Does Your Household All Use The Same Bible Translation?

Bible usage in your household...

  • Everyone reads from the same (primary) translation.

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • Different members of my household have different primary translations.

    Votes: 23 62.2%

  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what Josh is meaning is that both Australia and New Zealand are former British colonies. Therefore our 'outlook' and language in a number of respects is British. The Queen remains head of state in both nations. Thus our English is still, in the main, British English. In terms of the way our Parliaments are run, we operate as Independent nations. That is the British Government has no power over the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments. But our British heritage remains.
 
For instance, when I preached through Psalm 113, the CSB uses the word "trash," which isn't a commonly used word here. The congregation said they found that wording distracting and too American. I had to agree.
I used to think that trash was an American word too until I came across it in Gurnall's "Christian in Complete Armour". John Owen also uses it in his commentary in Hebrews. It was actually a good Puritan English word, long before the Americans discovered it. It's time we British knew the history of our own language better.
 
I used to think that trash was an American word too until I came across it in Gurnall's "Christian in Complete Armour". John Owen also uses it in his commentary in Hebrews. It was actually a good Puritan English word, long before the Americans discovered it. It's time we British knew the history of our own language better.
Why not use the KJV then if we are handing out points for old words that are no longer used by people today?
 
Why not use the KJV then if we are handing out points for old words that are no longer used by people today?
No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.

By the way, I take the point about the potential difficulty of a "foreign-sounding" translation. Even if that perception is mistaken, it could easily be an obstacle. The Presbyterian church in England in the 19th and 20th centuries unfortunately fostered the sense of the exotic foreignness (Scottishness) of their faith by calling most of their churches "St Andrew's" or "St Columba's". Perception matters, which is why the NIV is published in both British and American versions. The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
 
The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
I have anglicized (British) versions of the NIV and ESV, and I prefer those to their American counterparts. Aside from colours instead of colors, for example, there is a dignity to the language lacking in the American versions ...... in my humble opinion.
 
I think the word trash is in use today.

You're right. Apparently not commonly used in Brisbane, though.

No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.

By the way, I take the point about the potential difficulty of a "foreign-sounding" translation. Even if that perception is mistaken, it could easily be an obstacle. The Presbyterian church in England in the 19th and 20th centuries unfortunately fostered the sense of the exotic foreignness (Scottishness) of their faith by calling most of their churches "St Andrew's" or "St Columba's". Perception matters, which is why the NIV is published in both British and American versions. The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.

Yes, perception does play a large role.

Not that it matters what I think, but the fact that the CSB is tied to the SBC--especially with what I see going on in the SBC right now with a racialized, social gospel--turns me off from the translation at the outset.

But all this could be another thread.

As far as family translation choice goes, I have been ESV since I was saved; but lately I am trending toward the pre-1995 NASB, and very much liking it.

If someone is reading Scripture, does following along in a different translation take away from your ability to really listen to the words, since you may be comparing or noting differences?
 
I have anglicized (British) versions of the NIV and ESV, and I prefer those to their American counterparts. Aside from colours instead of colors, for example, there is a dignity to the language lacking in the American versions ...... in my humble opinion.
Brother, the only dignity left in my country is found where she resembles the old Motherland the most. And, not to sound too harsh, but she is most undignified where she has swallowed current American culture hook, line, and sinker.

Alas, the character of all our nations have changed beyond repair as we have turned away from God.
 
Brother, the only dignity left in my country is found where she resembles the old Motherland the most. And, not to sound too harsh, but she is most undignified where she has swallowed American culture hook, line, and sinker.

Of course, old America was far better than her contemporary self as well.

As my wife is an almost completely Americanized Canadian, even to the extent of preferring football over hockey and occasionally dropping a y'all, I resemble that remark! Still, this does not explain Newfies! :cheers:
 
As my wife is an almost completely Americanized Canadian, even to the extent of preferring football over hockey and occasionally dropping a y'all, I resemble that remark! Still, this does not explain Newfies! :cheers:
My British blood (Lowland Scottish--AKA not English-hating Highlander-- & English) boils to read of such things!

And Newfoundlanders is what happens when the Irish don't have the civilizing influence of old Bristish culture, and are instead left to themselves in the New World. A scary thing.
 
No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.

By the way, I take the point about the potential difficulty of a "foreign-sounding" translation. Even if that perception is mistaken, it could easily be an obstacle. The Presbyterian church in England in the 19th and 20th centuries unfortunately fostered the sense of the exotic foreignness (Scottishness) of their faith by calling most of their churches "St Andrew's" or "St Columba's". Perception matters, which is why the NIV is published in both British and American versions. The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
Once I started thinking about this, it raised a number of interesting questions about unassimilated Britishisms in American translations - for example the rendering of terms for small coins such as "lepton" and "kodranten": the KJV goes with the terms "mite" (which was probably not a current coin even in those days) and "farthing", which is very British. It uses the equally British "penny" for the denarius. The ESV regularly retains the very British penny (following its source, the RSV), and even the supposedly American CSB has "penny" in Matthew 5:26 and 10:29, unlike the genuinely American NASB, which goes with "cent" throughout (CSB has "cent" in Luke 12:59). By the way, this is a great example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV, translating small coins into equivalent familiar small coins, rather than simply transliterating!
 
My British blood (Lowland Scottish--AKA not English-hating Highlander-- & English) boils to read of such things!

And Newfoundlanders is what happens when the Irish don't have the civilizing influence of old Bristish culture, and are instead left to themselves in the New World. A scary thing.

I still shake my head at Prairie cowboys driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks. What an odd phenomenon! At least you have far less of the French influence in BC!

But there was a time when even your lowland people were not so eager to adopt the demonym British and also a time when many, especially of Presbyterian and Reformed conviction, sympathized with the American "rebellion." As one of (partial) Scots heritage myself I still am piqued at England's abandonment of the Solemn League and Covenant. I'll take Christ's Crown and Covenant over Charles and Canterbury. :knox:

I still grant that the Brits, excepting Cockney variants and their ilk, have a far greater command of the language than Americans.

Anyways, we typically use the AV and ESV in our family. I tend to use the AV more and my wife the ESV but we use both.
 
Last edited:
I use the AV for all occasions, and so does my wife. Just can’t understand why Josh keeps using the KJV in every instance. Surely he must have heard of the Alternative Version instead of Knowing Josh’s Version! Not only that but though he is under grace he breaks the law, in that I believe the AV under the law of the realm, is the only Authorised Version to be read in churches. Get with it Josh, and update your reading by joining our AV only society, and be an Advanced Verbalist, renouncing all Americanisms and solely defending the KING JAMES VERSION.
 
I still shake my head at Prairie cowboys driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks. What an odd phenomenon! At least you have far less of the French influence in BC!

But there was a time when even your lowland people were not so eager to adopt the demonym British and also a time when many, especially of Presbyterian and Reformed conviction, sympathized with the American "rebellion." As one of (partial) Scots heritage myself I still am piqued at England's abandonment of the Solemn League and Covenant. I'll take Christ's Crown and Covenant over Charles and Canterbury. :knox:

I still grant that the Brits, excepting Cockney variants and their ilk, have a far greater command of the language than Americans.

Anyways, we typically use the AV and ESV in our family. I tend to use the AV more and my wife the ESV but we use both.

I sometimes wrestle in my mind about being of both Scottish and English descent, and what my thoughts are about England/the Union, etc.

I'd be lying if I put on an anti-English bias due to my Scottish roots though. The deal breaker is perhaps that, in her glory days, Canada was mostly a very British nation; therefore, I can consider myself Canadian-British, with Scottish roots.

I wonder how my family felt about England when they left Glasgow for Canada in the 1820's?
 
We certainly know what the word 'trash' means, but it just isn't in common usage here. Nor would do we think that trash was an American invention (the Americans butcher the English language, then us Australians come along and make it worse), but since it is used mostly by Americans, it strikes our ears as being "too American" when it appears in the translation, and distracts the congregation. Due to this the CSB now sits on my shelf, although I do enjoy reading it every now and then.
 
I use the AV for all occasions, and so does my wife. Just can’t understand why Josh keeps using the KJV in every instance. Surely he must have heard of the Alternative Version instead of Knowing Josh’s Version! Not only that but though he is under grace he breaks the law, in that I believe the AV under the law of the realm, is the only Authorised Version to be read in churches. Get with it Josh, and update your reading by joining our AV only society, and be an Advanced Verbalist, renouncing all Americanisms and solely defending the KING JAMES VERSION.

Haha!

Her Majesty authorised the printing of the NIV for Her diamond jubilee, so I guess that makes the NIV the New Authorised Version.
 
(the Americans butcher the English language, then us Australians come along and make it worse),
Josh, you gave us Kiwis some free ammunition :) I met some American Reformed Baptists touring New Zealand a few months ago. They said they loved NZ Fish and Chips. I was very impressed they said Fish and Chips with the same accent as us Kiwis. So the concept of fesh and cheps is foreign to American thinking. :rofl: :rofl:
 
Josh, you gave us Kiwis some free ammunition :) I met some American Reformed Baptists touring New Zealand a few months ago. They said they loved NZ Fish and Chips. I was very impressed they said Fish and Chips with the same accent as us Kiwis. So the concept of fesh and cheps is foreign to American thinking. :rofl: :rofl:

NZ is the land of the long lost vowel.
 
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=dignity&direct_url=t4;,dignity;,c0;,s0;;dignity;,c0;;Dignity;,c0

This is interesting, and sad.

Note the steady decline of the usage of the word 'dignity' within the books that Google has in Google Books. Fractions of percentages of all books, but still. A striking graphic.

Dignity is not even on our lips any longer as it once was.

The data cannot support that conclusion. One might then also note the sad, steady decline of the use of the word "foot" in our 20th century.

First, the percentages are so small that we're close to the noise level (two versus eight thousandths of one percent). Second, there may be many factors that contribute to a perceived decline: not just changing language but copyright laws which mean fewer (or certain types) of modern books are indexed, automatically excluding a huge portion of what is being printed today. Third, you're relying on OCR to recognize these words, and not all will be accounted for equally over each time period. Fourth, the decline could be contributed by the number of books indexed from other languages (and their copyright laws) changing over time. Lastly, if you'll draw that graph back to the 1600s, you'll see that the usage of the word appears to have risen (based on the data obtainable), which could lead one to the conclusion that the 1600s were a sad period too!

Or even changing the time period and being case sensitive, we could be encouraged that "Dignity" has doubled in usage since the 1920s!
 
Last edited:
The data cannot support that conclusion. One might then also note the sad, steady decline of the use of the word "foot" in our 20th century.

First, the percentages are so small that we're close to the noise level (two versus eight thousandths of one percent). Second, there may be many factors that contribute to a perceived decline: not just changing language but copyright laws which mean fewer (or certain types) of modern books are indexed, automatically excluding a huge portion of what is being printed today. Third, you're relying on OCR to recognize these words, and not all will be accounted for equally over each time period. Fourth, the decline could be contributed by the number of books indexed from other languages (and their copyright laws) changing over time. Lastly, if you'll draw that graph back to the 1600s, you'll see that the usage of the word appears to have risen (based on the data obtainable), which could lead one to the conclusion that the 1600s were a sad period too!

Or even changing the time period and being case sensitive, we could be encouraged that "Dignity" has doubled in usage since the 1920s!
I didn't know that, thanks.
 
With a name like Jones you should know that is not true.:deadhorse:There are 7 vowels in Welsh and only 5 in English.Such is the versatility of the language that there is a poem written on the subject of the spider ,only penned in consonants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top