Bible Translation Poll - 2020 Edition

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

Main is, and probably always will be is the ESV. I have tried switching to the NASB, CSB and NKJV in the past but always come back to the ESV. There's something about it that I find poetic and beautiful to read. Still love those other translations still.

 

[Afterthought]

KJV, for the same reasons others who use it have said in this thread.

 

[David Taylor]

ESV because of its tradition of the Tyndale/KJV line, but its use of the older manuscripts.

 

[David Taylor]

I agree with both things you said about the KJV. It is beautiful and designed to be read aloud. Did you know that there's a revised version of the NASB coming out shortly? I am really looking forward to it although I don't know anything about it yet. I'm old enough to remember when the NIV was all the rage in many churches. But in time it fell out of favor and the switch was made to the ESV. But the perennial NASB just won't go away and it seems to be making a comeback these days.

Does anybody else know about this NASB revision?

Preview posts are on facebook. https://www.facebook.com/TheLockmanFoundation

 

[Username3000]

I had been using the ESV since I was saved about 6 years ago, with some dabbling in the KJV.

But recently I’ve been using the NASB77, and I like it very much. I think I will be switching my family over to it full time.

I find it interesting that people both praise and dislike the ESV for its English usage.

 

[David Taylor]

I had been using the ESV since I was saved about 6 years ago, with some dabbling in the KJV.

But recently I’ve been using the NASB77, and I like it very much. I think I will be switching my family over to it full time.

I find it interesting that people both praise and dislike the ESV for its English usage.

Just curious why you switched to NASB77?

 

[Username3000]

Just curious why you switched to NASB77?

Just because I found a nice used 77 that I like at a thrift store. I’m working with what I have without spending more money than needed.

The 95 is what the rest of my family will use if we make the switch. Whether 77 or 95, I like it more than the ESV, which I was using previously.

Though, I do like the thee’s and thou’s when addressing God in the 77.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

KJV, for the same reasons others who use it have said in this thread.

KJV, and ditto.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

A question for those who read the KJV.

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

 

[David Taylor]

Just because I found a nice used 77 that I like at a thrift store. I’m working with what I have without spending more money than needed.

The 95 is what the rest of my family will use if we make the switch. Whether 77 or 95, I like it more than the ESV, which I was using previously.

Though, I do like the thee’s and thou’s when addressing God in the 77.

Sorry, I was asking why you like it over the ESV.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A question for those who read the KJV.

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

I'm convinced for doctrinal/theological reasons of the TR position. I believe the KJV is the best English translation we have available. I did not grow up in a Christian household and only began to use the KJV about three years ago, switching from around 12 years with the ESV.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I started using the KJV in the last year for my own personal reading. We use the NKJV for family devotions because my kiddos do a better job of grasping the text. They are very new readers and can struggle mightily with the basics still. ESV is used by the church we attend, and I half a nice leather ESV I take for service. It is convenient because the format is the same as the pew editions. My wife worked at Crossway in the past (still does proofreading), so we have a lot of Crossway material.

Every time I open it--and I mean every time--I open the ESV I mumble under my breath "I really don't like this translation." I kid you not. ...but there's so much I don't like about it. I absolutely despise the gender-neutral readings, the missing verses really bother me even though I understand the research of why they are not there. It always seemed to me that for a scribe to innocently omit a verse would be more likely than to do the unthinkable of adding in their own thoughts. So there you have. The ESV is my primary translation for 2020 but as I said, I really don't like it.

THANK YOU!!!

ESV because of its tradition of the Tyndale/KJV line

I'm familiar with this claim. It is stated this way in the preface, too. However, I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning for them saying this. Can you, or someone else, give an explanation or defense of this?

 

[J.L. Allen]

A question for those who read the KJV.

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

@Jeri Tanner has put it well. My experience, though not quite the same as hers in all respects, is indeed similar.

 

[Harrison]

Since buying a premium quality NKJV four years ago it's been my primary translation. I've always appreciated the NKJV's combination of accuracy, poetic language, and readability. Textual variants in the footnotes, capitalization of divine pronouns, and its italicizing added words are additional pluses. "He is risen!" - ah, it just does not get any better than that in the English language!

 

[JimmyH]

I'm familiar with this claim. It is stated this way in the preface, too. However, I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning for them saying this. Can you, or someone else, give an explanation or defense of this?

Leland Ryken wrote a couple of books on the ESV, praising it and states that it is in the Tyndale tradition. If I recall correctly 85% of the KJV is Tyndale ?
https://www.amazon.com/ESV-English-...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581978037&sr=8-2https://www.amazon.com/ESV-English-...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1581978037&sr=8-2

The ESV is a revision of the RSV, is a revision of the RV, which is a revision of the KJV. The KJV is a translation/revision of the BIshop's BIble, and also borrowed from others that preceded it. All of those used significant portions of the Tyndale translation.
http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.htmlhttp://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html

 

[ZackF]

I personally use the KJV for reading and personal study. We use CSB in family worship. In the Sunday School class I teach most often the ESV.

I'm sorry. I left out the 'why' part.

For personal use (KJV): Despite appearances the contrary, I'm a pretty conservative guy. I like the sound and history of the KJV. It's referenced in the Standards. As odd as it seems, it is the easiest for me to memorize.

For family use (CSB, the updated HCSB): The is the version I read in family worship. I didn't think much of it until Logan mentioned that he was using it with his family. I bought a copy for my daughter who reads and understands it well. I do quibble about some of the seemingly forced inclusiveness and there are some awkward renderings but overall I like it. My wife uses the NASB herself. When she leads prayer and worship with the girls when I'm not around she reads from it.

For SS (ESV): Quite plainly much of our SS materials use this translation. The students are familiar with it. It is 'common ground' in many respects. There are times I've used other versions like NASB or KJV in class but the majority of time we read from ESV though I don't bag on any of the translations the kids use or bring themselves. I'm just grateful that most of them have a well worn personal bibles that they read on their own.

 

[bookslover]

If I recall correctly 85% of the KJV is Tyndale?

Only in the New Testament, as I understand it. Tyndale's translation was carried over, almost in its entirety, into the KJV.

 

[gjensen]

I do not have a primary Bible. I prefer the NKJV. It is a pleasure to read, reliable, and clear. It is largely based on a settled text. With the variants in the footnotes, it is a good companion to the NASB with the translator's notes.

 

[wcf_linux]

The ESV came out when I was in college and I jumped on it. Biola was mainly using NASB then (at least the Torrey program adopted ESV just after I graduated), and reading long passages in NASB can be a chore. I also liked that ESV lacked a couple of the more questionable choices of the old NIV (sinful nature instead of flesh, for example).

Though we moved last year, and the new church's pastor uses NKJV from the pulpit. So I made a point to get one and use that at church. It's not that I can't follow just fine from a different translation, but why waste the effort?

 

[TheInquirer]

ESV - never knew there was anything supposedly wrong with it before reading here and haven't really desired to go down that rabbit hole.

I am currently doing my daily reading in NASB this year because I need a change after so many years of ESV reading.

 

[Username3000]

Sorry, I was asking why you like it over the ESV.

I made the the switch due to an accumulation of things.

1. I’m becoming less and less comfortable with Crossway due to things such as the 2016 Permanent Text debacle; their newest translation of Genesis 3:16 (which to me doesn’t bode well for the overall arc of their updates every five years); their support of “scripture art journaling” as a means of devotion; and their approval of a Catholic Edition of the ESV.

I could be completely wrong about this, but Crossway seems to be a publishing powerhouse that created an unneeded translation in the early 2000’s, is now pumping out countless types of Bibles for every use under the sun, and does not display strong enough convictions or wisdom in doing so. But again, I could be wrong; it’s just my perception.

They have become like The Gospel Coalition to me. Yes, there are some good things; but there are also things that give me great pause, and cause me to be wary.


2. I read as many sources as I could find that compared particular translation choices between the ESV and the NASB. I didn’t save any of them unfortunately, but they shook the previously strong foundations of my trust in the ESV. I’m not knowledgeable in this area, so again, this was my fallible perception of things. I could be wrong.

3. My trust in the NASB has far surpassed that of the ESV.

The fruit of the aforementioned comparison between translations; the almost universally accepted fact that the NASB is more literal; the Greek-esque syntax (so Ive been told); the transparency of added words being italicized (not unique to the NASB, I know. But nonexistent in the ESV); and comparing Lockman to Crossway, I trust Lockman more.

4. The NASB is the translation of choice of men whom I hold in very high esteem.

Overall, it really comes down to my trust in Crossway/ESV having lessened, and my trust in the NASB and it’s quality having increased.

————————

I will add that I am discouraged by the changes I’ve seen in the upcoming NASB update, so that complicates things, and raises questions in my mind about Lockman. Hence why I am stocking up on old NASB’s.

 

[bookslover]

I made the the switch due to an accumulation of things.

1. I’m becoming less and less comfortable with Crossway due to things such as the 2016 Permanent Text debacle; their newest translation of Genesis 3:16 (which to me doesn’t bode well for the overall arc of their updates every five years); their support of “scripture art journaling” as a means of devotion; and their approval of a Catholic Edition of the ESV.

I could be completely wrong about this, but Crossway seems to be a publishing powerhouse that created an unneeded translation in the early 2000’s, is now pumping out countless types of Bibles for every use under the sun, and does not display strong enough convictions or wisdom in doing so. But again, I could be wrong; it’s just my perception.

They have become like The Gospel Coalition to me. Yes, there are some good things; but there are also things that give me great pause, and cause me to be wary.


2. I read as many sources as I could find that compared particular translation choices between the ESV and the NASB. I didn’t save any of them unfortunately, but they shook the previously strong foundations of my trust in the ESV. I’m not knowledgeable in this area, so again, this was my fallible perception of things. I could be wrong.

3. My trust in the NASB has far surpassed that of the ESV.

The fruit of the aforementioned comparison between translations; the almost universally accepted fact that the NASB is more literal; the Greek-esque syntax (so Ive been told); the transparency of added words being italicized (not unique to the NASB, I know. But nonexistent in the ESV); and comparing Lockman to Crossway, I trust Lockman more.

4. The NASB is the translation of choice of men whom I hold in very high esteem.

Overall, it really comes down to my trust in Crossway/ESV having lessened, and my trust in the NASB and it’s quality having increased.

————————

I will add that I am discouraged by the changes I’ve seen in the upcoming NASB update, so that complicates things, and raises questions in my mind about Lockman. Hence why I am stocking up on old NASB’s.

It seems that most of the reasons you don't like the ESV have little to do with the translation itself (although you did list a couple). That doesn't seem very fair to the translation. No translation is perfect, but I enjoy the ESV very much.

 

[Username3000]

It seems that most of the reasons you don't like the ESV have little to do with the translation itself (although you did list a couple). That doesn't seem very fair to the translation. No translation is perfect, but I enjoy the ESV very much.

Well, the points about the respective translations themselves carry the most weight with me, even though I named more other issues.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

My go-to for the last three years has been the NRSV. It is extremely well written and the language is smooth. Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611. (No translation has done John 1 or Philippians 2 any better.)

It does have a liberal bent, but it challenges me to consider other perspectives on a passage, and often it’s liberalism is merely a different rendering - like in the OT many passages seem to be what a BC person might have seen on the surface. It has not liberalized my doctrines at all. (Yes, many of its liberal readings are just that, so I have my filters running.)

There are some conservatives who have been kind to it, such as DA Carson. Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.

Having said this Our church uses the ESV and I take a wide margin ESV and make detailed sermon notes. I’ve also used the NASB, KJV, NIV, and ASV recently among others.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

A question for those who read the KJV.

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

1. I'm convinced that its textual basis is sound.
2. It's highly literal.
3. Words that are supplied by the translators are in italics.
4. The older pronoun system distinguishes between singular (thee/thou) and plural (you/ye) pronouns, as with the Greek and Hebrew.
5. The marginal notes of the KJV translators provide helpful alternative (strictly literal, sometimes) translations and variant readings. Often, these notes anticipate what is found in later translations.

Add to that the fact that it's the preferred translation throughout my denomination, and the only one that is preached from in my presbytery.

 

[B.L.]

My go-to for the last three years has been the NRSV. It is extremely well written and the language is smooth. Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611. (No translation has done John 1 or Philippians 2 any better.)

....

There are some conservatives who have been kind to it, such as DA Carson. Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.

I recently added the NRSV to one of the BibleGateway filters I use when looking up passages in multiple translations and I too have found it well written and smooth.

With regards to theologians who have been kind to it, I had heard in the past Michael Horton uses the NRSV though I have never been able to verify that. Interesting to read the names you've highlighted. I know very little about this translation and the voices in favor/against it.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you write "Strictly on language, I think it is the closest equivalent to what the KJV was in 1611"?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Others such as Michael Bird and Michael Holmes are involved with the forthcoming revision which is encouraging.

The Newly Revised New Revised Standard Version???

 

[Claudiu]

A question for those who read the KJV.

Do you do so because you believe it is a superior translation or is it out of tradition/I was raised on the KJV?

Both. I grew up on it - oddly enough. I am the son of immigrant parents and the KJV closely matched the Romanian in the "sound of scripture." Later on I wrestled through textual criticism. In college I was largely convinced of the critical text arguments and read out of the ESV. Since then, I've come back to the KJV, and I do think it is a superior translation. The Reformation Heritage study notes help make sense of some of the archaic words, and the family worship guide is great!

 

[J.L. Allen]

5. The marginal notes of the KJV translators provide helpful alternative (strictly literal, sometimes) translations and variant readings. Often, these notes anticipate what is found in later translations.

I appreciate the concise overview.

Question: where would one find these marginal notes?

 

[dalecosby]

I voted ESV as that is what my church primarily uses. I primarily read on a Kobo reader and I have other translations such as the CSB and the NKJ. In practice I almost always either use the ESV for church and anything I am looking up. I read the NKJ for reading through mostly just because it's easier to keep the bookmarks separate.