# Which one translation if stranded on a desert island



## larryjf (Jun 15, 2006)

If you were stranded on a desert island which ONE translation would you want with you?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 15, 2006)

It is consistently the most literal translation I've ever encountered.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2006)

I've heard KJV can be used to correct the Greek.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 15, 2006)

Ben,

Which one did you vote for?
I'm guessing from your description it is the NASB?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I've heard KJV can be used to correct the Greek.



 That is hilarious because it is so TRUE of the attitude of some!!!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> Ben,
> 
> Which one did you vote for?
> I'm guessing from your description it is the NASB?



Yes, I voted NASB. I prefer the ESV for reading... but as I've done translation I have found that the NASB is consistently the most accurate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


I always check the beliefs of ministries before I host their sites. This was the statement of beliefs for an application I just got tonight:


> Our beliefs are:
> 
> We believe that the Bible (KJV) is the inspired, HOLY, Word of God. That is infallible, with out spot, and perfect for all English Speaking peoples. II Timothy 3:16
> 
> ...


An interesting interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16 considering Paul was writing to a Greek man!


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 15, 2006)

NKJV!


----------



## Ambrose (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



If the KJV was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me!


----------



## Ivan (Jun 15, 2006)

Can I have a Bible with multiple translations in it? 

I voted KJV simply because it's what I grew up using. I was well into my 20's before I used another translation and that was the NASB. However, in my last days stranded on an island I'd want the translation that was closest to my heart and in my memory banks. 

Of the translations to choose from there are only two or three I wouldn't normally care to use, but if I was stranded on an island I'd appreciate any translation.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 15, 2006)

I chose NIV...but I'd settle for ESV gladly. If someone held a gun to my head...KJV.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> If someone held a gun to my head...KJV.



I'll be right over!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 15, 2006)

Good News for 17th Century Man is better than TNIV, I'll admit.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Good News for 17th Century Man is better than TNIV, I'll admit.



Yup. Frankly I think there are more good translations than bad ones. I use about five translations on a regular basis and I switch each year which one I use to read through the Bible.

One of the problems with so many translations is that you don't always know what the members are using in the pew. I just started supply preaching at church where half use KJV and half use NIV. I've decided to split it right now the middle and preach from the NKJV.

What do you think of that?!


----------



## satz (Jun 15, 2006)

wow, i'am pretty surprised that the KJ is in the lead.

I guess older is better ...


----------



## Ivan (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> wow, i'am pretty surprised that the KJ is in the lead.
> 
> I guess older is better ...



...but you didn't vote, did you?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Not a bad compromise. I think there is a big difference between bad translations and poor translations. While some on this Board will consider this statement quasi-heretical, I believe the KJV is a poor translation. That is not to say that it is not faithful to the Greek/Hebrew texts (even if they are inferior!) but because the KJV no longer communicates well in English. People can rail about needing to lead people to deeper biblical literacy, etc., but the truth of the matter is that a good translation should be in the "vulgar" language of the people, to borrow a term from the Confessions, and the KJV simply no longer cuts the mustard. I think we may see the ESV on the ascendancy now...and that would not be a bad thing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 15, 2006)

In a recent sermon our pastor explained our church's preference for the AV here:
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2006/05212006.htm
So yea, I voted KJV.


----------



## satz (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by satz_
> ...



I voted for the KJV actually, i just thought it was kind off losing popularity nowadays.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> NKJV!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 15, 2006)

I nearly voted NKJV as that is my main bible of choice, but I thought KJV for pure self-indulgence if I was isolated from other men and didn't actually have to preach from it!

JH


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> I nearly voted NKJV as that is my main bible of choice, but I thought KJV for pure self-indulgence if I was isolated from other men and didn't actually have to preach from it!
> 
> JH



Understandable choice and rationale!


----------



## Kevin (Jun 15, 2006)

I don't read the KJV much any more but the question was, on a desert island, sooo KJV.

Certainly the best from a eng litt stand point.


----------



## beej6 (Jun 15, 2006)

I voted for ESV. However, as soon as I hit the button, I realized (reading into the question) that on this desert island might be indigenous non English speakers who may need evangelizing. I'd be tempted to ask God to send me a TEV/Good News Bible...


----------



## larryjf (Jun 15, 2006)

beej6,



> ...on this desert island might be indigenous non English speakers who may need evangelizing. I'd be tempted to ask God to send me a TEV/Good News Bible...



Since the TEV/Good News Bible are still in English, you might be better off asking God to send you a translator


----------



## turmeric (Jun 15, 2006)

KJV - the text is beautiful and it isn't the worst translation out there either, I have a weakness for the Textus Receptus.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 15, 2006)

turmeric,

That's interesting that you have a weakness for the TR. I think your avatar is the Sinaiticus


----------



## turmeric (Jun 15, 2006)

Well, I couldn't find a TR. I like the Greek, but can't read it; I'd be interested to know what passage it is.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> KJV - the text is beautiful and it isn't the worst translation out there either, I have a weakness for the Textus Receptus.



Those who say it's a bad translation are way off it, in my opinion. If they mean hard to understand in places, I agree. But, textual issues aside, it's arguably the most consistently literal translation that is generally available today.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Well, I couldn't find a TR. I like the Greek, but can't read it; I'd be interested to know what passage it is.



Erasmus' Textus Receptus, portion of John 18:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



"The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God."

--George Bernard Shaw


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



Literal does not necessarily mean good.


----------



## 3John2 (Jun 16, 2006)

Along the same lines if someone was stuck in an island which STUDY BIBLE would you choose to have? I stated NKJV for translation but upon further thinking I thought I'd prefer to have a STUDY bible not just a translation so therefore my translation WOULD wind up being KJV as my main study bible, the dreaded Dake, is my main study version. Heretical notes aside the cross references, concordance , & many other aids make it my fave study bible. 
Just curious as to what study bible people of the Reformed belief tend to have? I currently purchased a Thompson NKJV & I'm going to be getting a Reformation Study bible in ESV as well.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by 3John2_
> Along the same lines if someone was stuck in an island which STUDY BIBLE would you choose to have? I stated NKJV for translation but upon further thinking I thought I'd prefer to have a STUDY bible not just a translation so therefore my translation WOULD wind up being KJV as my main study bible, the dreaded Dake, is my main study version. Heretical notes aside the cross references, concordance , & many other aids make it my fave study bible.
> Just curious as to what study bible people of the Reformed belief tend to have? I currently purchased a Thompson NKJV & I'm going to be getting a Reformation Study bible in ESV as well.



I have the MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV), The New Geneva Study Bible (NKJV, now renamed Reformation Study Bible and available in ESV, but the notes etc. are exactly the same), The NIV Study Bible and the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. in my opinion the study notes and other extras in the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible are the best out there, but I would not choose it if I only had to choose one because of the NIV text. 

Actually out of all those, I'd probably choose the MacArthur, doctrinal considerations aside, because the notes are generally more thorough and the type is so small in the NGSB that I cannot read it for long periods of time.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 16, 2006)

I use the NKJV, which I believe is better than the KJV because it retains for the most part the beauty of the KJV, without the language barriers.

The ESV is also a very good translation.

The NASB has its weaknesses, but also has many strengths.

I think the NIV is the worst of the lot. And that is not specifically because of its translation style (which I think is horrible), but because of all the major translations, it is the one that is guilty of the most chronolgical arrogance, even beyond the KJV. Its attempt to be "trendy" leaves most Christians over 45 in the dust, and it is horrible for congregational reading and memorization. Why I would want to use something that *promotes* division in the church, when I have several very good "modern English" translations to choose from (NKJV, ESV, NASB, even RSV) ?

The more I think about it, the NIV is the perfect translation for the baby-boomer crowd: don't worry about anyone older than me, who cares; don't worry about anyone younger than me who might want more accuracy than feel-goodism (as is often the case in music, liturgy, etc), who cares? What I want is something that I LIKE, and who cares what it does to the church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2006)

I have used a parallel KJ/NKJ for 15 years.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 16, 2006)

Second question. 

Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?

If given a choice between:

Hal Lindsay
Tim LaHaye
Jerry Jenkins
Ed Hindson
Jack van Impe
John MacArthur


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Second question.
> 
> Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?
> ...



Now that's an easy choice!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2006)

Tim LaHaye

At least I would be laughing.............


----------



## larryjf (Jun 16, 2006)

> Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?


I guess which ever one is heavier.
There might not be much food on the island.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tim LaHaye
> 
> At least I would be laughing.............



You think he's funnier than Van Impe? 

A former pastor of mine once said that if we still stoned false prophets, Lindsey and Van Impe would have been gone long ago.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by larryjf_
> ...



I voted NASB too. It's what I cut my teeth on as a young Christian, and it is perhaps the best version available for personal study.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 17, 2006)

so - the NASB is more accurate than the ESV? hm, did not know that. Thought the ESV was THE translation...

Using this scale from the International Bible Society - where would the ESV fit?








[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 17, 2006)

Somewhere between KJV and NKJV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so - the NASB is more accurate than the ESV? hm, did not know that. Thought the ESV was THE translation...
> 
> Using this scale from the International Bible Society - where would the ESV fit?
> ...



Between the RSV and NKJV. The ESV is a light revision of the RSV with the theological problems fixed (Piper's phrase). In some places it is a little more literal than the RSV, especially with the restoration of "propitiation", etc. 

Such charts are not an exact science, of course, and some would argue that by some criteria, textual issues aside, that the KJV is a little more literal than the NASB, especially the 1995 version, which is slightly more "dynamic" than previous efforts. One example of this is breaking up long sentences in the Greek into 3 or 4 sentences in English to make it more readable. The old ASV of 1901 of which the RSV and NASB are revisions, is probably the most literal.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 17, 2006)

ok, how about (and don't be mean!) The Message?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 17, 2006)

on the ESV - if I split it somewhere between the KJV and the RSV? Actually would be on the NKJV slot...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ok, how about (and don't be mean!) The Message?



I think that's probably on the chart as "TM" on the far right. 

BTW I think the HCSB would fall somewhere between the RSV and NIV. It is somewhat more literal than the NIV, but like the NIV is a "new" translation that stands outside the Tyndale-King James tradition. I don't have one but they do seem to have some helpful study helps included. I don't know whether it would be considered more "literal" than the NRSV or not.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> on the ESV - if I split it somewhere between the KJV and the RSV? Actually would be on the NKJV slot...



I would think it goes to the right of the NKJV and I'm surprised Fred would say the ESV is more literal than the NKJV, which I think is what he uses. But I don't know the languages and he does, so I think he may know something I don't.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 17, 2006)

Cool! Thanks!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Second question.
> 
> Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?
> ...



JVI. Believe it or not, he was very instrumental in me turning my back on my fundamentalist, dispensational upbringing.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Second question.
> 
> Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?
> ...


----------



## Herald (Jun 17, 2006)

NASB


----------



## larryjf (Jun 18, 2006)

Here's a Bible version chart that includes the ESV in its spectrum...


----------



## Dave L (Jun 18, 2006)

NKJV and John MacArthur.

Although I might say Tim LaHaye if it would stop him writing any more books - it just depends how long we'd be on the island for!


----------



## SRoper (Jun 18, 2006)

Is it correct to place the RSV under "thought for thought" as the first chart does? I would think it would be just to the left of the dividing line.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Is it correct to place the RSV under "thought for thought" as the first chart does? I would think it would be just to the left of the dividing line.



On most similar charts the RSV is usually listed as word for word but it or the NRSV, if listed, is usually the closest to the thought for thought dividing line.


----------



## JM (Jun 25, 2006)

AV for me.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 28, 2006)

turmeric said:


> Well, I couldn't find a TR. I like the Greek, but can't read it; I'd be interested to know what passage it is.



Meg,

I was browsing some of the older threads, and I too was interested to find the answer to your question. I enlarged your avatar, broke it up into a few recognizable phrases, put some of them into the BibleWorks search engine, and found what you had been looking for (which took me awhile until I realized that I had to search the Greek of more than just the New Testament...). Here it is:

"'...and let things for purification and other attendance be given to them, and let the woman who shall please the king be queen instead of Astin.' And this thing pleased the king, and he did so. Now there was a Jew in the city Susa, and his name was Mardochaeus, the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin; who had been brought a prisoner from Jerusalem, which {Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon} had carried into captivity."

The text of your page runs from the end of Esther 2:3 to nearly the end of 2:6 in the Septuagint. I added the part in brackets that gives the name of king Nebuchadnezzar, since the Greek for that portion is on the following page of the manuscript, but the English translation of what you've got makes better sense with it added. Also, as you may have guessed, "Astin" is their way of translating the name of queen Vashti.

Enjoy your new found knowledge! Sorry the passage wasn't one of the more striking sort.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2006)

Puritanhead said:


> Second question.
> 
> Which popular mainstream dispensationalist Bible teacher would you want to be stranded on the island with?
> 
> ...



MacArthur, obviously...


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> Between the RSV and NKJV. The ESV is a light revision of the RSV with the theological problems fixed (Piper's phrase). In some places it is a little more literal than the RSV, especially with the restoration of "propitiation", etc.
> 
> Such charts are not an exact science, of course, and some would argue that by some criteria, textual issues aside, that the KJV is a little more literal than the NASB, especially the 1995 version, which is slightly more "dynamic" than previous efforts. One example of this is breaking up long sentences in the Greek into 3 or 4 sentences in English to make it more readable. The old ASV of 1901 of which the RSV and NASB are revisions, is probably the most literal.




I have a hardback copy of the ASV (1901) for which I paid $2.00! And it was published by the Jehovah's Witnesses! Just the text, none of their "theology".


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2006)

kevin.carroll said:


> Not a bad compromise. I think there is a big difference between bad translations and poor translations. While some on this Board will consider this statement quasi-heretical, I believe the KJV is a poor translation. That is not to say that it is not faithful to the Greek/Hebrew texts (even if they are inferior!) but because the KJV no longer communicates well in English. People can rail about needing to lead people to deeper biblical literacy, etc., but the truth of the matter is that a good translation should be in the "vulgar" language of the people, to borrow a term from the Confessions, and the KJV simply no longer cuts the mustard. I think we may see the ESV on the ascendancy now...and that would not be a bad thing.



I've read that the language of the KJV was actually beginning to be out of date even in 1611 because most of the New Testament was brought over more or less intact from Tyndale's version - which was already nearly a hundred years old then.

Besides, when you read the KJV, you're not really reading the 1611 text, anyway. You're reading the 1769 revision, which was done by scholars at either Oxford or Cambridge, or maybe both.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 4, 2006)

KJV for me. After that I'd take the new international english american christian standard message bible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2006)

For my part, I would like it to be a 100% accurate translation from the Hebrew and the Greek into the native tongue of the savages that live on the desert island.

I would be running and hiding as they tried to kill the strange, pasty-white (or sunburned) man until one day they stumble upon the Bible. They then would be convicted of their sin and turn to Christ and come to me seeking to have fellowship with me. Over time I would learn their language and we would all have sweet desert island fellowship together.

If it was in English then I'd have to go through all the trouble of translating the Bible myself from an English translation because I don't know the Hebrew and the Greek.

All the rest of the answers are very self-serving: what translation would *I* like? There's no "I" in desert people. There's an I in island but that doesn't count. I'm happy that some of you would be content to just leave the desert island people without an accurate translation of the Bible but I'm thinking of their eternal souls.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 4, 2006)

It's a desert island...as indeserted...you are alone (and won't be pasty white for long).

G1599 and John MacArthur. Though Jenkins might be easier to convert.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> It's a desert island...as indeserted...you are alone (and won't be pasty white for long).



That's what the natives want you to _think_. As soon as you open up your Bible and are studying then they'll ATTACK.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2006)

I was once marooned on a desert (uninhabited) island. I wasn't a Christian then, however. The KJV or 1599 Geneva would suffice for me today, preferably with a psalter included for singing God's praises. 

Psalm 65  

5 O God of our salvation,
thou, in thy righteousness,
By fearful works unto our pray'rs
thine answer dost express:
Therefore the ends of all the earth,
and those afar that be
Upon the sea, their confidence,
O Lord, will place in thee.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 4, 2006)

Yes, the Psalter! I was so disappointed that the Geneva Project did not include that along with the metre in the repro. The facsimile is available (but for $200)...it's awesome (Grace has one...but she needs to join in on these threads...hmmm, I'm going have to go drag her in here....silent members, aiaiaiai).


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Dec 4, 2006)

Bingo!

It was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me. ;-)



SolaScriptura said:


> Yes, I voted NASB. I prefer the ESV for reading... but as I've done translation I have found that the NASB is consistently the most accurate.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 4, 2006)

NASB


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 4, 2006)

If stranded on a desert island I'd be thankful to have any of the major translations. But if I had the choice, probably the KJV just for the beauty of the old English language.

As far as being stranded with a dispensationalist is concerned. Probably John McArthur, at least he's sorta Calvinistic, sorta.


----------

