# Preferred Bible Version for Sermons



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

Should I utilize the Authorised King James Version or the New King James Version for my sermons?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 27, 2005)

R.C Sproul Sr, "The English Standard Version the preferred version of the elect".


----------



## AdamM (Sep 27, 2005)

The ESV is my new favorite.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Should I utilize the Authorised King James Version or the New King James Version for my sermons?



Why do you limit yourself to those two?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Oh great. Here comes Kevin again with his 'higher-critical' stance on scripture. 







[Edited on 9-27-2005 by poimen]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 27, 2005)

I would use the ESV.


----------



## youthevang (Sep 27, 2005)

I really like the Holman Christian Standard.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Well it is a good question, why would you only want to chose from those two?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 27, 2005)

Are you going to answer the question though?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Are you going to answer the question though?





> "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? Huh? Ok."


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



--well this is really to all who care--

The ESV has no poetic ring from what I have seen thus far... I know it doesn't utilize dynamic equivalence, but word-for-word precision in translation which is a plus. Perhaps, I just stubbornly cling to the King James. I have a plain first edition ESV Bible with no notes... I've read it some, but haven't taken to it. I cannot see myself utilizing the NIV, NASB in a sermon. I'm too young and too American to use the 1599 Geneva 

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 27, 2005)

Between the two choices, I would use the NKJV.


Hey, wait a minute -- I DO use the NKJV!!


----------



## Saiph (Sep 27, 2005)

> The ESV has no poetic ring from what I have seen thus far...



And the KJV does ? ?? 

No english translation has a poetic ring.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

Well, maybe it all comes down to the fact that most of memory verses are in NKJV so it doesn't make a difference. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks Fred.
Thanks Joshua.

BTW To anyone, I don't have the Holman Christian Standard but I understand it utilizes the Nestle-Aland manuscripts as the textual basis for this new translation. What's the translation methodology? Close to word-for-word precision or thought-for-thought. I might be deemed too conservative, but I refuse to utilize any translation that utilizes dynamic equivalence, at least for a sermon.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

Yeah, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul endorse the English Standard Version... yada yada... Maybe in time and with alcohol consumption, I will take a liking to it, but for now... hmmm... no dice
:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > The ESV has no poetic ring from what I have seen thus far...
> ...



The King James version is majestic. Me thus liketh the King's English. It's Shakespearean. You winebibbler.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 27, 2005)

> And the KJV does ? ??
> 
> No english translation has a poetic ring.



Saiph,

What would constitute a "poetic ring"? Can you give me an example of a line of prose that has it?

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by py3ak]

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by py3ak]


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I didn't know the Bible was made to have a poetic ring. I dont think most of the Hebrew or Greek is poetic, unless it is made to be in certain places. But there definitly isn't supposed to be poetic ring to ALL of the Scriptures. (I don't care if you were being sarcastic, I wanted to say that anyway).

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 27, 2005)

NKJV is the best....but only in my opinion.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 27, 2005)

Ruben:

Father Eternal, thine is to decree,
Mine both in Heav'n and Earth to do thy will
Supream, that thou in mee thy Son belov'd 
Mayst ever rest well pleas'd. I go to judge
On Earth these thy transgressors, but thou knowst,
Whoever judg'd, the worst on mee must light,
When time shall be, for so I undertook
Before thee; and not repenting, this obtaine 
Of right, that I may mitigate thir doom
On me deriv'd, yet I shall temper so
Justice with Mercie, as may illustrate most
Them fully satisfied, and thee appease.
Attendance none shall need, nor Train, where none 
Are to behold the judgment, but the judg'd,
Those two; the third best absent is condemn'd,
Convict by flight, and Rebel to all Law
Conviction to the Serpent none belongs. 

(Milton)


The English bible does not even come within the fringes of the likes of that.


Andrew:



> didn't know the Bible was made to have a poetic ring. I dont think most of the Hebrew or Greek is poetic, unless it is made to be in certain places. But there definitly isn't supposed to be poetic ring to ALL of the Scriptures. (I don't care if you were being sarcastic, I wanted to say that anyway).



I agree.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## youthevang (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> BTW To anyone, I don't have the Holman Christian Standard but I understand it utilizes the Nestle-Aland manuscripts as the textual basis for this new translation. What's the translation methodology? Close to word-for-word precision or thought-for-thought. I might be deemed too conservative, but I refuse to utilize any translation that utilizes dynamic equivalence, at least for a sermon.



Most Bibles use dynamic equivalence at some point. If the translators would use formal equivalence (word for word) in certain places, the reader would be confused. The HCSB utilizes the optimal equivalence philosophy. Below is a quote of their philosophy of optimal equivalence.



> The HCSB uses optimal equivalence as its translation philosophy. When a literal translation meets these criteria, it is used. When clarity and readability demand an idiomatic translation, the reader can still access the form of the original text by means of a footnote with the abbreviation "Lit."


----------



## daveb (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Should I utilize the Authorised King James Version or the New King James Version for my sermons?



NKJV


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 27, 2005)

*When is Someone going to do the New Geneva Bible? * 

The NKJV is good! 

I like the ESV in the Psalms. It flows very good. Even Poetic.

Manuscript differences make me go with the NKJV. But use more than one translation. The KJV is great to quote from also.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> NKJV is the best....but only in my opinion.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 27, 2005)

At the risk of sounding like a snob... 

I translate the text and then I use whichever version gets it right for that particular passage.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Between the two choices, I would use the NKJV.
> 
> 
> Hey, wait a minute -- I DO use the NKJV!!



yep....me too.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> BTW To anyone, I don't have the Holman Christian Standard but I understand it utilizes the Nestle-Aland manuscripts as the textual basis for this new translation. What's the translation methodology? Close to word-for-word precision or thought-for-thought. I might be deemed too conservative, but I refuse to utilize any translation that utilizes dynamic equivalence, at least for a sermon.



The HCSB tries to maintain a balance between dynamic equivalency and formal equivalency; they call their method "optimal equivalency". The SBC had a license agreement to use the NIV in their Sunday School material, but they were alarmed by the gender-neutral controversy. Fearing the NIV would become unusable, they decided to produce a translation they could "control". 

Basically from what I've seen the HCSB is slightly more literal than the NIV, but with the difference being one of degree, not kind. Overall, it belongs in the same class with the NIV instead of being classed with more literal translations in the Tyndale-KJV tradition like the ESV, NKJV and NASB. 

I mainly use the NASB and NKJV.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 28, 2005)

NIV. My hope is built on nothing less than Zondervan and Moody Press!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



I've only looked at the HCSB in a very cursory fashion. However, as I've posted before, they are the ONLY English version to get John 3:16 right... and I find that impressive.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 28, 2005)

> Father Eternal, thine is to decree,
> Mine both in Heav'n and Earth to do thy will
> Supream, that thou in mee thy Son belov'd
> Mayst ever rest well pleas'd. I go to judge
> ...



Mark,

I was looking specifically for an example of *prose* that you thought had a poetic ring. In spite of the peasant's judgment that Milton "would fain rhyme but cannot get at it" Milton was definitely writing poetry.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 28, 2005)

Ruben,

This is prose with a poetic ring I suppose:




> A legion of horribles, hundreds in number, half naked or clad in costumes attic or biblical or wardrobed out of a fevered dream with the skins of animals and silk finery and pieces of uniform still tracked with the blood of prior owners, coats of slain dragoons, frogged and braided cavalry jackets, one in a stovepipe hat and one with an umbrella and one in white stockings and a bloodstained weddingveil and some in headgear of cranefeathers or rawhide helmets that bore the horns of bull or buffalo and one in a pigeontailed coat worn backwards and otherwise naked and one in the armor of a spanish conquistador, the breastplate and pauldrons deeply dented with old blows of mace or sabre done in another country by men whose very bones were dust and many with their braids spliced up with the hair of other beasts until they trailed upon the ground and their horses' ears and tails worked with bits of brightly colored cloth and one whose horse's whole head was painted crimson red and all the horsemen's faces gaudy and grotesque with daubings like a company of mounted clowns, death hilarious, all howling in a barbarous tongue and riding down upon them like a horde from a hell more horrible yet than the brimstone land of christian reckoning, screeching and yammering and clothed in smoke like those vaporous beings in regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools.



Why do you ask ? ?

My point is that when reading English translations of the bible I do not often, if ever, find myself being swept away by rapturous prose.

It is often quite dull. 

However, I am swept away by the truths that God's Spirit illumines unto my mind, and kindles in my heart towards a fire of deeper passion for His law and His being.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 28, 2005)

Thanks all for the recommendations, and I learned what the deal was with the Holman translation.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 28, 2005)

One other thing that really bothers me though with the new versions, besides the liberality and loose dynamic equivalence... is the text is often changed just to make it slightly more distinguished for copyright reasons... To me, trivial legalities and intellectual property concerns getting in the way of the most prudent translation of the Word of God is annoying.


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> One other thing that really bothers me though with the new versions, besides the liberality and loose dynamic equivalence... is the text is often changed just to make it slightly more distinguished for copyright reasons... To me, trivial legalities and intellectual property concerns getting in the way of the most prudent translation of the Word of God is annoying.



That's kind of what I think of the ESV-- sort of a warmed over RSV. Nothing to get real excited or write home about. To me the NKJV and NASB are all a guy should ever need. Again, only my non-scholarly layman's opinion.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 28, 2005)

> Why do you ask ? ?
> 
> My point is that when reading English translations of the bible I do not often, if ever, find myself being swept away by rapturous prose.
> 
> ...



Mark,

Who was that from? It got rather good at the end. I like the line, "The voice crowed like some malevolent rooster heralding the dawn of hell" which is rather in the same vain as your quotation.

I agree that a lot of translations have dull language. The exciting thing is the truth, far more than the sonorities or the meter. Reading 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, for instance, one gets something of the same feeling through Paul's excitement that one gets from the language of A. Lindsay Gordon --though there is a consciousness that it comes via a somewhat different medium. However, of all translations I have had much acquaintance with the AV is the translation that gets closest to poetic prose; as in Isaiah 26:18
"We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen."
I asked because I have often enjoyed the prose of the AV and wondered if you had a completely different idea of poetic prose than I did.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 28, 2005)

Ruben:



> I asked because I have often enjoyed the prose of the AV and wondered if you had a completely different idea of poetic prose than I did.



I do not have a completely different idea, but perhaps am just more narrow in my taste. The KJV is somewhat more euphonic in many places, but when iread aloud during liturgy and hearing of the "bowels" of Christ or someone wearing "gay" clothing, it is hard to keep a strait face.

It would be a challenge to see a modern translation be reverent, and lofty, and yet still communicate the truth in a simple and accurate manner.

My quote was from Cormac McCarthy's novel "Blood Meridian".


----------



## Saiph (Sep 28, 2005)

Ruben,

BTW, was Stephen Donaldson the author that wrote about a leper named Thomas Covenant ? ?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 28, 2005)

Mark,

Yes, Stephen R. Donaldon wrote the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (2 trilogies) --that was a keen detection of him. You may have known this, but he has returned to the Land in a book called The Runes of the Earth (3 more volumes forthcoming). In places I think the writing in that one may be superior to anything else he's done (of course, as is always the case with Donaldson, the lacunea of magnificence are usually bleak and are interrupted with much drabber sections --though in the Chronicles I have never found him unbearable reading, though there are not a few books that I have laid down because the style was too painful to continue reading in them).

I have found that there are places where the AV is uncomfortable because you know that people are getting the wrong idea from the older vocabulary.

I would like to see a contemporary orthodox theologian who had an idea of cadences and sonorities in their writing. So far I have not found anyone whose still alive who writes theology with a sense of style.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2005)

I actually do something similiar to what Ben suggested--I translate the text; compare it, memorize it, and will at time mix and use translations in the preparation--depending on verse, context, and poeticness.

I think Mark is onto something here, as well.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Mark,
> 
> Yes, Stephen R. Donaldon wrote the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (2 trilogies) --that was a keen detection of him. You may have known this, but he has returned to the Land in a book called The Runes of the Earth (3 more volumes forthcoming). In places I think the writing in that one may be superior to anything else he's done (of course, as is always the case with Donaldson, the lacunea of magnificence are usually bleak and are interrupted with much drabber sections --though in the Chronicles I have never found him unbearable reading, though there are not a few books that I have laid down because the style was too painful to continue reading in them).



I'll be curious to see what these are like. I was relatively disappointed with the Second triology - almost exclusively because of the annoying woman. I often wished I could smack her out of the book.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I actually do something similiar to what Ben suggested--I translate the text; compare it, memorize it, and will at time mix and use translations in the preparation--depending on verse, context, and poeticness.
> 
> I think Mark is onto something here, as well.



Gee-- you ought to hear my rendition of 1 Corinthians 13. I cannot help but to do this with some passages.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I actually do something similiar to what Ben suggested--I translate the text; compare it, memorize it, and will at time mix and use translations in the preparation--depending on verse, context, and poeticness.
> 
> I think Mark is onto something here, as well.



How do you translate the Hebrew if you don't know it yet?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I figure something out.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> NIV. My hope is built on nothing less than Zondervan and Moody Press!



*would feel like she's suffering to listen to such...let alone the attempt to follow along with the KJV or ESV* (just a humble laypersons view)


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Actually, to be accurate, I have a LOWER critical stance on scripture. Lower criticism deals with issues of textual transmission and is a legitimate scientific pursuit, even for evangelicals with a high view of scripture (of which, I am one). Higher criticism is a science (usually followed by pagans who deny the Bible is the Word of God) that, among other things, seeks to deconstruct the Bible along varying lines to get at the underlying documentary sources, etc.

So, while the label you pinned on me was inaccurate, your suspicions are dead on. The KJV simply is no longer the best English translation available.


----------



## gwine (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Ruben:
> 
> Father Eternal, thine is to decree,
> ...



For which I am eternally grateful. Fringe is the key word here.

You all have caused me to want to check out the NKJV.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



What about John 3:16 do they get right (though I think I know what you are referring to).


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



While I agree with Kevin that the KJV is no longer the best English translation available now, I would like to have a moment of silence for the poor Church who for 1800 years had the wrong Bible.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_While I agree with Kevin that the KJV is no longer the best English translation available now, I would like to have a moment of silence for the poor Church who for 1800 years had the wrong Bible.



Amen. And let us have silence for the editors of the TR, who, not having a full manuscript of the Greek NT, chose to back translate from the Vulgate into Greek.

Frankly, Fred, I continue to be amazed that you bring up this argument. With the exceptions of John 8 and Mark 16, neither of which affect a SINGLE doctrine, the only differences between extant mss are "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

If you can show me ANY two extant mansuscripts that are exactly the same (proving the Church had the Bible "wrong"), I shall publicly recant and take you out to Ruths Chris Steakhouse for dinner. :bigsmile:


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_While I agree with Kevin that the KJV is no longer the best English translation available now, I would like to have a moment of silence for the poor Church who for 1800 years had the wrong Bible.
> ...



That's fine with me, because adherence to the TR is not a part of the doctrine of Providential Preservation



> Frankly, Fred, I continue to be amazed that you bring up this argument. With the exceptions of John 8 and Mark 16, neither of which affect a SINGLE doctrine, the only differences between extant mss are "ifs," "ands," and "buts."



I am amazed that you continue to say things like that with a straight face. Can you hear yourself saying that a portion of the Bible does not matter? Also, don't forget that John 8 affects our doctrine of marriage.



> If you can show me ANY two extant mansuscripts that are exactly the same (proving the Church had the Bible "wrong"), I shall publicly recant and take you out to Ruths Chris Steakhouse for dinner. :bigsmile:



That is the whole point that you continue to miss.  It is not about individual magical manuscripts (_pace _Vaticanus). It is about God preserving his Word throughout the ages. The point is, if you were a pastor in 1830, and a pagan came up to you and said that the Bible you had was wrong, according to you, HE would be right, and not the Church of God.

I also will remind you one more time that if a Cicero or Homeric scholar did the same thing as the Bible critics, they would be laughed out of the academy. Funny how it works that way.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



What I have never understood is how you feel your TR position (which is a position on a MANUSCRIPT and not a text tradition) bolsters your case.

In any event we have discussed these things before. At least my wallet is safe. 

BTW, I think I ought to change my Avitar. The place pictured is owned by a PB member and, thanks to Katrina, sadly no longer exists...


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> What I have never understood is how you feel your TR position (which is a position on a MANUSCRIPT and not a text tradition) bolsters your case.



My position is not a TR position. It is not about a manuscript. It is about the transmission of the text through God's providential means - the Church, not pagans.

I'm not concerned about the TR per se. Obviously, you keep trying to put me in that box, because it is much easier to poke holes in Erasmyus than to deal with why JOhn 8 could have been universally thought to be Scripture for 1800+ years until a bunch of pagans said "NO."

Wonder what you would do if the pagan scholars found 10 2nd century manuscripts (much older than both Vaticanus and Syinaticus) that said that Matthew 28 was not Scripture.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

I'm also going with preservation of the word.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 29, 2005)

**Let no one ever say I post extraneous stuff on threads diverting from the original thread topic**


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Three things:

First, you know very well I believe in the doctrine of preservation.
Second, you seem to be arguing that God can only preserve the text through the labor of believers. Am I wrong to infer that? If not, it is a position which is relatively easy to debunk. (As a caveat, forgive my putting you in a TR box. I truly thought that was your position, one which is also easy to debunk. Am I not magnanimous?  ) Third, your arguments tend to revolve around modern scholarship suggesting certain things ought not be in our Bibles because they were not part of the original (based on extant evidence). Why is it that you are troubled at the thought of subractions from the text but not longstanding additions to it? God's Word condemns both.

It seems that your position is untenable whether you are majority or eclectic, because even within the majority tradition, there are still textual variants. Of the 5309 extant Greek manuscripts (subsumed in all traditions), no two are exactly the same, even in particular text traditions. To me, to hold your position you have to be able to proclaim a single ms as being the one God has preserved. Since we do not know which ms that is, it seems that the eclectic position is easier to defend. God HAS preserved His word...but we've had to dig for it. The argument that the eclectic position posits that the Church has been without the Word is a red herring. Since no doctrines are affected by the variants (not even the biggies, e.g. Mark 16, John 8), the point is moot.

For what it's worth, and you might find this interesting, if 1 Corinthians were ever found (the real one, not the canonical one), I would reject it as canonical, since my view of the preservation of Scripture is essentially the same as yours. I'm just not as bothered by variants as you are.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> **Let no one ever say I post extraneous stuff on threads diverting from the original thread topic**



 I don't think it is off-topic at all. At the heart of the question (unless one is an ignorant, KJV only type...as opposed to an educated one, and they are truly two different beasts!) is one of transmission of the text, which invariably leads to two different discussions:

1. Which text tradition is the most reliable? and
2. Which philosophy of translation (e.g. literal, dynamic) is superior. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

But I still liked your observation!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 29, 2005)

*Donaldson sub-discussion*



> I'll be curious to see what these are like. I was relatively disappointed with the Second triology - almost exclusively because of the annoying woman. I often wished I could smack her out of the book.



Fred,

If you didn't like Linden Avery in the 2nd Chronicles I don't think you'll like the final tetralogy --the first book, which is all that has appeared so far, is told entirely from her point of view. The first time I read them I thought the first series was better --but rereading them recently I found it more difficult to make that judgment. What was surprising to me is how completely different Donaldson can be in writing other things --The Man Who series, or the Gap series, or even Mordant's Need. It shows skill, I think, to be able to adapt your writing style to the sort of person your point-of-view characters are --but none of his characters in these other series compare with Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery. --Not to mention that the Chronicles are relatively chaste & decent, and the other series are anything but.


----------

