Do you struggle with which version to use?
- Thread starter BG
- Start date
- Status
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
To answer the title question: No, I don't struggle with which version to use.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
I have used the NASB since seminary days (almost 30 years), but of the three you listed, I would go with the NKJV.
No struggle at all. Best solution is to use the version your church uses.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I really like the NASB, and the pulpit Bible I uses is a giant print NASB (which is helpful b/c it is easily readable). I have often thought about switching to the NKJV (since it takes a "best of both worlds" approach to translation, and the psalms read much better than the NASB). However, what I have found is that congregants like the NASB so much (or the fact that that's the one the preacher uses!) at my last two churches that they have taken upon themselves to "switch" (i.e., buy a new Bible) to that translation. So, at present, I am "stuck" with the NASB, but would think about switching to the NKJV (or possibly the ESV) if and when my giant print Bible finally falls apart.
reformedminister
Puritan Board Sophomore
I preach from the KJV, and mostly study from it. Sometimes I will study from my ESV Reformation Study Bible. I have other translations but rarely use them at all.
What is the pulpit version? Which version does the pastor preach from? When you include Scripture in the bulletin, which version do you use?
If it is a hodge-podge, I would suggest that the Session take up the issue and decide on an "official" version. Not that it is the only one allowed to be used, but it would be the version used in public church documents and preaching.
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I do not struggle, I use several. However, when teaching I currently use NIV and would also use ESV because of the reading level of most in the class. If I read from Gen. or KJV, I'll probably frustrate the class.
reformedminister
Puritan Board Sophomore
I did struggle in the past. I have studied from different translations but always went back to the KJV. If I were to use a modern translation I would use the ESV. It is a great translation. I was preaching from the ESV so that it would be more understandable to those in the pews. However, most people in my congregation use the KJV. Since that is my favorite I now preach from the KJV, and explain archaic words when I come across them. Personally, I feel studying with the KJV has encouraged me to dig deeper in the Word. Early in my Christian walk, I would look up the English words and compare them to the Hebrew and Greek. Any Christian can learn to use a good dictionary and a Strong's Concordance, unless they are a lazy. If they put those to use they can purchase word studies and lexicons and dig even deeper.
ubermadchen
Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
No struggle here. I love my NASB but use the ESV for when I'm at work since the website is easier to navigate and compare translations. Our church uses ESV. Both translations are similar enough for me to not get distracted during public readings.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
This book might be helpful.
Product Description
This commentary is especially useful for pastors and teachers who know that the members of their audiences use a variety of different English versions. It is also a helpful tool for serious students of the Bible, including laypeople and seminary students. In addition to this passage-by-passage commentary, the reader is introduced to the art of textual criticism, its importance for studying the New Testament, and the challenges translators of English versions face.
Presented in a clear, easy to read manner. All major English translations are surveyed & tabulated.
Amazon.com: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Philip W. Comfort: Books
Product Description
This commentary is especially useful for pastors and teachers who know that the members of their audiences use a variety of different English versions. It is also a helpful tool for serious students of the Bible, including laypeople and seminary students. In addition to this passage-by-passage commentary, the reader is introduced to the art of textual criticism, its importance for studying the New Testament, and the challenges translators of English versions face.
Presented in a clear, easy to read manner. All major English translations are surveyed & tabulated.
Amazon.com: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Philip W. Comfort: Books
21st Century Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
I have been through most of them- KJV, NIV, KJV (again) NKJV, ESV. At church we use the ESV and it is also popular at seminary. I have used the ESV for a number of years now and I like it but from time to time I miss the NIV.
I like the idea of using the same translation that your church uses and I guess I have more or less followed that pattern.
I like the idea of using the same translation that your church uses and I guess I have more or less followed that pattern.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes, I have struggled. My struggle relates to the faithfulness of the English translation and the correct textual tradition to use.
* The ESV has just about become the de facto translation for contemporary Reformed believers and Calvinists generally (the TR and BR
). I find it to be an annoying translation to read, however. It seems inartful, choppy, and irregular from a stylistic perspective.
* The HCSB is a WONDERFUL Bible to read, essentially literal, and up-to-date. However, it is unlikely to capture the largest share of the market and that is a consideration. Who wants to use a Bible that few people reference, read, or memorize? If I could wave a magic wand, I would make the ESV disappear and the HCSB take its place. But, alas, my wand got broken the last time I sat down too fast and forgot that it was in my back pocket.
* I have recently found the NKJV to be a superior Bible in most respects: it reads (to my ears) much more smoothly than the ESV and offers a fairly full poor man's equivalent to an apparatus regarding textual variants in the majority, textus receptus, and critical text manuscripts. However, if you are in the vast majority of folks who are certain that Aleph and Vaticanus are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the Greek New Testament," then it would be a less than ideal solution.
Since your church evidently uses the KJV (textus receptus) already, I would suggest that you try the NKJV. Beware, it is not simply a washing of the "thees and thous" out in favor of more contemporary English. It makes textual corrections in places and corrects mistranslations in the KJV. For example: "deliver us from evil" becomes the more exegetically accurate "deliver us from the evil one." But, for me as a NON-KJV only person, that is an argument in favor of using it.
From a study Bible perspective, you have an abundance of riches.
* ESV Study Bible = the FINEST study Bible ever devised in the English language. Superior in every way, albeit not exclusively Calvinistic.
* Reformation Study Bible (available in either the ESV or NKJV versions) = my favorite for a number of reasons (put out by my hero R.C. Sproul, containing virtually an entire theology book by J.I. Packer in the form of nearly 100 boxed discussions of doctrinal topics distributed throughout the volume, and it is thoroughly Calvinist!).
* The ESV has just about become the de facto translation for contemporary Reformed believers and Calvinists generally (the TR and BR
). I find it to be an annoying translation to read, however. It seems inartful, choppy, and irregular from a stylistic perspective.* The HCSB is a WONDERFUL Bible to read, essentially literal, and up-to-date. However, it is unlikely to capture the largest share of the market and that is a consideration. Who wants to use a Bible that few people reference, read, or memorize? If I could wave a magic wand, I would make the ESV disappear and the HCSB take its place. But, alas, my wand got broken the last time I sat down too fast and forgot that it was in my back pocket.
* I have recently found the NKJV to be a superior Bible in most respects: it reads (to my ears) much more smoothly than the ESV and offers a fairly full poor man's equivalent to an apparatus regarding textual variants in the majority, textus receptus, and critical text manuscripts. However, if you are in the vast majority of folks who are certain that Aleph and Vaticanus are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts of the Greek New Testament," then it would be a less than ideal solution.
Since your church evidently uses the KJV (textus receptus) already, I would suggest that you try the NKJV. Beware, it is not simply a washing of the "thees and thous" out in favor of more contemporary English. It makes textual corrections in places and corrects mistranslations in the KJV. For example: "deliver us from evil" becomes the more exegetically accurate "deliver us from the evil one." But, for me as a NON-KJV only person, that is an argument in favor of using it.
From a study Bible perspective, you have an abundance of riches.
* ESV Study Bible = the FINEST study Bible ever devised in the English language. Superior in every way, albeit not exclusively Calvinistic.
* Reformation Study Bible (available in either the ESV or NKJV versions) = my favorite for a number of reasons (put out by my hero R.C. Sproul, containing virtually an entire theology book by J.I. Packer in the form of nearly 100 boxed discussions of doctrinal topics distributed throughout the volume, and it is thoroughly Calvinist!).
Galatians220
Inactive User
Never. What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among so many others, is good enough for me.
Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
Margaret
Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
Margaret
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Never. What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among so many others, is good enough for me.
Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
Margaret
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is one of the first questions I always ask churches in which I am going to fill a pulpit. That way I can tailor the structure of the Sermon around the way the text flows in the translation they use.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
Never. What was good enough for Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Andrew Bonar, Octavius Winslow and even Herman Hoeksema, among so many others, is good enough for me.
Dr. Edward F. Hills has explained it adequately.
Margaret
Dr. Hills' student, Dr. Theodore Letis also explains it quite well. A review of what i consider his best work is found here...
The Ecclesiastical Text
No, it's not a struggle for me. After drifting around (guided mostly by what was being used in the pulpit) I came back to the NASB and would be greatly saddened to see anything happen to my current Bible. My advice would be: find a good translation you like and stick with it for most purposes. If you don't know the original languages (I don't) keep several translations on hand for comparison while studying.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Not really. The AV works for me, although I consult other translations.
Add this to your library and you can then have them all at your fingertips for the New Testament:
1. Oxford University Press: The Evangelical Parallel New Testament:
Add this to your library and you can then have them all at your fingertips for the New Testament:
1. Oxford University Press: The Evangelical Parallel New Testament:
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
For preaching and teaching I used the NASB for my English Bible from 1981 until three years ago. Then I began to use the ESV. It is accurate and much less 'woody' than the NASB. I still use it some, but I have begun to use the KJV/AV a good bit in the past year. It is not a TR/CT issue. I just like it. I have used it as my personal study translation for most of my life. I have been finding that in our new little church when I preach from the KJV it seems to require people to pay stricter attention. That is especially evident with the younger ones. People have commented that they are able to remember the text better and the attendant exegesis and application.
Sorry Dennis. I can't stand the HSCB.
Sorry Dennis. I can't stand the HSCB.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Our church mainly uses KJV; at the moment I have a KJV-NIV parallel Bible, because I found the NIV more easily readable than either the KJV or the NASB. I've run into a few difficulties with its dynamic equivalences though, and I'm considering switching to the ESV, owing to recommendations from here and elsewhere.
Grafted In
Puritan Board Freshman
I cannot help but wonder if the plethora of English translations available is a hindrance to the Church and has shown to be a symptom of denominationalism. The appeal of any given translation is dependent upon the subject theological and presuppostional preferences of the reader.
I agree with what others have said in this thread, that the Church (via the elders) should decide on a translation that the congregation is encouraged to read so that there can be almost a common "tongue" among the members of a given church.
I agree with what others have said in this thread, that the Church (via the elders) should decide on a translation that the congregation is encouraged to read so that there can be almost a common "tongue" among the members of a given church.
Glenn Ferrell
Puritan Board Junior
I recently was informed the leadership of a particular congregation expects guest preachers to use the NIV, which is the version available in the pew. To this, I replied in part:
... the choice of version of Bible to be read in a service or as text for preaching goes beyond the authority of a council, consistory or session to dictate, unless it may be a version inconsistent with the scripture as a whole or not true to the original text, or in an unknown tongue. The actual words read or used by a minister leading a service may not be dictated. This is a matter of powers of office (those held by virtue of office) and liberty of conscience. I for one will not read in public worship any version of scripture based upon the critical text, unless I am convinced otherwise.
I read and preach from the AV exclusively in public worship.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Nah... you're putting the cart before the horse! To demonstrate that YOU are the pastor, the shepherd, the point man, etc., not to mention that you are the one who has actually studied these things and so you know better than they, you should compel the church to use the version YOU prefer.
christiana
Puritan Board Senior
When I first attended my church the pastor was using the NASB so I bought one as well. Shortly thereafter he was gifted with a ESV and I decided, No I would not be going there but would return to my favorite of all, the NKJV and have remained with it, very contented.
- Status
Similar threads
