like at a thrift store. I’m working with what I have without spending more money than needed. 

The 95 is what the rest of my family will use if we make the switch. Whether 77 or 95, I like it more than the ESV, which I was using previously. 

Though, I do like the thee’s and thou’s when addressing God in the 77.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 17, 2020)

Afterthought said:


> KJV, for the same reasons others who use it have said in this thread.


KJV, and ditto.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Feb 17, 2020)

A question for those who read the KJV. 

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 17, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Just because I found a nice used 77 that I like at a thrift store. I’m working with what I have without spending more money than needed.
> 
> The 95 is what the rest of my family will use if we make the switch. Whether 77 or 95, I like it more than the ESV, which I was using previously.
> 
> Though, I do like the thee’s and thou’s when addressing God in the 77.


Sorry, I was asking why you like it over the ESV.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 17, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?


I'm convinced for doctrinal/theological reasons of the TR position. I believe the KJV is the best English translation we have available. I did not grow up in a Christian household and only began to use the KJV about three years ago, switching from around 12 years with the ESV.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 17, 2020)

I started using the KJV in the last year for my own personal reading. We use the NKJV for family devotions because my kiddos do a better job of grasping the text. They are very new readers and can struggle mightily with the basics still. ESV is used by the church we attend, and I half a nice leather ESV I take for service. It is convenient because the format is the same as the pew editions. My wife worked at Crossway in the past (still does proofreading), so we have a lot of Crossway material.



Ed Walsh said:


> Every time I open it--and I mean every time--I open the ESV I mumble under my breath "I really don't like this translation." I kid you not. ...but there's so much I don't like about it. I absolutely despise the gender-neutral readings, the missing verses really bother me even though I understand the research of why they are not there. It always seemed to me that for a scribe to innocently omit a verse would be more likely than to do the unthinkable of adding in their own thoughts. So there you have. The ESV is my primary translation for 2020 but as I said, I really don't like it.


THANK YOU!!!



David Taylor said:


> ESV because of its tradition of the Tyndale/KJV line



I'm familiar with this claim. It is stated this way in the preface, too. However, I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning for them saying this. Can you, or someone else, give an explanation or defense of this?


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 17, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?


@Jeri Tanner has put it well. My experience, though not quite the same as hers in all respects, is indeed similar.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Harrison (Feb 17, 2020)

Since buying a premium quality NKJV four years ago it's been my primary translation. I've always appreciated the NKJV's combination of accuracy, poetic language, and readability. Textual variants in the footnotes, capitalization of divine pronouns, and its italicizing added words are additional pluses. "He is risen!" - ah, it just does not get any better than that in the English language!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 17, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I'm familiar with this claim. It is stated this way in the preface, too. However, I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning for them saying this. Can you, or someone else, give an explanation or defense of this?


Leland Ryken wrote a couple of books on the ESV, praising it and states that it is in the Tyndale tradition. If I recall correctly 85% of the KJV is Tyndale ? 
https://www.amazon.com/ESV-English-...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581978037&sr=8-2https://www.amazon.com/ESV-English-...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581978037&sr=8-2

The ESV is a revision of the RSV, is a revision of the RV, which is a revision of the KJV. The KJV is a translation/revision of the BIshop's BIble, and also borrowed from others that preceded it. All of those used significant portions of the Tyndale translation. 
http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.htmlhttp://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 17, 2020)

ZackF said:


> I personally use the KJV for reading and personal study. We use CSB in family worship. In the Sunday School class I teach most often the ESV.


I'm sorry. I left out the 'why' part.

For personal use (KJV): Despite appearances the contrary, I'm a pretty conservative guy. I like the sound and history of the KJV. It's referenced in the Standards. As odd as it seems, it is the easiest for me to memorize. 

For family use (CSB, the updated HCSB): The is the version I read in family worship. I didn't think much of it until Logan mentioned that he was using it with his family. I bought a copy for my daughter who reads and understands it well. I do quibble about some of the seemingly forced inclusiveness and there are some awkward renderings but overall I like it. My wife uses the NASB herself. When she leads prayer and worship with the girls when I'm not around she reads from it. 

For SS (ESV): Quite plainly much of our SS materials use this translation. The students are familiar with it. It is 'common ground' in many respects. There are times I've used other versions like NASB or KJV in class but the majority of time we read from ESV though I don't bag on any of the translations the kids use or bring themselves. I'm just grateful that most of them have a well worn personal bibles that they read on their own.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Feb 17, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> If I recall correctly 85% of the KJV is Tyndale?



Only in the New Testament, as I understand it. Tyndale's translation was carried over, almost in its entirety, into the KJV.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## gjensen (Feb 17, 2020)

I do not have a primary Bible. I prefer the NKJV. It is a pleasure to read, reliable, and clear. It is largely based on a settled text. With the variants in the footnotes, it is a good companion to the NASB with the translator's notes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 17, 2020)

The ESV came out when I was in college and I jumped on it. Biola was mainly using NASB then (at least the Torrey program adopted ESV just after I graduated), and reading long passages in NASB can be a chore. I also liked that ESV lacked a couple of the more questionable choices of the old NIV (sinful nature instead of flesh, for example).

Though we moved last year, and the new church's pastor uses NKJV from the pulpit. So I made a point to get one and use that at church. It's not that I can't follow just fine from a different translation, but why waste the effort?


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 18, 2020)

ESV - never knew there was anything supposedly wrong with it before reading here and haven't really desired to go down that rabbit hole.

I am currently doing my daily reading in NASB this year because I need a change after so many years of ESV reading.


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 18, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Sorry, I was asking why you like it over the ESV.



I made the the switch due to an accumulation of things.

1. I’m becoming less and less comfortable with Crossway due to things such as the 2016 Permanent Text debacle; their newest translation of Genesis 3:16 (which to me doesn’t bode well for the overall arc of their updates every five years); their support of “scripture art journaling” as a means of devotion; and their approval of a Catholic Edition of the ESV.

I could be completely wrong about this, but Crossway seems to be a publishing powerhouse that created an unneeded translation in the early 2000’s, is now pumping out countless types of Bibles for every use under the sun, and does not display strong enough convictions or wisdom in doing so. But again, I could be wrong; it’s just my perception.

They have become like The Gospel Coalition to me. Yes, there are some good things; but there are also things that give me great pause, and cause me to be wary.


2. I read as many sources as I could find that compared particular translation choices between the ESV and the NASB. I didn’t save any of them unfortunately, but they shook the previously strong foundations of my trust in the ESV. I’m not knowledgeable in this area, so again, this was my fallible perception of things. I could be wrong.

3. My trust in the NASB has far surpassed that of the ESV.

The fruit of the aforementioned comparison between translations; the almost universally accepted fact that the NASB is more literal; the Greek-esque syntax (so Ive been told); the transparency of added words being italicized (not unique to the NASB, I know. But nonexistent in the ESV); and comparing Lockman to Crossway, I trust Lockman more.

4. The NASB is the translation of choice of men whom I hold in very high esteem.

Overall, it really comes down to my trust in Crossway/ESV having lessened, and my trust in the NASB and it’s quality having increased.

————————

I will add that I am discouraged by the changes I’ve seen in the upcoming NASB update, so that complicates things, and raises questions in my mind about Lockman. Hence why I am stocking up on old NASB’s.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## bookslover (Feb 18, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I made the the switch due to an accumulation of things.
> 
> 1. I’m becoming less and less comfortable with Crossway due to things such as the 2016 Permanent Text debacle; their newest translation of Genesis 3:16 (which to me doesn’t bode well for the overall arc of their updates every five years); their support of “scripture art journaling” as a means of devotion; and their approval of a Catholic Edition of the ESV.
> 
> ...



It seems that most of the reasons you don't like the ESV have little to do with the translation itself (although you did list a couple). That doesn't seem very fair to the translation. No translation is perfect, but I enjoy the ESV very much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 18, 2020)

bookslover said:


> It seems that most of the reasons you don't like the ESV have little to do with the translation itself (although you did list a couple). That doesn't seem very fair to the translation. No translation is perfect, but I enjoy the ESV very much.



Well, the points about the respective translations themselves carry the most weight with me, even though I named more other issues.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 18, 2020)

My go-to for the last three years has been the NRSV. It is extremely well written and the language is smooth. Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611. (No translation has done John 1 or Philippians 2 any better.)

It does have a liberal bent, but it challenges me to consider other perspectives on a passage, and often it’s liberalism is merely a different rendering - like in the OT many passages seem to be what a BC person might have seen on the surface. It has not liberalized my doctrines at all. (Yes, many of its liberal readings are just that, so I have my filters running.)

There are some conservatives who have been kind to it, such as DA Carson. Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.

Having said this Our church uses the ESV and I take a wide margin ESV and make detailed sermon notes. I’ve also used the NASB, KJV, NIV, and ASV recently among others.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 18, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?


1. I'm convinced that its textual basis is sound.
2. It's highly literal.
3. Words that are supplied by the translators are in italics.
4. The older pronoun system distinguishes between singular (thee/thou) and plural (you/ye) pronouns, as with the Greek and Hebrew.
5. The marginal notes of the KJV translators provide helpful alternative (strictly literal, sometimes) translations and variant readings. Often, these notes anticipate what is found in later translations.

Add to that the fact that it's the preferred translation throughout my denomination, and the only one that is preached from in my presbytery.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L. (Feb 18, 2020)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> My go-to for the last three years has been the NRSV. It is extremely well written and the language is smooth. Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611. (No translation has done John 1 or Philippians 2 any better.)
> 
> ....
> 
> There are some conservatives who have been kind to it, such as DA Carson. Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.



I recently added the NRSV to one of the BibleGateway filters I use when looking up passages in multiple translations and I too have found it well written and smooth. 

With regards to theologians who have been kind to it, I had heard in the past Michael Horton uses the NRSV though I have never been able to verify that. Interesting to read the names you've highlighted. I know very little about this translation and the voices in favor/against it.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you write "Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611"?


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 18, 2020)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.


The Newly Revised New Revised Standard Version???

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Claudiu (Feb 18, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?


 
Both. I grew up on it - oddly enough. I am the son of immigrant parents and the KJV closely matched the Romanian in the "sound of scripture." Later on I wrestled through textual criticism. In college I was largely convinced of the critical text arguments and read out of the ESV. Since then, I've come back to the KJV, and I do think it is a superior translation. The Reformation Heritage study notes help make sense of some of the archaic words, and the family worship guide is great!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 18, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> 5. The marginal notes of the KJV translators provide helpful alternative (strictly literal, sometimes) translations and variant readings. Often, these notes anticipate what is found in later translations.


I appreciate the concise overview.

Question: where would one find these marginal notes?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dalecosby (Feb 18, 2020)

I voted ESV as that is what my church primarily uses. I primarily read on a Kobo reader and I have other translations such as the CSB and the NKJ. In practice I almost always either use the ESV for church and anything I am looking up. I read the NKJ for reading through mostly just because it's easier to keep the bookmarks separate.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 18, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I appreciate the concise overview.
> 
> Question: where would one find these marginal notes?


In the margins, naturally. 

In all seriousness, I think the Cambridge reference bibles typically have them; the Westminster Reference Bible has them (I don't know about other TBS bibles). I imagine Allan bibles would. I use a CBP Turquoise Reference Bible and it has them.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 18, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> In the margins, naturally.
> 
> In all seriousness, I think the Cambridge reference bibles typically have them; the Westminster Reference Bible has them (I don't know about other TBS bibles. I imagine Allan bibles would. I use a CBP Turquoise Reference Bible and it has them.


That gave me a hearty chuckle.

I currently have a large print edition from Thomas Nelson. The larger print is helpful for me. I could do without the "words of Christ in red" though. I also have a Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Neither have such marginal references.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 18, 2020)

Claudiu said:


> The Reformation Heritage study notes help make sense of some of the archaic words, and the family worship guide is great!


I second this.

I voted for the ESV which is my main translation. I love the ESV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. But I have also come to love the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. The notes are particularly strong on experiential Christianity.

By using both study Bibles, one gets to use an excellent translation in the CT tradition, but also an excellent translation in the RT tradition.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 18, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> That gave me a hearty chuckle.
> 
> I currently have a large print edition from Thomas Nelson. The larger print is helpful for me. I could do without the "words of Christ in red" though. I also have a Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Neither have such marginal references.


To be clear, they typically show up in the reference column. They're not explanatory notes, but they enrich the translation. I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 18, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.


@Jonathan Lee Allen, nevermind. I can't seem to find you.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 18, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> To be clear, they typically show up in the reference column. They're not explanatory notes, but they enrich the translation. I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.


I'm taking a Facebook break for a bit. However, I'm still on Messenger.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 18, 2020)

BLM said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you write "Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611"?



just that it’s highly literary, yet understandable. You don’t feel like you’re being talked down to, but also don’t feel like a bunch of academics are droning on. The translators were very good with English.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 18, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> The Newly Revised New Revised Standard Version???



Not that long maybe the RRSV!

Seriously it’s the NRSV-UE (Updated edition), like the NASB was in 1995.


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 18, 2020)

A funny thing about editions that italicize words not directly from the original language. Quite a useful feature for the informed. But I knew a clique in school who collectively decided to _completely disregard _the italicized bits , to the great horror of the faculty.


----------



## OPC'n (Feb 18, 2020)

I have ESV because that's the version my church uses.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Harrison (Feb 18, 2020)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> My go-to for the last three years has been the NRSV. It is extremely well written and the language is smooth. Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611. (No translation has done John 1 or Philippians 2 any better.)
> 
> It does have a liberal bent, but it challenges me to consider other perspectives on a passage, and often it’s liberalism is merely a different rendering - like in the OT many passages seem to be what a BC person might have seen on the surface. It has not liberalized my doctrines at all. (Yes, many of its liberal readings are just that, so I have my filters running.)
> 
> ...



I used the NRSV through most of an MDiv degree program at a conservative evangelical seminary (only noticing one other person using one there, and that only once), and it never failed me. I developed great respect for it being both incredibly easy to read while at the same time very trustworthy in its translation choices. It makes me happy when I see conservative scholars using or citing the NRSV in their publications - which happens more often than I would expect (just sitting here and recalling it popping up in Heiser, Blomberg, Fee, Schreiner....). My primary translation has been the NKJV, but your post may be inspiring a mutiny.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 18, 2020)

KJV for the reasons the others have said before. My mother always used the NIV (not sure what year) while raising me and my sister. I was using the HCSB when I became Reformed because it was our church used. Studied the textual issues last year and became convinced that the KJV is what I want to use, for me and my future (Lord willing) family. I have no major issues with the NKJV or the MEV. I want to check out the Geneva this year. It's so nice to see translations discussed peacefully.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 19, 2020)

Harrison said:


> I used the NRSV through most of an MDiv degree program at a conservative evangelical seminary (only noticing one other person using one there, and that only once), and it never failed me. I developed great respect for it being both incredibly easy to read while at the same time very trustworthy in its translation choices. It makes me happy when I see conservative scholars using or citing the NRSV in their publications - which happens more often than I would expect (just sitting here and recalling it popping up in Heiser, Blomberg, Fee, Schreiner....). My primary translation has been the NKJV, but your post may be inspiring a mutiny.


Interesting, when I see a scholar quoting the NRSV primarily it usually sends red flags up for me.


----------



## Delahunt (Feb 19, 2020)

I use the NASB95 - grew up on a NASB/NKJV combo platter. Dabbled with the ESV during my college years where I attended a large popular Baptist church in Minneapolis during that time. Had to go back to my roots, love the way the NASB reads! Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 19, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.


That may be what the 2020 edition is going to use, but those resources were not out when NASB95 was released.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 19, 2020)

Delahunt said:


> I use the NASB95 - grew up on a NASB/NKJV combo platter. Dabbled with the ESV during my college years where I attended a large popular Baptist church in Minneapolis during that time. Had to go back to my roots, love the way the NASB reads! Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.





David Taylor said:


> That may be what the 2020 edition is going to use, but those resources were not out when NASB95 was released.


​I routinely say this, because it is constantly misunderstood (even by the marketing arms of Bible publishers!): No translator worth their salt "uses" UBS5 or NA28 as more than a collator of the most up to date information. That is, they invariably make their own judgments as to the relevant text critical choices; they do not go "Oh! NA28 disagrees with NA27 here, so we have to adapt our translation to match it." They may come to similar conclusions based on a thorough survey of the text critical issues, but the critical texts are mere collators of text critical information, not authoritative sources (even though seminary students may sometimes treat them that way).

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 4


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 19, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I routinely say this, because it is constantly misunderstood (even by the marketing arms of Bible publishers!): No translator worth their salt "uses" UBS5 or NA28 as more than a collator of the most up to date information. That is, they invariably make their own judgments as to the relevant text critical choices; they do not go "Oh! NA28 disagrees with NA27 here, so we have to adapt our translation to match it." They may come to similar conclusions based on a thorough survey of the text critical issues, but the critical texts are mere collators of text critical information, not authoritative sources (even though seminary students may sometimes treat them that way).


Yes, that is a good distinction to point out.


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 20, 2020)

1,700 thread views and only 77 replies!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 20, 2020)

I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 20, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV.


I'm surprised as well.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 20, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.


Allan bindings brought out an NRSV in Highland Goatskin. It has speckled page edges. I had always heard the NRSV was 'liberal' and avoided it. The speckled page edges overcame my resistance and I went for it.

I began comparing chapters with my NKJV which was my primary last year using the M'Cheyne 1 Year Reading Plan. I was very impressed with the flow and readability of the NRSV translation/revision. I had looked into it and read that it was the choice, by and large, of Academia. Some said it is the most 'accurate' translation, as opposed to literal. (no such thing as a literal translation really)

So .. there are choices the translators made that annoy me no end. For instance, in Ezekiel, 'Mortal' instead of 'Son of Man.' In Genesis 1:2 'a wind from God swept over the face of the waters,' rather than 'the Spirit of God.'

I compared that verse with the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh Translation, and they also translate it 'wind', and in Ezekiel they also use 'Mortal.' I suppose those who translated that know what they are doing. Of course in Koine Greek πνευμα can be translated either wind or spirit, so I suppose Hebrew offers the same choices. As far as 'Mortal' goes, perhaps the JPS Tanakh is also gender neutral ?

The NRSV was the first, as far as I know, to use 'gender neutral' nouns/pronouns. That in the 1990s, and was widely disparaged because of it. Now it is one of the many. It is beautifully written. I'm using it as my primary this year with the M'Cheyne plan. 

I'm sure there are more choices made by the translators that will bother me, but I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Here are the speckled page edges that I found irresistible ;

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 20, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> Allan bindings brought out an NRSV in Highland Goatskin. It has speckled page edges. I had always heard the NRSV was 'liberal' and avoided it. The speckled page edges overcame my resistance and I went for it.
> 
> I began comparing chapters with my NKJV which was my primary last year using the M'Cheyne 1 Year Reading Plan. I was very impressed with the flow and readability of the NRSV translation/revision. I had looked into it and read that it was the choice, by and large, of Academia. Some said it is the most 'accurate' translation, as opposed to literal. (no such thing as a literal translation really)
> 
> ...


Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 20, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?


I'm flying by the seat of my pants in my reply to this question. Dr Duguid, of Reverend Keister could undoubtedly give an informed answer to the question. That said, in my opinion ... The NRSV was a revision of the RSV.

Famously, like its predecessor, the RV, translating Isaiah 7:14 as 'young women' rather than Virgin. That, among other choices, was the impetus for the ESV revision of the RSV. The other 'usual suspects' that I know of are probably inclusive in all of the CT translations. 

The treatment of the long ending of Mark, the Pericope Adulterae, Johannine Comma, atoning sacrifice rather than propitiation in 1 John 2:2, leaving verses out of the text because they are not in the earliest manuscripts (included in footnotes, or bracketed)

There are undoubtedly more reasons it is considered liberal, but I'd guess that the same could be said of all the modern/mainstream translations currently. The NRSV was a stand out in that regard because it was the earliest to go as far as it did.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 20, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?



It's also the standard Bible for the PCUSA so that doesn't help.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 20, 2020)

Which is funny as in many mainline churches it seems the Common English Bible is overtaking the NRSV.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 20, 2020)

ESV 36
KJV 35

Close.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 20, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> ESV 36
> KJV 35
> 
> Close.


It's not surprising as the ESV is a direct descendant of the KJV.


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 21, 2020)

Harrison said:


> Although, "young woman" for Isaiah 7:14 is technically more accurate.... There's also Exodus 20:13, which the NRSV adds a footnote expanding the meaning of the 6th commandment; also more accurate at this point.


It's more complicated than that. An 'almah is not just a generic young woman; that would be na'arah. She is a young woman who has reached puberty and is therefore ready for marriage. The problem is that in English we don't have a word for that, so have to choose between imperfect alternatives. Other languages (such as Zulu) find it much easier.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Harrison (Feb 21, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> It's also the standard Bible for the PCUSA so that doesn't help.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.



I have taken to comparing the NRSV with the ESV on some of the stranger translation choices I have found. That because I found the NRSV and ESV translations being identical in NOT matching up with other translations, such as the NKJV or NASB. Stranger yet - when the NRSV and ESV make the same translation choices and yet they do NOT match up with the RSV.


David Taylor said:


> It's not surprising as the ESV is a direct descendant of the KJV.





iainduguid said:


> It's more complicated than that. An 'almah is not just a generic young woman; that would be na'arah. She is a young woman who has reached puberty and is therefore ready for marriage. The problem is that in English we don't have a word for that, so have to choose between imperfect alternatives. Other languages (such as Zulu) find it much easier.



Apparently my deleting my comment (wanted to rephrase the Exodus 20:13 part) and your reply occurred around the same time. The NRSV does include "the virgin" in the footnote - perhaps making the combination of "the young woman" and "the virgin" more accurate overall, given the lack of an English word. I have read the claim that the meaning of almah changed over time, although I have not seen enough on that to know for sure.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 21, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> ESV 36
> KJV 35
> 
> Close.


Sure. But if you count the KJV and NKJV together (which I tend to do in this kind of poll), it's 52 [N]KJV v. 36 ESV. Not as close.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## py3ak (Feb 22, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> A funny thing about editions that italicize words not directly from the original language. Quite a useful feature for the informed. But I knew a clique in school who collectively decided to _completely disregard _the italicized bits , to the great horror of the faculty.



I once wrote a short story about a guy deciding to do that. It became quite difficult at Psalm 119:113.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 22, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Sure. But if you count the KJV and NKJV together (which I tend to do in this kind of poll), it's 52 [N]KJV v. 36 ESV. Not as close.


Then perhaps you need to add ESV, NASB, and Other together as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gjensen (Feb 22, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Then perhaps you need to add ESV, NASB, and Other together as well.



You could. The CT and TR translations are almost even.


----------



## Jake (Feb 22, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> It's also the standard Bible for the PCUSA so that doesn't help.



Widely used along with the CEB in most mainline churches.

The Protestant Episcopal Church (a.k.a, The Episcopal Church) has a list of approved translations:

King James or Authorized Version (the historic Bible of The Episcopal Church)
English Revision (1881)
American Revision (1901)
Revised Standard Version (1952)
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
New English Bible with the Apocrypha (1970)
Good News Bible / Today's English Version (1976)
New American Bible (1970)
Revised Standard Version, an Ecumenical Edition (1973)
New International Version (1978)
New Jerusalem Bible (1987)
Revised English Bible (1989)
New Revised Standard Version (1990)
Common English Bible (2012)

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JH (Feb 23, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?


As for the other reasons stated above being convinced of a TR position on textual methodology, and the reasons Tyler gave; True fact: no one will _ever know half as much_ in regards to the biblical languages, as the men of renown who did the translational work. They spoke these languages in that timeframe as it were their mother tongues, and we think we understand biblical languages better than they, because we have BlueLetterBible and Strong's concordance. We live in the age of chronological snobbery, where we have the most access to information, but are the most ignorant.


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 23, 2020)

Jerrod Hess said:


> True fact: no one will _ever know half as much_ in regards to the biblical languages, as the men of renown who did the translational work. They spoke these languages in that timeframe as it were their mother tongues, and we think we understand biblical languages better than they, because we have BlueLetterBible and Strong's concordance.


Um... actually, that is blatantly false. There have certainly been great linguists in the past - Calvin, for example. But we know a great deal more about cognate languages than they did, which means that in some places we understand the Hebrew text better than they did. And Bible translators are not generally dependent on Strong's concordance and other such English language based resources. Love the KJV by all means because you respect its text critical basis, or love its beautiful use of English, but please don't idolize it as if it were a translation that couldn't possibly ever be wrong, or improved upon.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 11


----------



## JH (Feb 23, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Um... actually, that is blatantly false. There have certainly been great linguists in the past - Calvin, for example. But we know a great deal more about cognate languages than they did, which means that in some places we understand the Hebrew text better than they did. And Bible translators are not generally dependent on Strong's concordance and other such English language based resources. Love the KJV by all means because you respect its text critical basis, or love its beautiful use of English, but please don't idolize it as if it were a translation that couldn't possibly ever be wrong, or improved upon.


I appreciate your input but simply disagree. I don't idolize the KJV in and of itself, but I do believe the Authorized is the best and most accurate translational work we have in the English language. It is a perfectly accurate translation, and have yet to stumble across any errors in it yet. I see you are a professor at Westminster, and as you can see yourself in both our confessions, my authority isn't the KJV, but the texts it was derived from. See: Chapter i. para. viii

With all due respect, I believe the way Greek is being taught in seminary today is a scam, and the people mounting the teaching desks thereof often know little of the language; and a student shall not be above his master. The truth of the matter is, most professors at seminaries could not ask for a glass of water in Greek, but are more focused upon using computer tools to parse "the true meaning" of one word in a passage. Until this can be proven otherwise, I cannot but help hold this view.

This view of mine was primarily derived from Anderson's + my local pastors efforts in "Going Back to the Greek Documentary" filmed in 2019. Also from Daniel Streett's blog on Greek pedagogy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/daniel...know-greek-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-3/amp/

I respect your input as a professor, but am confident in the claim I've put forth. I am open to being wrong, however I can't help but cringe at the thought that we would ever understand the Hebrew Text better than they did. Most CT advocates for example would be of the opinion that "the" Septuagint should correct the Masoretic Text, and so on. If you can show me otherwise, I would be willing to renounce the claims. 

Blessings in Christ


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 23, 2020)

Well, let me point you to two places where the KJV simply got it wrong. 
Psalm 121:1, "I to the hills will lift mine eyes, from whence doth come mine aid" is a question, not a statement. Here KJV follows Latin Vulgate along with Luther and the Geneva Bible, rather than working with the Hebrew text._ me'ayin_ is always a question, everywhere else it occurs in the OT ("from whence?"). 

Likewise in the last word of Proverbs 29:18a "Where there is no vision the people _perish_", the KJV likewise follows the Vulgate (dissipabitur = destroyed; Geneva Bible: "decay") in its translation of the Niphal of_ para'_, which actually means "to unbind (hair), to let loose, run unrestrained). Hence Luther's accurate and vivid "das Volk wird Wild und Wust". I can find no other ancient or modern translation that agrees with KJV in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish or Italian (I'd be happy to be corrected, if I missed something). And while we're at it,_ hazon_, vision, specifically means a prophetic vision, not a generic "vision for evangelism" or similar modern parlance. That's not directly the KJV's fault, but it does make the ESV's translation "Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint" significantly clearer.

As far as your anecdotal knowledge of current standards of Greek tuition, your experience is your experience. I'm sorry for those who have had bad experiences. Perhaps you should advise your friends to study at Westminster, where it is taught more adequately. And there is no direct correlation between the average seminary Greek student and the competence of those who engage in the Bible translation process.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## JH (Feb 23, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Well, let me point you to two places where the KJV simply got it wrong.
> Psalm 121:1, "I to the hills will lift mine eyes, from whence doth come mine aid" is a question, not a statement. Here KJV follows Latin Vulgate along with Luther and the Geneva Bible, rather than working with the Hebrew text._ me'ayin_ is always a question, everywhere else it occurs in the OT ("from whence?").
> 
> Likewise in the last word of Proverbs 29:18a "Where there is no vision the people _perish_", the KJV likewise follows the Vulgate (dissipabitur = destroyed; Geneva Bible: "decay") in its translation of the Niphal of_ para'_, which actually means "to unbind (hair), to let loose, run unrestrained). Hence Luther's accurate and vivid "das Volk wird Wild und Wust". I can find no other ancient or modern translation that agrees with KJV in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish or Italian (I'd be happy to be corrected, if I missed something). And while we're at it,_ hazon_, vision, specifically means a prophetic vision, not a generic "vision for evangelism" or similar modern parlance. That's not directly the KJV's fault, but it does make the ESV's translation "Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint" significantly clearer.
> ...


I appreciate your response. As to your comments on the supposed errors in the KJV, I could not answer to that or even give your beliefs are fair examination, seeing I do not have the adequate skills in the biblical languages. I could address these to my local pastor for his opinions however, thank you. 

I wouldn't call the resources I shared purely anecdotal. These same methods are the methods used in research methods for medical fields and the like, in government research papers in relation to anthropology and health; you have the same test put forth between 10-100 subjects, and see what the outcomes are. You could say it's anecdotal to the men tested sure, but in that study, the men were Greek professors. I think the reason many know not Greek as well as other languages, is due to us not treating it like any other language. (what I had mentioned earlier I'm regards to a hyper-focus on parsing and computer tools, instead of simple dialogue in the language to start with, and basic vocabulary). I cannot speak in regards to the intricacies of Greek, but the methodology thereof appears to be flawed. You can dismiss the resources as anecdotal if you'd like, but I don't find them anecdotal personally. Our local congregation doesn't really recommend seminary much anymore, but local shepherding of the flock. My points earlier were not specifically in regards to Bible translators, but further, encompassing all Greek 'scholars' and professors. 

Your input is appreciated, although I haven't seen anything that would make me question my views. Enjoy the rest of your Sabbath!


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 23, 2020)

Jerrod Hess said:


> It is a perfectly accurate translation


Your grand sweeping pronouncements come across as someone who is merely taking someone else’s word for it. 

Let me get this straight. 

The KJV is perfect. 

Modern linguistic studies are essentially garbage. 

The KJV translators could speak fluent Hebrew and Koine Greek, while today’s scholars are using Strong’s numbers for word studies. 

Did I miss anything?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 23, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> A question for those who read the KJV.
> 
> Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?




1. It is excellent literature.
2. It sounds different than spoken English.
3. It is dependable (not perfect) and will be around long after other versions have been 'updated' or replaced.
4. It is the translation used by most theologians I read (Puritans).
5. I find it easier to memorize.
6. It is the most *read* (not necessarily purchased) Bible today.
7. It shaped the English language, not the other way around.
8. It distinguishes between first and second person which modern translations simply cannot do.
9. It is the true English Standard until the English speaking Church decides on another one.

Oh...and it saved my life.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 23, 2020)

For those of you who prefer the ESV, why have you chosen it over the NASB?


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 23, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> For those of you who prefer the ESV, why have you chosen it over the NASB?



As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I adopted it shortly after release. I can't say I made the change for the deepest of reasons, given that I was roughly 20 at the time. 

At the time, I was reading NASB for classes at my college and had heavily used NIV at church and my own reading in high school. I mainly opted for the ESV because I thought the style was a bit cleaner and smoother to read than NASB, while still not being as "dynamic equivalence" as the NIV. (For classes, I frequently had to read a whole book of the Bible in one go, so smoothness of style made a noticeable difference for me.) I admit to still largely using it because I like that middle ground approach and because nothing much has motivated me to change. That said, I am using NKJV a lot more in the past year, on account of that being what the pastor of our new church preaches from.


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 23, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I adopted it shortly after release. I can't say I made the change for the deepest of reasons, given that I was roughly 20 at the time.
> 
> At the time, I was reading NASB for classes at my college and had heavily used NIV at church and my own reading in high school. I mainly opted for the ESV because I thought the style was a bit cleaner and smoother to read than NASB, while still not being as "dynamic equivalence" as the NIV. (For classes, I frequently had to read a whole book of the Bible in one go, so smoothness of style made a noticeable difference for me.) I admit to still largely using it because I like that middle ground approach and because nothing much has motivated me to change. That said, I am using NKJV a lot more in the past year, on account of that being what the pastor of our new church preaches from.


Thank you. 

There’s always a lot of factors involved. If you could do it all over again, would you make any changes?


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 23, 2020)

Maybe. If I were looking at it fresh now, I'd probably be less idealistic about it all. As long as a translation is not too flexible with its translation method, it's easy to put a lot of stress on relatively small differences. NASB or NKJV or ESV or many others all provide a good starting point. I'd probably do what I did last year, which was ask @bookish_Basset to buy "the version the pastor's reading from" for my birthday. Then use other translations (as I currently do) as a way to find other nuances on the text or, by means of the different phrasing, break through the routine familiarity of a passage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 24, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> Maybe. If I were looking at it fresh now, I'd probably be less idealistic about it all. As long as a translation is not too flexible with its translation method, it's easy to put a lot of stress on relatively small differences. NASB or NKJV or ESV or many others all provide a good starting point. I'd probably do what I did last year, which was ask @bookish_Basset to buy "the version the pastor's reading from" for my birthday. Then use other translations (as I currently do) as a way to find other nuances on the text or, by means of the different phrasing, break through the routine familiarity of a passage.


That sounds very reasonable. What’s your everyday use Bible right now? I mean the actual physical Bible. Publisher, edition, etc.


----------



## gjensen (Feb 24, 2020)

Jerrod Hess said:


> This view of mine was primarily derived from Anderson's + my local pastors efforts in "Going Back to the Greek Documentary" filmed in 2019



I find this concerning. You would dismiss a faithful believing scholar, and then credit Anderson.
From someone that prefers TR translations, be careful. It is easy to become imbalanced. This is how we get the KJVO extremes.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 24, 2020)

Jerrod Hess said:


> As for the other reasons stated above being convinced of a TR position on textual methodology, and the reasons Tyler gave; True fact: no one will _ever know half as much_ in regards to the biblical languages, as the men of renown who did the translational work. They spoke these languages in that timeframe as it were their mother tongues, and we think we understand biblical languages better than they, because we have BlueLetterBible and Strong's concordance. We live in the age of chronological snobbery, where we have the most access to information, but are the most ignorant.


You're operating under some misconceptions, brother. The average pastor in the 1600s certainly would have known more Greek than the average pastor now, due to the emphasis on classical languages in education in general back then. However, that doesn't mean that today's Greek experts know less about Greek than Greek experts then. Also, understanding of Hebrew has definitely advanced. It was very rare in the 1600s for a Christian to be competent to teach Hebrew--most hired a Jewish Rabbi to tutor them.

The KJV translators were great scholars, and did a wonderful job, but it's false to say that there aren't competent scholars today.

We don't want to make bad arguments for a good thing.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## B.L. (Feb 24, 2020)

My church's primary translation for preaching and study is the CSB. I really don't have much familiarity with it and only recently started adding it to my group of default translations when comparing passages in BibleGateway.

While I can follow along at church with my NKJV or KJV just fine, I've realized recently my young children find the different readings a bit distracting. I think there is value in using the same translation as the rest of the church for worship and study -- particularly for children who are still developing a foundation to build upon.

I'll probably end up purchasing a pair of CSB Bibles for my children in the near future. If anyone has any recommendations please do let me know.

Have a joyful day everyone!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 24, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> That sounds very reasonable. What’s your everyday use Bible right now? I mean the actual physical Bible. Publisher, edition, etc.


Two main ones: NKJV Single-Column Reference Bible, Thomas Nelson, 2018. As the name implies, single column of text per page instead of two, but has all the standard cross-reference notes.

ESV Single Column Legacy Edition, Crossway. Also single-column, but larger pages and a nice margin area.

The common thread for my choice of each edition: I've become more persnickety about page layout preferences, even as I've become less so about translations.  Basically it comes down to "take my brain as little effort as possible to find and follow the text." Double column means the eye has to move around a lot more, and one-verse-per-line is in my opinion only useful if doing close analysis and not trying to read a larger passage. Single column, especially if it has decent line spacing and reasonable margins, is very comfortable to read.

Of course if I know I'm going to be reading aloud to a group, I print the passage out, large font, triple-spaced, ideally in landscape layout. That way it takes heroic effort to lose my place while reading. I learned that trick years ago when working at a summer camp.


----------



## B.L. (Feb 24, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> NKJV Single-Column Reference Bible, Thomas Nelson, 2018. As the name implies, single column of text per page instead of two, but has all the standard cross-reference notes.



This one is my current favorite to read from. Just an amazing layout and in the brown goatskin it's a real beauty. A real premium edition at a somewhat affordable price. Love this one.


----------



## Jonathco (Feb 24, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> For those of you who prefer the ESV, why have you chosen it over the NASB?



I switched from the NKJV to the NASB when we started attending our current church several years ago (as they use the NASB), but I find it a rather "woody" translation that flows off the tongue like coarse sandpaper. I tried the ESV shortly thereafter and found it readable, poetic, and still easy enough to use in family devotions with my children. 

I still regularly cross-reference the NKJV and the NASB in my personal study, but have heard some concerning things about the updates coming to the NASB 2020 update. I guess time will tell.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Well, let me point you to two places where the KJV simply got it wrong.
> Psalm 121:1, "I to the hills will lift mine eyes, from whence doth come mine aid" is a question, not a statement. Here KJV follows Latin Vulgate along with Luther and the Geneva Bible, rather than working with the Hebrew text._ me'ayin_ is always a question, everywhere else it occurs in the OT ("from whence?").
> 
> Likewise in the last word of Proverbs 29:18a "Where there is no vision the people _perish_", the KJV likewise follows the Vulgate (dissipabitur = destroyed; Geneva Bible: "decay") in its translation of the Niphal of_ para'_, which actually means "to unbind (hair), to let loose, run unrestrained). Hence Luther's accurate and vivid "das Volk wird Wild und Wust". I can find no other ancient or modern translation that agrees with KJV in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish or Italian (I'd be happy to be corrected, if I missed something). And while we're at it,_ hazon_, vision, specifically means a prophetic vision, not a generic "vision for evangelism" or similar modern parlance. That's not directly the KJV's fault, but it does make the ESV's translation "Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint" significantly clearer.
> ...


I just looked these passages up out of curiosity. Interestingly, the KJV translators offer alternate translations in the margins in both instances. For Ps 122:1, the marginal note reads, "Or, _Shall I lift up mine eyes to the hills? Whence should my help come?"
_
For Prov 29:18, they offer "is made naked" in the place of "perish."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> I just looked these passages up out of curiosity. Interestingly, the KJV translators offer alternate translations in the margins in both instances. For Ps 122:1, the marginal note reads, "Or, _Shall I lift up mine eyes to the hills? Whence should my help come?"
> _
> For Prov 29:18, they offer "is made naked" in the place of "perish."



Clearly the KJV translators knew the alternative translations were legitimate translations (in terms of the words on the page) but also understood that there was a more appropriate translation, more faithful to these particular instances, which is what they included in the text. They were very godly and learned men who knew what they were doing.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Clearly the KJV translators knew the alternative translations were legitimate translations (in terms of the words on the page) but also understood that there was a more appropriate translation, more faithful to these particular instances, which is what they included in the text. They were very godly and learned men who knew what they were doing.


To be sure they were, but it's also entirely possible that they were divided in their opinions at times and put both forward because of a lack of clarity. I think that's especially true when they put variant readings of the Greek or Hebrew in the margins.


----------



## CalvinistBaptist (Feb 26, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I am curious to know the state of English Bible translation usage on the PB in 2020.
> 
> Please vote for your primary translation, and comment on _why_ it is your primary choice.
> 
> Thanks.


NASB, as that was the primary translation first used when the Lord saved me.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> To be sure they were, but it's also entirely possible that they were divided in their opinions at times and put both forward because of a lack of clarity. I think that's especially true when they put variant readings of the Greek or Hebrew in the margins.



Certainly but I think we would want to say that the translation they included in the body of the text is what was considered the preferred translation. I wouldn't want to say the translators considered both renderings "equally valid". I think they did make a choice but because it was, perhaps, a particularly difficult or unclear passage they put an alternative in the margin. You see a lot of examples of this in Job which, so I hear, has some particularly difficult passages from a translation (and interpretation) point of view.


----------



## Jake (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Certainly but I think we would want to say that the translation they included in the body of the text is what was considered the preferred translation. I wouldn't want to say the translators considered both renderings "equally valid". I think they did make a choice but because it was, perhaps, a particularly difficult or unclear passage they put an alternative in the margin. You see a lot of examples of this in Job which, so I hear, has some particularly difficult passages from a translation (and interpretation) point of view.



Some of the margin variants from the 1611 edition ended up in the main translation in the 1769 edition.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Certainly but I think we would want to say that the translation they included in the body of the text is what was considered the preferred translation. I wouldn't want to say the translators considered both renderings "equally valid". I think they did make a choice but because it was, perhaps, a particularly difficult or unclear passage they put an alternative in the margin. You see a lot of examples of this in Job which, so I hear, has some particularly difficult passages from a translation (and interpretation) point of view.


The notes are very interesting. I've been studying them very closely over the last few months. I think I can say the following with some confidence:

1. We'll never know why the choice was made to put one reading in the body and one in the margin in each and every case.

2. Usually, the one in the body would have been the generally preferred one by the translators, but there may have been times that they were so divided that they simply had to settle.

3. Sometimes the note simply shows an aspect of the original that could be missed in the body (and vice versa).

4. Sometimes, the translation in the margin simply does not agree with the body, in which case it is a truly alternative translation, and not merely an expansion of the body.

5. Sometimes the note references a textual variant in the original language, showing that the translators were to some degree undecided on the correct reading. This goes beyond the question of translation and into textual criticism.

6. Sometimes the notes merely give a literal translation that wouldn't flow so well in the main body of the text.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 26, 2020)

My understanding, Tyler and others, is that the variant readings in the KJV margins (or later incorporated into the body of the text) all came from within the manuscripts recognized as the received text. Would that be an accurate way of putting it?


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 26, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> I just looked these passages up out of curiosity. Interestingly, the KJV translators offer alternate translations in the margins in both instances. For Ps 122:1, the marginal note reads, "Or, _Shall I lift up mine eyes to the hills? Whence should my help come?"
> _
> For Prov 29:18, they offer "is made naked" in the place of "perish."


In neither case to which I pointed here is the text uncertain. The question is one of what the proper translation is. 

The first part of Psalm 122:1 is unlikely to be a question (though like many languages, including English, Hebrew can have unmarked questions), but the second part _must_ be a question, based on the usage of _me'ayin _everywhere else in Scripture. It's not an adequate answer simply to say "Well, the KJV translators were godly men, with a unique knowledge of Hebrew, so they alone got this right, even though no modern scholar can explain why this is the right translation."

Likewise, with Proverbs 29:18 "made naked" is no better than "perish". What does it even mean for a people to be "made naked"? 

Both examples illustrate my point: there are things that I can do easily (look up all the other uses of_ me'ayin_ and the niphal of _pr' _in the Old Testament), as well as parallel forms in cognate languages, that they couldn't possibly have imagined doing. As a result, they ended up leaning on the Vulgate to aid their translation, and going in the wrong direction.

Again, I'm not arguing that the KJV is a bad translation and that no one should read it. There are responsible arguments in favor of it that have been advanced in this thread. But the suggestion that the KJV is perfect and we must therefore accept that it is entirely without flaw as a translation - and that we should correct our Hebrew lexicons to match it! - is frankly untenable.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2


----------



## Logan (Feb 26, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My understanding, Tyler and others, is that the variant readings in the KJV margins (or later incorporated into the body of the text) all came from within the manuscripts recognized as the received text. Would that be an accurate way of putting it?



That's not an easy question to answer, because what are the "received texts" in this case?

Here's an example: James 2:18 the KJV translators rendered as "without thy works", instead of what the printed texts (received text) in their day had: "by thy works".

Scrivener believes the translators chose the correct reading, found in five out of the seven uncials.

However, Scrivener collated a Greek edition in 1894 that used all the Greek readings underlying the KJV. And since this is probably the most commonly used "TR", this reading is NOW included in the TR...even though it wasn't when it was translated into the KJV.

Scrivener additionally said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA199#v=onepage&q&f=false


> What then the need of a marginal note? The fact is that our translators were doing what they seldom liked to venture on:---they were changing the Received Greek text which they usually accepted without question, to follow Beza's Greek Testaments of 1582, 1589, 1598 and the Vulgate. They knew that "by," however ill it suited the context, had appeared in every preceding English version, as well as in the edition of the Complutensians, of Erasmus, of Stephens (1550), and of Beza himself in 1565, and so they drew attention in the margin to their weighty and much-needed correction.



According to Scrivener, the KJV translators did not always follow the received texts. But now, by this odd quirk of a circular process, what ended up in the KJV is now part of the received text...

Now, some will say that the Beza editions are part of the "received text". But that's part of the difficulty of what exactly is meant by the "received text". Clearly Scrivener didn't include them.

The KJV translators didn't strictly follow one text, or even what some consider the family of "received texts". They apparently sometimes followed readings from the Vulgate and other ancient language versions. By all appearances, they consulted all the polyglotts, manuscripts, and printed texts they had available to them at the time. I have found no concept of a "received family" of texts which were considered more pure than all others.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Again, I'm not arguing that the KJV is a bad translation and that no one should read it. There are responsible arguments in favor of it that have been advanced in this thread. But the suggestion that the KJV is perfect and we must therefore accept that it is entirely without flaw as a translation - and that we should correct our Hebrew lexicons to match it! - is frankly untenable.


No argument here.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 26, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My understanding, Tyler and others, is that the variant readings in the KJV margins (or later incorporated into the body of the text) all came from within the manuscripts recognized as the received text. Would that be an accurate way of putting it?


Jeri, Logan's answer to this in post 122 is accurate. The KJV translators examined all the evidence they had. Their theology of the text, and thus their philosophy and method, was different from what underlies post-Wescott/Hort textual-critical efforts, but the KJV translators wouldn't have discounted a reading based on any concept of textual families.

If a reading was obscure, and only found in a couple of manuscripts, or something like that, they generally would have discounted it as a very unlikely reading. In that sense, they paid attention to what had been "received" by the Church as part of their deliberations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CalvinistBaptist (Feb 26, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> In neither case to which I pointed here is the text uncertain. The question is one of what the proper translation is.
> 
> The first part of Psalm 122:1 is unlikely to be a question (though like many languages, including English, Hebrew can have unmarked questions), but the second part _must_ be a question, based on the usage of _me'ayin _everywhere else in Scripture. It's not an adequate answer simply to say "Well, the KJV translators were godly men, with a unique knowledge of Hebrew, so they alone got this right, even though no modern scholar can explain why this is the right translation."
> 
> ...


the KJV is the greatest English translation that has ever been produced, and yet was not a perfect translation, as there has never been one of those yet.
I think that some might be concerned with there being errors and mistakes in any translation, but those by themselves do not make our versions wrong, as still are infallible witness to God.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2020)

Logan said:


> That's not an easy question to answer, because what are the "received texts" in this case?
> 
> Here's an example: James 2:18 the KJV translators rendered as "without thy works", instead of what the printed texts (received text) in their day had: "by thy works".
> 
> ...



This sounds like a good example of how the Lord preserved His Word pure throughout all ages.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

KMK said:


> 4. It is the translation used by most theologians I read (Puritans).


Did not many of the Puritans actually use the Geneva, not the KJV?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Did not many of the Puritans actually use the Geneva, not the KJV?


Early in the movement, yes. It took the KJV some time to get a foothold with the Puritans. By the time of the Westminster Assembly, the KJV was much more in use by them.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 27, 2020)

Neck and neck.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 28, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?



Because it was translated by liberals, some of whom were not even professing Christians. Plus, take a look at which Study Bibles are produced using it. With only a very few exceptions in its 30 year existence, they have been liberal. (The only two exceptions that come to mind are the Cultural Backgrounds Bible and the Harper Study Bible edited by Harold Lindsell, which quickly went out of print.) 

It is alleged that certain renderings, mostly in the OT, are evidence of an anti-supernatural bias, for example. I'd be surprised if anyone who was involved affirmed the inerrancy of the autographs. Perhaps without exception, they think that the book of Daniel was produced after the exile, they believe in something like the framework hypothesis regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch, believe there are 2 or 3 Isaiahs and 2 Zechariahs, etc. This was an issue with conservative rejection of the RSV as well, although from that perspective the NRSV was worse given the declension in the mainline churches by the late 80s. 

But as has been noted, many evangelical versions, including the soon to be released NASB revision, have adopted gender-neutral renderings to varying degrees. If they were to translate Isaiah 7:14 the way the RSV and NRSV do, they'd have to apologize for spending so much money on most of these translations which were in reaction to the RSV, to some degree to that verse in particular. Maybe Dallas Seminary, which denounced the RSV in the 50s, should do it since their NET has "young woman" instead of "virgin." Perhaps the same could be said for those who caused such an uproar over the gender-neutral NIV only to eventually produce or endorse the CSB, which appears to be almost as gender-neutral. It looks like the NASB had gone considerably in that direction too. 

When I first started reading the Bible regularly, I consulted the NRSV fairly often even though my views by that time were very conservative if not fundamentalist. (My background was UMC originally, and I had one laying around at a time when I was very strapped for funds and couldn't just go out and buy every Bible I was interested in.) But with rare exceptions when I'm really trying to drill down and attempt to find out why a particular verse is translated differently in different versions, I haven't consulted the NRSV in about 20 years. But I'm sure some parts of it are well done, just as much of the NIV11 is well done. It is the objectionable parts that come into play when deciding on a few translations that one is going to use on a regular basis and which version one is going to recommend to fellow believers, some of whom may not have a firm grasp on some things. I'm not a big fan of the ESV, but many of the changes they made from the RSV had to do with theological problems, particularly in the OT. Piper has said something like "It is the RSV with the theological problems fixed."

I've come across a few mainline pastors who think the ESV is a better revision of the RSV than the NRSV is, and they aren't complementarian.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 28, 2020)

For most of the past 20 years, the NKJV has been my regular version. I had to abandon it for much of the past decade because red letters cause me too much eye strain and, other than Study Bibles, black letter NKJV Bibles were practically nonexistent. Happily, that's not the case anymore, and there are even cheap NKJV Bibles in black letter with good paper.

Before I got some black letter NKJVs, I was considering the CSB although I still lean toward the Byzantine text. I figured that it would be easier to understand in family worship with small children. I would probably keep using it for that purpose, but I've misplaced my copy after a move and have been using the NKJV instead. I like using a hard copy because when I open it up, my 3 year old often says something like "That's the Bible!" and sometimes gives the reading some attention, which he would be less inclined to do if I were using an electronic device.

I have read through the KJV. I'd like to do it again, but it has been so long that I still have to look up a good many of the older words. I got a Westminster Reference, but I just can't get into the format. Maybe the large print would help. I do like the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, but I prefer to avoid Study Bibles when doing regular reading.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 28, 2020)

ESV up over the KJV. Case closed I think. It’s official.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> ESV up over the KJV. Case closed I think. It’s official.


It’s your poll man.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## B.L. (Feb 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> ESV up over the KJV. Case closed I think. It’s official.



Hmm. I see it's tied now 40 - 40. Time to go change my vote from the NKJV to the KJV to register a come from behind victory!

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 29, 2020)

BLM said:


> Hmm. I see it's tied now 40 - 40. Time to go change my vote from the NKJV to the KJV to register a come from behind victory!


The KJVO will come out of the woodwork now to sign up for PB and inflate the stats.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 29, 2020)

This might be of interest: https://www.statista.com/statistics/299402/preferred-bible-version-usa/

I don't think they have any dogs in the hunt.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Feb 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> The KJVO will come out of the woodwork now to sign up for PB and inflate the stats.



Lol. If so, then just consider it one of the small ways the KJV has been providentially preserved throughout the ages. 

It's only fitting that it score numero uno on the PB...I mean it is _the_ confessional text after all, right?


----------

