# Which Bible Version do you Prefer?



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 9, 2014)

I just wanted to get an idea of which versions of the Bible that reformed Christians like the most. Please no debating the merits of the respective versions, this is simply for informational purposes.


----------



## Logan (Jun 9, 2014)

I have multiple choices, hard to choose.


----------



## Justified (Jun 9, 2014)

Voted KJV, but I'm a huge fan of the ESV as well.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jun 9, 2014)

I use the KJV, NKJV, and ESV, so I'm finding it hard to vote in this poll.


----------



## Berean (Jun 9, 2014)

I prefer the NKJV for reading and study, with the ESV and HCSB as alternatives.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 9, 2014)

NASB 90% of the time with the ESV and KJV filling up the rest.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 9, 2014)

ESV. I love its accuracy and readability. And, at my time of life (I'm 61), I don't plan to change translations again.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2014)

If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.

Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.
> 
> Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that


If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV, as well as the HCSB, and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.

Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that 

I made this edit because I think there needs to be a readability factor here, and the HCSB is definitely superior to the NIV in this regard


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jun 9, 2014)

KJV for myself.


----------



## jambo (Jun 9, 2014)

I liked the NASB but over the last couple of years have been using the ESV. It has taken some time to wean myself away from the NASB but I now feel I have reached the point where the ESV is now my default version. And to fine tune it even further, I would use the Anglised version of the ESV. A bit more expensive but well worth it to have a version where all the words are correctly spelt.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 9, 2014)

I prefer using The Authorised Version & as you can see as an Australian I also _prefer_ the correct spelling like my brother in the UK (authorised _not_ authori*z*ed)
the Cum Privilegio Cambridge Edition is the prefered edition now above all other KJB editions, though I will still use other editions if it is not available, 
will also consult other Received Text Translations like J.P. Green's Modern King James & Literal Version, and others which are on eSword & PocketSword like Tyndales, the Geneva, Webster's & Young's Literal, also occasionally the NKJV, & soon the MEV.


----------



## MusicMan (Jun 9, 2014)

Ditto that. NKJV/ESV hybrid....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 9, 2014)

I like using the NKJV and the KJV.


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Jun 9, 2014)

NASB, ESV, KJV for me


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 9, 2014)

When I'm in a CT mood, ESV all the way (oh, HCSB on occasion)

When I'm in a TR mood, KJV and NKJV.

It is RARE when I look at any translation other than those four.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 9, 2014)

jambo said:


> well worth it to have a version where all the words are correctly spelt


Of course, you meant, "spelled."



________________________________________

For me, it's most often the ESV for personal reading, but for sermon/teaching prep, I am usually interacting with the KJV and NASB, as well. Have also started to explore the HCSB (because I got it on my phone for free).


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> I also prefer the correct spelling like my brother in the UK


I sense a British vs American spelling debate coming!


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 9, 2014)

kainos01 said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > well worth it to have a version where all the words are correctly spelt
> ...




man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board

*SPELT*, *verb* a simple past tense and past participle of spell, from Dictionary.com, ignore if you were being facetious.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 9, 2014)

We use the Geneva at home and take it to church, where the NKJV is used. KJV is also great, but the notes of the Geneva are just so good...


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board


Hey Robert, you are only giving half the story. The good people of Australia need New Zealanders to teach in the Australian public schools, so they learn how to say fish and chips correctly


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 10, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board
> 
> SPELT, verb a simple past tense and past participle of spell, from Dictionary.com, ignore if you were being facetious


I took Stuart's "correctly" to be intended lightheartedly, and I responded in a similar fashion.
As an aside, while the American educational system is, indeed, deplorable, one wouldn't expect _American_ schools to teach _British_ English, now would he?


----------



## ZackF (Jun 10, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board
> ...



Would that be "fish and fries?"


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jun 10, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board
> ...



Fush and chups


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 10, 2014)

C'mon Bill, where's the Message option? Your limited quiz may have just missed an important subset of PB members!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 10, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> C'mon Bill, where's the Message option? Your limited quiz may have just missed an important subset of PB members!



I thought about including an "illiterate heretic" option, but decided to keep it light


----------



## Mindaboo (Jun 10, 2014)

I use the ESV, and I like it. I am missing my NKJV. I really like that translation as well.


----------



## Brian R. (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm with Josh. I don't like bopping around among different translations. Makes it harder for me to memorize passages. I stick almost exclusively with the A.V.


----------



## kodos (Jun 10, 2014)

THIS! I thought I was the only one .



Reformed Covenanter said:


> If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.
> 
> Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 10, 2014)

kodos said:


> THIS! I thought I was the only one .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey wouldn't you basically have a KJB if you did that !


----------



## ElainaMor (Jun 10, 2014)

Lately I've been reading from the NLT and I'm becoming very fond of it. I find myself grabbing for my NLT more and more. I have used the ESV and the NKJV is the preaching Bible for my church.


----------



## kodos (Jun 10, 2014)

No.



One Little Nail said:


> Hey wouldn't you basically have a KJB if you did that !


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 10, 2014)

kodos said:


> THIS! I thought I was the only one .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since you don't seem to have a preference as to the underlying texts, what is about either the NKJV or ESV that you think needs to be improved?


----------



## kodos (Jun 10, 2014)

Hi Bill. I actually do prefer the Majority Text so the NKJV is my go-to-Bible (which is what I voted for). However, the ESV is quite helpful in some places, the language is much clearer at times since it doesn't feel like it has to be so constrained to follow the KJV. There are instances I just find it to be a better translation. One particular help (as an example is Hebrews 4):

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (ESV)
Compared to:
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (NKJV)

I first learned of the Hebrews 4 interpretation of the Sabbath Day from the ESV, so I'll always fondly remember it as such.




Bill The Baptist said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > THIS! I thought I was the only one .
> ...


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jun 10, 2014)

I like the AV footnote on Hebrews 4.9, because of its accuracy.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 10, 2014)

Josh Williamson said:


> Fush and chups


Josh, the funniest experience I had with accents was when my brother shifted to South Africa. I got him to meet my pastors wife who was a South African. She made a comment about certain tribes who killed each other by *fighting.* Unfortunately my brother misunderstood her accent and wondered how people could possibly be killed through *farting*


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 10, 2014)

I prefer the KJV for its textual basis, its accuracy, its idiomatic beauty, and the significant role it has enjoyed in the history of English Protestantism and western society.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 10, 2014)

kainos01 said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > man your public schools are really letting you guys down, its a good thing there are people from the Commonwealth on this Board
> ...



Yeah! Why do you think we broke away from you guys in the first place? LOL


----------



## M_Scott (Jun 10, 2014)

I've always been partial to my 1981 NASB Study Bible from Holman but the font is too small. I've been using the ESV (2011) in pdf and eSword and really enjoy it. I plan to pick up the new Crossway ESV Study Bible large print and ESV Bible large print when they come out in July/August 2014 - I will probably seek advice where most of you shop online for your bibles. I used to buy from Evangelical Bible Bookstore in San Diego but they closed a few years back after what was 30 or 40 years in business.

I would also enjoy the flavor of the NKJV in a study bible but have no clue what a good large print would be (publisher etc), so...

ESV, NASB, NKJV are good choices in my opinion.


----------



## Gloria Dei (Jun 11, 2014)

I prefer the KJV (as I'm a TR guy), though I love to utilize the ESV and NASB for comparisons. The NKJV is useful for distinguishing between textual variations of the Textus Receptus compared to the Critical Text and Majority Text. Also, love the Geneva Bible, but use it primarily for its notes.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 11, 2014)

Gloria Dei said:


> The NKJV is useful for distinguishing between textual variations of the Textus Receptus compared to the Critical Text and Majority Text.


Yes, this is helpful but a little out of date. The majority Text scheme of Maurice Robinson etc is probably the more up to date MT.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 11, 2014)

Justified said:


> Voted KJV, but I'm a huge fan of the ESV as well.



Same here. I use both. And I'm 61 also.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 11, 2014)

I've been reading NASB for 30 years, but I'm surprised by how much is in my memory from KJV. I like to read both to my kids in school just so they know the older English and the beauty of the language. As for the NASB, I can't count the number of times my pastor has said, "a better translation of this passage would be ..." then give something close to the NASB from his own translation, not, I should mention, as a contrast to KJV.


----------



## Brian R. (Jun 11, 2014)

This election is too close to call... I think we're going to need a KJV/ESV runoff!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 11, 2014)

Wow, I'm a bit surprised that no one will admit to using the NIV. Come on now, I know you are out there, there is no judgment here


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 11, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Wow, I'm a bit surprised that no one will admit to using the NIV



I reference the old NIV on a pretty regular basis in my weekly study and sermon preparation. But I would never recommend it to any believer as a reliable translation. Especially since the 2011 revision which is really the TNIV being rebranded as the "NIV."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 11, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, I'm a bit surprised that no one will admit to using the NIV
> ...



I guess the NIV is like a Justin Bieber album, millions get sold and yet no one claims to own one.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 11, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I guess the NIV is like a Justin Bieber album, millions get sold and yet no one claims to own one.



Excellent way of putting it. But the question now is, Does Bill Perkins own a Justin Bieber album?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 11, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the NIV is like a Justin Bieber album, millions get sold and yet no one claims to own one.
> ...



If you mean an NIV, yes I have a copy that I occasionally consult. I find that it is not as bad as many people make out, but at the same time I often find it to be too interpretive for my taste. As for Justin Bieber, I would rather have my eardrums boiled in Tabasco sauce.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 11, 2014)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I like the AV footnote on Hebrews 4.9, because of its accuracy.



Rev. Ruddell no doubt refers to the note "keeping of a sabbath" in the margin. 

Herein lies one of the problems with the AV, at least with regard to the footnotes. Some editions have no note at Heb. 4:9. And it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is an officially licensed version in the UK or some "Wild West" public domain edition in the USA. Here, in order, are the results of the KJV's in my library that I checked. (I kept checking because the first one did not have it.) 

Collins New Brevier Reference--*No*. (Collins is the official (exclusive?) publisher in Scotland with an official license from the crown. This one was really surprising as it does have some marginal notes. This is a smaller Bible but it is bigger than a Pitt Minion.)
Nelson KJV Reference--*No *(This one has marginal notes from the Open Bible, if I'm not mistaken, so no surprise here.)
Zondervan KJV reference--*Yes* (This is a 1994 edition and I'm not sure if Zondervan uses it anymore. It has a lot of footnotes but I don't know what the source is i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, etc. 
AV 1611 facsimilie published by Zondervan in 2011--*Yes* 
Oxford "Old" Scofield Reference--*Yes!* (I thought the Scofield (him or the cmte-it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery and one not likely to be solved at this point) stripped all of the Oxford notes (including marginal ones) out in favor of its own. (I'm pretty sure there are some Scofield specific marginal notes in addition to the study notes.) Evidently I was mistaken, at least in this case. I haven't spent enough time with it to know otherwise.) 
Cambridge Pitt Minion--*Yes*


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 11, 2014)

For years my preference was the NKJV. But largely due to the lack of quality editions, especially "black letter" editions, (red letter is very hard for me to read at this point, theological and other considerations aside) I've pretty much laid the NKJV aside as I don't want to use a Study Bible as my "main" Bible and I haven't broken down and shelled out for a NKJV Cambridge Clarion. The way I am, I would probably get one and then decide to use another translation anyway. I did have a Schuyler NKJV but decided I didn't like it when I discovered that it didn't have the full complement of NKJV marginal notes. I know it's supposed to be a "reader" but I'd still prefer to have all of the marginal notes and generally prefer cross references as well. 

Since then, I've read the KJV through for the first time and have continued reading from it as well as the NASB, HCSB and ESV. So it's really still up in the air. I'm guessing I may end up on the ESV bandwagon. But I really don't wanna!  (I jumped on the ESV bandwagon right after publication (before many had any familiarity with it) and then jumped off about a decade ago for reasons I've enumerated here in the past.)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 11, 2014)

Pilgrim said:


> I jumped on the ESV bandwagon right after publication (before many had any familiarity with it) and then jumped off about a decade ago for reasons I've enumerated here in the past.



I did the same thing for a season. But after a thorough study of textual criticism my views changed in favor of the Traditional text. Additionally, after week-in-week-out interaction with the ESV in sermon preparation, I saw that the ESV was not nearly as literal as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. It frequently follows the the NIV in its translation choices. It often tends more toward translation choices that interpret the text rather than merely translating it. Of course the ESV is not alone in this, and all in all, it's by no means a bad translation. But I don't feel it comes anywhere near living up to the hype that surrounds it. And putting at the front of the pack in terms of literalness as some have done simply does not reflect reality.


----------



## Edward (Jun 11, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I know you are out there, there is no judgment here



He's not speaking for me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 11, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I jumped on the ESV bandwagon right after publication (before many had any familiarity with it) and then jumped off about a decade ago for reasons I've enumerated here in the past.
> ...



I agree 100% with you on literalness. Those who put together the charts showing the ESV way over on the left by the NASB (thus claiming it is more literal than NKJV and KJV) are very ignorant if not dishonest. I do think that not having the "supplied" words in italics is a minus for the ESV as well, although admittedly that isn't a perfect practice. I'm not sure that it is much more literal than the HCSB in many places. (And the HCSB has a lot more textual and other marginal notes. When it departs from a literal reading it usually seems to be footnoted.) It's just that the ESV retains more of that "KJV feel." But it's still off enough to throw me off in churches where it is used (and recited) since I'm more used to the KJV and especially NKJV. 

As an aside, something else that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the NASB often uses more contemporary language than the ESV does and often translates Hebraisms into more contemporary English idiom. (That is actually one reason why I prefer the NKJV. If the NASB is supposed to be the most "literal" then why not translate "gird up the loins of your mind" literally?) I'm not sure that there is that much archaic language in the NASB. The awkwardness is more a reflection of the syntax than the vocabulary. 

The contemporary translation advocates (including the ones for the ESV) will tell us that that "nobody speaks KJV today." But there are plenty of places in the ESV where the same could be said. "Fret not?" "Behold!" Who speaks like that? I actually prefer it but the proverbial "man on the street" might not unless he has some familiarity with the Bible or maybe Shakespeare. 

Another thing I don't like is that it is more "radical" than the NASB and HCSB in relegating TR/Byz readings to the margin. In some cases, as with the NIV, it relegates whole verses to the margin. There is a time and place to address textual criticism. But I've had to do that in Sunday School classes where I hadn't planned ahead for it. We were going through a historic confession and I was having people read the proof texts. "Would you please read John 5:4." "But my Bible doesn't have it?!" (It wasn't that text, (it was something from the synoptics) but that's the kind of thing that can happen.)

Those who want to put the KJV on the scrap heap will often tell us how bad it is and how riddled with errors it is. They decry the polemics from KJV Onlyists that point out problems in the modern versions and thus undermine confidence in them. But don't the modern version advocates effectively do the same thing when Betty Baptist and Patricia Presbyterian hear that the KJV they've relied on for 50 years is full of errors?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 11, 2014)

Edward said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are out there, there is no judgment here
> ...



I didn't say there wouldn't be judgment, just not from me


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jun 11, 2014)

Pilgrim said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> > I like the AV footnote on Hebrews 4.9, because of its accuracy.
> ...



Thank you, Chris, for your reference work given in your post. This is a difficulty. I did note that the Cambridge edition included the note--the TBS editions will as well. My point was that the "keeping of sabbath" note is indeed the most accurate translation of that verse (in my opinion). I also have a TR/Majority text preference, so the AV wins there as well. But the final advantage of the AV is the distinguishing of the second person plural from singular--this is so very important, and so seldom discussed. In John 3, when Christ says to Nicodemus, "marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again" I submit that it is impossible to make out what Christ is saying apart from that distinction. "Thee" refers to a singular "you", and "ye" refers to a plural amount "y'all or youse-guys". Christ tells Nicodemus that all "ye Pharisees" must be born again. When modern translations omit that distinction, translating "marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again", the meaning is lost. 

The AV is not a perfect translation, but this factor weighs heavily in its favor, and ought not to be downplayed, or worse, left to silence.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 11, 2014)

Greek New Testament almost exclusively. For OT, usually NIV or ESV.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 12, 2014)

> I'm partial to the KJV, but I also like the KJV and the KJV. For technical study, I use the KJV, but for devotional reading I read the KJV.



(spoken sotto voce) This man needs more consistency in his life.


----------



## Edward (Jun 12, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I didn't say there wouldn't be judgment, just not from me



OK. I had read 'here' to mean the PB, not you personally. With that clarification....


----------



## ReverendJim (Jun 13, 2014)

Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, ESV.


----------

