# Poll; Which Translation Does Your Congregation Use ?



## JimmyH (Jun 14, 2017)

At my OPC congregation we use the NIV 1984 edition. This was already in place before our current Pastor came on board over 15 years ago. These pew Bibles are becoming a bit worse for wear and I've been talking with my Pastor about possibly replacing them. 

Session has already agreed to the need, but a translation has not been decided on. My Pastor feels the NIV 2011 is not worthy for replacing the 1984 and I decided to post this poll to see if my suspicion that the ESV is dominant can be confirmed. Thanks in advance to all who might respond to the poll.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2017)

Jimmy, just my two cents worth. There seem to me three viable options: the NKJV, the CSB, and the ESV. I agree with your pastor that the NIV 2011 is not worthy of consideration. The entire session should carefully study the various translations together, and come up with their decision. Some pluses of the ESV are the variety of bindings, and the excellence of Study Bibles (the Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible are both spectacular). The downside is the incredibly annoying "ands" that are ubiquitously mistranslating Hebrew "vav" and Greek "de" and "kai" all over the place. 

The NKJV is much better than the ESV on this point, and the NKJV could well recommend itself as a superior translation to the ESV, unless one wishes to follow the Critical Text, in which case the ESV is superior. Ironically, I follow the Critical Text and still prefer the NKJV to the ESV! The other downside to the NKJV, though, is that there aren't good study Bibles available. 

The CSB has a decent study Bible available now, and is, in my opinion, the best translation of the lot. I have, in addition, seen people recommend that conservatives (who liked the NIV, and were used to it) switch to the CSB as being less of a "shock to the system" than the ESV would be. However, it seems to me that a majority have been switching from NIV to the ESV. I would heavily caution your session, however, not to switch to the ESV just because everyone else is doing it! The highest priority should be deciding what they think the best translation is.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 14, 2017)

The Reformation Study Bible is available in NKJV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 14, 2017)

Many thanks for the input Reverend Keister. I will bring it to my Pastor, and to our session members for their consideration.


----------



## Logan (Jun 14, 2017)

If reading out loud is a consideration, the NKJV flows very well. I think the ESV does as well but some would disagree.

By the way, I'm not sure you'll get the most accurate cross-section by polling people here.


----------



## Jake (Jun 14, 2017)

From my experience, most Reformed churches that are CT-leaning use ESV and that are MT-leaning use NKJV. Even the FCC congregation I'm a member of used the NKJV when I first visited, though now they've switched to the KJV. Congregation I'm attending now doesn't really have a standard Bible (or pew Bible), but the pastor prefers NASB. I think they're going toward ESV though. 

I'm personally not a fan of the ESV. It's awkward to read aloud while still loosing some benefits of traditionally more literal translations (like having italics for added words). It also is inconsistent with its gender neutral language. It wins in usage among Reformed people currently for sure, and this is reflected in multitudes of Bibles and resources using it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> The Reformation Study Bible is available in NKJV.



I had not known that the most recent version of the study Bible is also available in the NKJV. Thanks for correcting me, Joe. This certainly ups the NKJV in viability. It is still being printed. Since this is the translation that the Gideons now use, it seems likely that it will still be printed for some time to come.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 14, 2017)

I'm not sure if it still in print, but I have the NKJV in the MacArthur study Bible, and in the W.A. Criswell Believer's study Bible, which I'm sure is out of print.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 14, 2017)

You did not add the NASB to your poll. My church uses it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 14, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> You did not add the NASB to your poll. My church uses it.


Arrgh ! Terribly sorry for the oversight. Of all the translations to leave out (smacking my forehead)
If there is a way for an administrator to add the NASB to the poll it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2017)

Done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 14, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I had not known that the most recent version of the study Bible is also available in the NKJV. Thanks for correcting me, Joe. This certainly ups the NKJV in viability. It is still being printed. Since this is the translation that the Gideons now use, it seems likely that it will still be printed for some time to come.


I was just at a Ligonier conference in Wichita in May. It was kind of funny in that the NKJV had a lot of copies left. The ESV pretty close to sold out. For what it's worth. Bought my wife the high end leather in ESV at the conference. Now we both have the RSB. Wonderful study Bible.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jun 14, 2017)

I've now served two churches in a row which made the switch from NIV84 to ESV. There are no perfect translations, and the ESV is no exception. But overall, I'm content to be using it. BTW, I don't know if any of it will be helpful but I served on our synodically-appointed Bible Translation committee in Canada. Our reports can be found here. Of most interest to you might be the Interim Report in 2011, and the Final Report in 2013. But the Zondervan chart on readability is also quite interesting!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## BG (Jun 14, 2017)

Lane why do you think the CSB is the best translation of the three


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 14, 2017)

As someone who has reflected on the Bible Translation debate for many years, I would argue that the best "overall" translation for the church is the ESV, but that one also use the CSB/HCSB alongside it:

I am pleased the ESV retains doctrinally important words such as propitiation - especially in a society which dislikes the fact that God's wrath is poured out against sin. I do question the CSB here.
Often the ESV has helpfully fresh translations. Eg 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God is much more helpful than the HCSB using 'inspired'. Surely the Biblical emphasis is breathing out, not "in"spired. This may be an element of preference, but I appreciate the ESV translating 'chesed' as Steadfast Love. In an age of a sentimental view of love, it is important to understand that Old Testament 'chesed' is Steadfast Love, nothing sentimental.
Many helpful devotional and theological resources are now produced using the ESV. It is helpful to encourage a church congregation to use devotional and theological resources which use the same Bible translation as their church.
No translation is perfect. Thus me arguing that one also use the CSB/HCSB alongside the ESV. I think that to a good degree, the ESV and the CSB/HCSB balance each other out.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 14, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Jimmy, just my two cents worth. There seem to me three viable options: the NKJV, the CSB, and the ESV. I agree with your pastor that the NIV 2011 is not worthy of consideration. The entire session should carefully study the various translations together, and come up with their decision. Some pluses of the ESV are the variety of bindings, and the excellence of Study Bibles (the Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible are both spectacular). The downside is the incredibly annoying "ands" that are ubiquitously mistranslating Hebrew "vav" and Greek "de" and "kai" all over the place.
> 
> The NKJV is much better than the ESV on this point, and the NKJV could well recommend itself as a superior translation to the ESV, unless one wishes to follow the Critical Text, in which case the ESV is superior. Ironically, I follow the Critical Text and still prefer the NKJV to the ESV! The other downside to the NKJV, though, is that there aren't good study Bibles available.
> 
> The CSB has a decent study Bible available now, and is, in my opinion, the best translation of the lot. I have, in addition, seen people recommend that conservatives (who liked the NIV, and were used to it) switch to the CSB as being less of a "shock to the system" than the ESV would be. However, it seems to me that a majority have been switching from NIV to the ESV. I would heavily caution your session, however, not to switch to the ESV just because everyone else is doing it! The highest priority should be deciding what they think the best translation is.



Lane, since they're looking for new *pew* Bibles, the fact that aren't good NKJV study Bibles is not a downside for that translation, for that purpose. Just sayin'.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 14, 2017)

Our OPC church uses the NASB, unfortunately. I like to remind our pastor that the ESV is out there and ready to be installed in our pew racks. (Plus, a church can get ESV pew Bibles very inexpensively.)


----------



## Stope (Jun 14, 2017)

I dont know much, but from what I have read the KJV is a poor translation (comes to mind is the passage "and the three are one" and thats not canon... not to mention archaic language)... Am I wrong in thinking this?


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2017)

It is part of reading an ancient text to approach it as speaking from a different time and place. The repeated conjunctions are part of the style of the Scripture in which it conveys its own mindset. Note the comments of Leland Ryken on "Stylistics as Part of the World of the Original Text" in Understanding English Bible Translation:

"The examples that I have cited thus far fall into the categories of the customs that made up the biblical world and the mind-set or worldview of people living in the world of the Bible. An additional dimension is the style in which the writers of the Bible expressed their content. In a general way these stylistic traits can keep alive our awareness that we are reading an ancient text. But often the traits gesture toward a whole mental world."

"Ancient cultures had literary conventions of their own, and one of the most prominent in both Old and New Testaments is the fondness of biblical authors for the conjunction and as a way of tying events together and achieving fluidity. The result of this stylistic trait is not only a quaint artistry but also a mind-set that differs from the disjointedness that characterizes our own culture. The repeated and formulaic _and_ creates a sense of continuity and coherence in regard to events and history. The short, self-contained sentences of some modern Bible translations read like Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger, where the world dies and is reborn from one sentence to the next."

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## mgkortus (Jun 14, 2017)

Stope said:


> I dont know much, but from what I have read the KJV is a poor translation (comes to mind is the passage "and the three are one" and thats not canon... not to mention archaic language)... Am I wrong in thinking this?



The inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is no reflection of the quality of _translation_. That is a textual matter. I can understand the criticism that the language is archaic. However, the KJV is a very good, faithful, and accurate translation overall. 

In addition, while many are turned off by the use of "thee/thou", it is worth pointing out that this allows the reader with no knowledge of the original languages to determine whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural. Using "you" and "your" does not enable one to know this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 14, 2017)

Guido's Brother said:


> There are no perfect translations, and the ESV is no exception. But overall, I'm content to be using it.



Very well said. I quite agree. 

We have ESV pew Bibles, I preach from the ESV, and the Bibles we give to grads/new believers, etc. are ESV. 

That being said, some of our people happily use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or HCSB (though the ESV is making some strides with our folks). 

I'm thankful to serve where Scripture is heard, heeded, and held in honor.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 15, 2017)

mgkortus said:


> In addition, while many are turned off by the use of "thee/thou", it is worth pointing out that this allows the reader with no knowledge of the original languages to determine whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural. Using "you" and "your" does not enable one to know this.



The context usually makes it clear whether singular or plural is meant.


----------



## Von (Jun 15, 2017)

Stope said:


> the KJV is a poor translation


I take it then you are not a KJV-onlyist?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 15, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> That being said, some of our people happily use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or HCSB (though the ESV is making some strides with our folks).


Though I read various translations at home, I find it difficult to follow Scripture reading when it is being read out of one translation, and spoken out of another. In my experience even though the verses may be saying the same thing (99% of the time) the word order is frequently different and following the text seamlessly is near impossible. So whatever the translation, I prefer the Bible in the pew to be the same translation as the minister is reading.
A couple of years ago a retired OPC minister was invited to preach at our Church and I met him in the parking lot as he came in. I asked him which translation he was preaching out of. He got a pained look on his face and said, "Your not one of those King James onlyists are you ?" I explained that I kept various translations in my car so that I could be sure to be reading out of the same text.
He then told me that he researched the congregation he was going to be a guest with, and found out which translation was in the pew, and preached out of whichever one it was regardless. Interesting anecdote, to me anyway.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 15, 2017)

BG said:


> Lane why do you think the CSB is the best translation of the three



I think it has the best translation philosophy of any translation in its advocacy of optimal equivalence. I also think it reads the smoothest of any translation that gives importance to the word-level. It is also far better English than the ESV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parmenas (Jun 15, 2017)

bookslover said:


> The context usually makes it clear whether singular or plural is meant.


Sometimes, yes, but not always. The meaning of a passage can be changed entirely when no difference it made between singular and plural pronouns.

Luke 22:31, 32
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have *you*, that he may sift *you* as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for *thee*, that *thy* faith fail not: and when *thou* art converted, strengthen *thy* brethren.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parmenas (Jun 15, 2017)

mgkortus said:


> The inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is no reflection of the quality of _translation_. That is a textual matter. I can understand the criticism that the language is archaic. However, the KJV is a very good, faithful, and accurate translation overall.
> 
> In addition, while many are turned off by the use of "thee/thou", it is worth pointing out that this allows the reader with no knowledge of the original languages to determine whether the second person pronoun is singular or plural. Using "you" and "your" does not enable one to know this.



I would like to add that the language is not "archaic" in the sense of "no longer in ordinary use," because even at the time of the translation (1604-11) the pronouns "thee" (objective) and "thou" (subjective) were not in ordinary use. As you wrote, it is simply a matter of accurate translation.

Call it liturgical English, if you will, but do not make any comparisons of it to the use of Latin in the Church of Rome during the Middle Ages, for a child can be led to understand it in less than ten minutes.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 15, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> It is also far better English than the ESV.



Burn the heretic! Or at least boil him in chocolate pudding...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 15, 2017)

Richard, you need to lighten up, and take things easy once in a while. You're way too serious all the time. It drives me crazy.


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 15, 2017)

The authorized King James Version of 1611

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 15, 2017)

The authorized King James Version of 1611

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Jun 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Richard, you need to lighten up, and take things easy once in a while. You're way too serious all the time. It drives me crazy.


LOL


----------



## Jake (Jun 16, 2017)

malcolmmaxwell60 said:


> The authorized King James Version of 1611
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk



Interesting. I used to follow along 1769 readings with the 1611, but I found most of the differences between them seemed to be fixing mistakes in the 1611 (Psalm 69:32 is one that comes to mind, as well as a verse in Deuteronomy that repeated). What print edition of the 1611 do you use in your congregation? I have a Thomas Nelson that's basically a re-print of the original, except that (most) of the Gothic type is replaced with modern type, but the old spelling (including ligatures) is retained.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2017)

We have the NKJV (and a couple old NASB's) in the pews and that is what I preach from. 

I find the NKJV the easiest to read aloud of the contemporary translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Jimmy, just my two cents worth. There seem to me three viable options: the NKJV, the CSB, and the ESV. I agree with your pastor that the NIV 2011 is not worthy of consideration. The entire session should carefully study the various translations together, and come up with their decision. Some pluses of the ESV are the variety of bindings, and the excellence of Study Bibles (the Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible are both spectacular). The downside is the incredibly annoying "ands" that are ubiquitously mistranslating Hebrew "vav" and Greek "de" and "kai" all over the place.
> 
> The NKJV is much better than the ESV on this point, and the NKJV could well recommend itself as a superior translation to the ESV, unless one wishes to follow the Critical Text, in which case the ESV is superior. Ironically, I follow the Critical Text and still prefer the NKJV to the ESV! The other downside to the NKJV, though, is that there aren't good study Bibles available.
> 
> The CSB has a decent study Bible available now, and is, in my opinion, the best translation of the lot. I have, in addition, seen people recommend that conservatives (who liked the NIV, and were used to it) switch to the CSB as being less of a "shock to the system" than the ESV would be. However, it seems to me that a majority have been switching from NIV to the ESV. I would heavily caution your session, however, not to switch to the ESV just because everyone else is doing it! The highest priority should be deciding what they think the best translation is.


The Nas is still seen as being a very good version by those who prefer the CT and a more formal translation...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Our OPC church uses the NASB, unfortunately. I like to remind our pastor that the ESV is out there and ready to be installed in our pew racks. (Plus, a church can get ESV pew Bibles very inexpensively.)


I actually prefer that version, as it does seem to be the closest to rendering what the original texts stated, but it is also strange to read at times, as they sought to reserve the greek construction such as in Greek verbs into English...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I think it has the best translation philosophy of any translation in its advocacy of optimal equivalence. I also think it reads the smoothest of any translation that gives importance to the word-level. It is also far better English than the ESV.


The formal versions such as the Nas/NKJV though do tend to overall keep closest to what the original languages texts stated, but the Csb and Esv would be smoother to read and are both still quite accurate...


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 17, 2017)

On the NASB, people often say it's "wooden". I think its woodenness is overstated. Look at the ESV at Jonah 4:4! Talk about wooden. I love them both. However, it seems we parrot objections others make.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> On the NASB, people often say it's "wooden". I think its woodenness is overstated. Look at the ESV at Jonah 4:4! Talk about wooden. I love them both. However, it seems we parrot objections others make.


The trick in translation the scriptures is that we need to balance being faithful to the original text and being able to be understood by the reader. The Esv and now the Csb seem to do a good job balancing those two extremes, while the Nas/NKJV still preferred for just used for studying only...


----------



## Jake (Jun 17, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> On the NASB, people often say it's "wooden". I think its woodenness is overstated. Look at the ESV at Jonah 4:4! Talk about wooden. I love them both. However, it seems we parrot objections others make.



To be fair, the ESV is inconsistent in the amount of editing. The New Testament (and especially Pauline letters) were edited more substantially from the RSV than the Old Testament did, especially deep in the prophets. (Note: I haven't found something to confirm this, but from my own reading this seems to be the case)


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

Jake said:


> To be fair, the ESV is inconsistent in the amount of editing. The New Testament (and especially Pauline letters) were edited more substantially from the RSV than the Old Testament did, especially deep in the prophets. (Note: I haven't found something to confirm this, but from my own reading this seems to be the case)


I have read that the Esv is about 85-90% of the old Rsv, and much of the changes were in the OT portions of it, reflecting Jesus as being seen in the prophetic elements more closely...


----------



## Jake (Jun 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have read that the Esv is about 85-90% of the old Rsv, and much of the changes were in the OT portions of it, reflecting Jesus as being seen in the prophetic elements more closely...



Gotcha. Do you have a source? I'd like to read more. They definitely changed prophetic passages for this reason (Isaiah 7:14 was a big complaint with the RSV that was changed), but there seems to be less general editing for readable and such in the Old versus the New (the latter tends to be less awkward in my opinion).


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 17, 2017)

Simple way to really find out how different the RSV is minus a computer analysis...use it at church if your pastor is an ESV guy. 

A few years ago I was listening to a series by Ray Stedman. He died in 1992. You'd think he was using the ESV. But it wa the RSV. Very few words were different as I read along with my ESV. 

This may prove convenient for me in one way. Roman Catholics often use RSV. My brother-in-law read through the NT last year. His Bible is nearly Word-for-word like mine.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 17, 2017)

Jake said:


> Gotcha. Do you have a source? I'd like to read more. They definitely changed prophetic passages for this reason (Isaiah 7:14 was a big complaint with the RSV that was changed), but there seems to be less general editing for readable and such in the Old versus the New (the latter tends to be less awkward in my opinion).


Here is Michael Marlowe's Bible Researcher site again. I cannot vouch for the accuracy, as he knows far more than I ever will, but I've read his site quite a bit. He seems to know his stuff.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/NASB.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/NKJV.html


----------



## Parakaleo (Jun 17, 2017)

Stope said:


> I dont know much, but from what I have read the KJV is a poor translation (comes to mind is the passage "and the three are one" and thats not canon... not to mention archaic language)... Am I wrong in thinking this?



Not canon? Do you subscribe to the WCF? In 1.2, when the 66 books of the Scripture are listed, does this include 1 John 5:7 or not?


----------



## bookslover (Jun 19, 2017)

Jake said:


> Interesting. I used to follow along 1769 readings with the 1611, but I found most of the differences between them seemed to be fixing mistakes in the 1611 (Psalm 69:32 is one that comes to mind, as well as a verse in Deuteronomy that repeated). What print edition of the 1611 do you use in your congregation? I have a Thomas Nelson that's basically a re-print of the original, except that (most) of the Gothic type is replaced with modern type, but the old spelling (including ligatures) is retained.



As I understand it, by 1769 (158 years after it was published), the King James had acquired so many typographical errors, printing errors, and other sorts of boo-boos (that's a technical printing term [LOL]) that a committee was formed of scholars from both Oxford and Cambridge universities, who went through the entire translation with a fine-tooth comb for the purpose of removing all these printing errors. As far as I know, no substantive changes in the text were made.

When you go to a bookstore and buy a KJV, what you're buying is the 1769 cleaned-up text.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 19, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> Not canon? Do you subscribe to the WCF? In 1.2, when the 66 books of the Scripture are listed, does this include 1 John 5:7 or not?



The WCF is speaking to canonical status of books. It's not dealing with lower textual criticism. 1 John is canonical. If John truly wrote 5:7, then yes, that verse would be included. If John did write 5:7, but someone added it centuries later, then it is not God-breathed and the non-God-breathed WCF (as wonderful as it is) cannot transform it into God-breathed Scripture.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> The WCF is speaking to canonical status of books. It's not dealing with lower textual criticism. 1 John is canonical. If John truly wrote 5:7, then yes, that verse would be included. If John did write 5:7, but someone added it centuries later, then it is not God-breathed and the non-God-breathed WCF (as wonderful as it is) cannot transform it into God-breathed Scripture.


good point, as the WCF will give to us what is seen as being the true canon of the scriptures, but in each inspired book, we will still have to deal with textual criticism for what is to be seen as actually included within the text..


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

bookslover said:


> As I understand it, by 1769 (158 years after it was published), the King James had acquired so many typographical errors, printing errors, and other sorts of boo-boos (that's a technical printing term [LOL]) that a committee was formed of scholars from both Oxford and Cambridge universities, who went through the entire translation with a fine-tooth comb for the purpose of removing all these printing errors. As far as I know, no substantive changes in the text were made.
> 
> When you go to a bookstore and buy a KJV, what you're buying is the 1769 cleaned-up text.


You are correct, that that most of the KJV today bought and used will be based off the 1769 revised text, and also think at one time Zodervan version was based of the 1984 Schrivers text, which is still seen as being the best TR text to use...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> Here is Michael Marlowe's Bible Researcher site again. I cannot vouch for the accuracy, as he knows far more than I ever will, but I've read his site quite a bit. He seems to know his stuff.
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/NASB.html
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/NKJV.html


He thinks that the Nas and the NKJV versions are the best versions to use for serious studies now... Which is fine with me, as I agree with his assessment...


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 19, 2017)

Yes, and I find it interesting that he says that of two translations from different textual sources, the CT, and the RT.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> of the 1984 Schrivers text,


These errors are easy to fix *before posting* rather than have someone come along and correct:
1894 Scrivener's text

Please develop the habit of reviewing a post after it is made (beforehand is better) and then going back and editing it for correctness when it comes to glaring errors like the above.


----------



## Jake (Jun 19, 2017)

bookslover said:


> As I understand it, by 1769 (158 years after it was published), the King James had acquired so many typographical errors, printing errors, and other sorts of boo-boos (that's a technical printing term [LOL]) that a committee was formed of scholars from both Oxford and Cambridge universities, who went through the entire translation with a fine-tooth comb for the purpose of removing all these printing errors. As far as I know, no substantive changes in the text were made.
> 
> When you go to a bookstore and buy a KJV, what you're buying is the 1769 cleaned-up text.



Yes, that's why I was curious about Malcom saying his congregation using the 1611. I have and have used the 1611 and I don't see why you would use that in a congregation when the 1769 is available. 



JimmyH said:


> Yes, and I find it interesting that he says that of two translations from different textual sources, the CT, and the RT.



I personally find with the NKJV you get the best of both worlds, since it notes the differences in the CT and MT against the TR. It's helpful too when following along with different people who might use a different translation so you can get an idea of what is translation versus manuscript difference.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 19, 2017)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We have the NKJV (and a couple old NASB's) in the pews and that is what I preach from.
> 
> I find the NKJV the easiest to read aloud of the contemporary translations.


You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?



I like to keep people on their toes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 19, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?





Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I like to keep people on their toes.



Ha ha! Well-played, both of you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> These errors are easy to fix *before posting* rather than have someone come along and correct:
> 1894 Scrivener's text
> 
> Please develop the habit of reviewing a post after it is made (beforehand is better) and then going back and editing it for correctness when it comes to glaring errors like the above.


Thank you for your patience with me, as I am trying very hard to correct myself.


----------



## Stope (Jun 19, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> Not canon? Do you subscribe to the WCF? In 1.2, when the 66 books of the Scripture are listed, does this include 1 John 5:7 or not?


"And the three are one" shouldnt be in the text (and thats why post KJV dont include it)


----------



## tangleword (Jun 20, 2017)

Our church uses ESV, though I wish we would switch to NASB or CSB. One thing to be aware with is the ESV now has at least 3 different versions, with changes in each of them, and the most recent version has had quite a bit of controversy specifically to their translation of Genesis 2 (enough for them to back off making it the final version).


----------



## BGF (Jun 20, 2017)

Our church uses the ESV (switched from NASB a few years ago). Our members, however, seem to use every version available. When someone reads a passage during SS its anyone's guess which version will be read. I'm able to follow along very well so it doesn't bother me. My wife, however, has poor reading comprehension and needs to be in the same translation or she will get lost.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

tangleword said:


> Our church uses ESV, though I wish we would switch to NASB or CSB. One thing to be aware with is the ESV now has at least 3 different versions, with changes in each of them, and the most recent version has had quite a bit of controversy specifically to their translation of Genesis 2 (enough for them to back off making it the final version).


They decided to have no more revisions, and then decided to revise now every few years.


----------

