# What is Your Pulpit Bible?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2009)

What version does your Pastor (or you yourself) use in the pulpit to preach from and do the Scripture Readings from in Lord's Day Worship?

Also if you feel so inclined let us know why you use a particular translation.


----------



## busdriver72 (Sep 1, 2009)

When I first started preaching, I used the KJV. I found it difficult to read from smoothly.
Since I had always enjoyed the literalness of the NASB I started using it.
I then noticed the puzzled looks, people thumbing through their Bibles, looking to the person next to them and shrugging. They were having a hard time keeping up with where I was.
Since I switched to the NKJV, I have found most folks are able to follow along with me regardless of what translation they have.


----------



## wmc1982 (Sep 1, 2009)

Didn't God super-inspire the ESV 8 years ago? Were still using Tyndale, not a big deal.


----------



## Baptist-1689er (Sep 1, 2009)

English Standard Version


----------



## westminken (Sep 1, 2009)

I use the ESV when I am teaching and "exhorting". For me, it is just a personal preference. My mentor pastor uses the NIV in the pulpit and in the liturgy. I think at our church it was decided long ago to use the NIV and he didn't want to rock any boats.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Sep 1, 2009)

I prefer the Message and am rather upset it was not included!


----------



## Berean (Sep 1, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> I prefer the Message and am rather upset it was not included!



You upgraded from the Living Bible you used to use?


----------



## reformedminister (Sep 1, 2009)

KJV. I just purchased the Allen Longprimer, which is very easy to read in the pulpit. I use the KJV because of manuscript preference. If I were to use a newer translation, it would be the NKJV. I prefer to preach from the same translation I usually study from. I do think the ESV is a good translation of the Critical Text.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 1, 2009)

NKJV. It was the Bible in situ before I arrived at the church. I am happy to retain it because of manuscript/textual preferences, and I find it easier to preach from and more accessible to newcomers than the KJV. No, don't start debating me on the point. That's my opinion, is all.


----------



## busdriver72 (Sep 1, 2009)

I'm shocked that NIV was a choice in the list.
Everyone knows that stands for "*N*on-*I*nspired *V*ersion."


----------



## nicnap (Sep 1, 2009)

My pastor uses ESV, but I use NKJV.


----------



## LeeJUk (Sep 1, 2009)

good news bible :| in all churches of Scotland. Helpful for simple people and children and people whose first language isn't english. 

Extremely annoying to read due to the dumbing down of the text. I'd prefer a NIV to it to be honest. ESV would be my first choice though if I could have it.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Sep 1, 2009)




----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2009)

I use a Thompson-Chain Reference NKJV in the Pulpit that a kindly gentleman here on the PB gave me.


----------



## Bald_Brother (Sep 1, 2009)

ESV. 

I bought myself, my wife, and my oldest son ESVs when we joined the church because of it. Personally, I prefer the NASB and use it for devotion and study. But, between watching my son's confusion trying to follow along in his NIV and listening to my wife begging for the same translation being used from the pulpit... I caved.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Sep 1, 2009)

Our pastor uses the NIV, where I personally follow along with the ESV.


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2009)

LeeJUk said:


> good news bible :| in all churches of Scotland. Helpful for simple people and children and people whose first language isn't english.



In the old days (and my copy is at least 3 decades old) it was considered a paraphrase, not a translation. They have better PR now. It does have the benefits that you've stated.


----------



## Jake (Sep 1, 2009)

Pastor uses NIV along with most of the church. Some ESV usage is beginning to arise those.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 1, 2009)

NASB


----------



## PointingToChrist (Sep 1, 2009)

wmc1982 said:


> Didn't God super-inspire the ESV 8 years ago? Were still using Tyndale, not a big deal.



Naturally. I am an ESV-onlyist. Who needs other versions when you have the give-all, be-all, end-all version in front of your eyes? 

My pastor called me a stodgy old man for wanting to discard the NIV's in a certain way.

In all seriousness, I appreciate the ESV very much, and it is what I use both at home and when I preach. I've started to warm up to the NKJV slightly, but not well immersed in it yet.

I became saved in high school reading the Gospels in the Good News version. I then got an ESV, and it was like I was saved all over again ("I never read this before!")


----------



## strangecharm (Sep 3, 2009)

I'm Complicated, but here's my list
*
Church I attend:* NIV (I don't care for it)

*Home Church (Grew up there, still a member):* NRSV (anything less from a New England UMC would be a shock)

*Church I attended this summer:* NASB (NIV in the pews)

*Should I survive seminary:*I'm an NASB guy through and through now, though the KJV and Geneva are unmatched in poetry.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 3, 2009)

I do find it interesting that the two most common translations are the NKJV and the ESV (not really surprising).


----------



## Rangerus (Sep 3, 2009)

It seems the older more traditional Southern Baptist preachers prefer the KJV, but the younger prefer the NKJV or the NIV. I personally have switched to the KJV because that is the way i talk.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 3, 2009)

Unashamed 116 said:


> I prefer the Message and am rather upset it was not included!



It's not included because it's not a translation. (I take that back.... the NLT made the list, and it's not
really a translation, either. Still, there are very good reasons not to have included The Message, no offense intended)


----------



## ClayPot (Sep 3, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I do find it interesting that the two most common translations are the NKJV and the ESV (not really surprising).



I'm surprised in one sense that both are so popular and not in another. Obviously, the KJV has had a historic following and the NKJV builds off that base, but it really doesn't read that naturally when compared to other modern bible translations. I've never really understood why the ESV is so popular. Crossway has done great marketing, but I find it to be an awkwardly revised RSV, especially the OT. The NT is much better, but any translation that claims to be a modern translation and uses a phrase such as "would that" (as in "would that they were baptized . . ." or "at table" could use a little more work. I personally prefer the HCSB. It often gets labeled the baptist translation, but it is translated by committee including many non-baptists. And they have worked hard to translate the text accurately (e.g., John 3:16) instead of caving to tradition.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 3, 2009)

Since my conversion (in the SBC), I've been in, preached in, and pastored churches that predominately use the King James Version (none KJVOnly). I cut my teeth on it at the age of twelve and have used it ever since. It isn't perfect but it is a great translation unsurpassed in idiomatic beauty. Which I might say, adds a great deal to a church's liturgy. And while many complain about the "thees" and "thous," truth be told, they provide greater gramatical clarity than does contemporary English (e.g. "ye" vs. "you"). 

My stand-by translation is the ESV. A great translation to be sure. But after 13 years of reading, memorizing and listening to the AV I just can't make the switch. Nor do I feel morally obliged to. 

While a great deal of time and ink has been spent debunking the KJV Only argument (and rightfully so), another current has gained strength: one of antipathy towards the AV. The general lack of respect and deference toward a translation that formed the foundation of modern English and much of Western civilization is astounding. When I tell people that I preach from the AV, I get looks as though I'd grown a third eye! It is as though the KJV and KJV-Only have been confused. The KJV should be held among English-speaking Christians with the same respect that Germans revere Luther's Bible. 

That's just my 

-----Added 9/3/2009 at 04:56:32 EST-----



Glenn Ferrell said:


>



I Have this Bible! I love it! It's a BEAST!

-----Added 9/3/2009 at 05:08:43 EST-----



Unashamed 116 said:


> I prefer the Message and am rather upset it was not included!



I don't believe the Message is a translation in the truest sense of the word. And preaching from it could be harmful to your church. For a fair and objective review of The Message, I would encorage you to check out this Review of The Message by Michael Marlowe.


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 3, 2009)

Pastor uses the NASB but I use the ESV.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Sep 3, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the Message and am rather upset it was not included!
> ...




None taken as I was being totally sarcastic.


----------



## INsearch (Sep 3, 2009)

Before my pastor left he used the NKJV...I have no clue what bible the fill-in guy uses.


----------



## LeeD (Sep 3, 2009)

I use ESV as well. I just bought my first Geneva (for study purposes), and I would love to know which member checked the Geneva in the list above.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Sep 3, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> -----Added 9/3/2009 at 04:56:32 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of our families visited another church recently. Their teenage son, about 14, commented afterwards, “The preacher didn't read from the Bible.”

Knowing that other congregation, very likely the minister read from a printout of his text, which is certainly acceptable. But, I know their practice is usually not to have the reading of the word as a distinct element of worship. Rather, a single text is read in the course of preaching, with comments interspersed between each segment. 

But, I was interested in this young man’s perception of the Bible not being read.

Our practice is to have two readings from the word. The first reading is consecutively taken from the same book each week, with no necessary connection to the other reading or sermon. The other reading from the other testament is from the book being expounded consecutively in the sermon. The congregation hears both testaments regularly and consecutively read.

Use of this large lectern Bible dramatically conveys the fact these readings come from the Word of God, not man’s words. Of course, such is a circumstance of worship, certainly not required. Nevertheless, it lends dignity to the Word read, as a pulpit or raised platform lends dignity to the Word preached.

This is the Cambridge AV lectern Bible. If I a supplying somewhere away from my congregation, where there is no letern Bible, I use my Oxford Longprimer AV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 3, 2009)

Our pastor uses the NIV.

I use both the NKJV and ESV. Typically, I carry a NKJV and Greek text to church with me.


----------



## Herald (Sep 7, 2009)

The NASB.


----------



## Baptist-1689er (Sep 7, 2009)

While I admit that our church currently uses the ESV, I love the KJV.


----------



## Contra Marcion (Sep 7, 2009)

We're pretty much an ESV-only congregation now. My pastor and I are the true Bible snobs with matching Allan ESV-1's.


----------



## ericknowsChrist (Sep 13, 2009)

My Pastor used the NASB for years, while I used the NKJV. I used the NASB as one of my references and I liked to study from it now and again but I was a NKJV guy and preached from the NKJV. 

Then a while back he started using the ESV. He did not announce it, does not promote it, nor did I discuss it with him. I kept seeing good recommendations for the ESV and I picked up a copy. I am now an ESV guy and preached from it today.


----------

