Bible Tranlations.

Bible Versions on PB

  • King James

    Votes: 22 24.7%
  • New King James

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • New American Standard

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • English Standard Version

    Votes: 41 46.1%
  • New International Version

    Votes: 2 2.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 9.0%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
Just curious, I grew up in the UMC and my first Bible was an RSV. This was the 70's yes...did anyone else have an RSV "phase"?:detective: (RSV used to be THE pew Bible in the Methodist Church.)
 

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
LadyFlynt said:
Really? Why can't you understand the others?

I think most of the people on this site have no idea how hard it is for many people to read some of these ridiculously old translations because most of the people on this site grew up on them. I never grew up on the KJV, nor the ASV, or even the RSV, I grew up on the NIV. Besides the Shakespeare sections in English class I've had zero contact with KJV English or syntax.

Think of it this way: When you learn a language when you're young, you tend to be much more able in the language when you're older. However, start a language when you're 25 and even after 20 years you won't have compete command over it.

There are so many times where I've read the KJV (again, much more often in the Prophets, Psalms and Wisdom then elsewhere), I think I know what's going on, then I read some modern translations and realize I'm WAY off.

So why should I struggle to read my Bible when I have some perfectly good translations translated in the language I actually speak and read? I don't need the Bible to sound all "holy" and "majestic" I need it to communicate to me God's truth.

A lot of you come off like the Greek Orthodox who scoff at those who need a modern Greek translation of the New Testament: "Why on earth would you want to read a Greek translation of the Bible when you already have the original Greek in your hands!" I'll tell you why: So I can understand it. Isn't that more important?

I know a lot of you think the KJV is so vastly superior to anything out today that taking the time to learn 17th century English should be a priority. However, I don't follow that line of thinking (the KJV being vastly superior) and thus, the desire of being able to understand my Bible really makes the KJV obsolete in my eyes.
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
I read Romans in the Holman last night ,it was pretty good, my problem is that I hold to the TR and am also just used to the sound and feel of the AV.:2cents:
 
Last edited:

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
OK PB guys and gals my wife and I are leaving for the the Keys this afternoon, so this poll still has a few days left on it and a lot of regulars still have not voted, I would like someone to become caretaker of this (keep it alive) for at least the next two or three days, a bump or two now and then, I am really interested in the translation issue and cannot wait to read the posts and poll when we return. Grace and Peace.:)
 

Ivan

Pastor
I do not intend ever to break fellowship with a brother or sister in Christ over their choice of what translation of the Bible they use....not that anyone is saying that here, but I want to be clear about that.

My journey through the translations is, I believe, typical for a person my age. I grew up with the AV. In fact, I don't think I knew there was anything else until I was in my mid-teens (circa '68). The church I grew up in used the AV, but did employ the Today's English Version (Good News) and the Living Bible. I think it was done out of novelty and a nod to the teens in the church in the mid 60's to early 70's. But never was another translation other than the AV was used in the pulpit.

When I went to college I attended a SBC church where the pastor was reformed-friendly and taught the doctrines of grace. While there he switched to the NASB. Again, I think it may have been more the idea of something new and novel, although I know he was big on a more literal translation of the Bible. He has since switched to the NKJV and has used it for many years.

I have used the AV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and the NKJV, which is my primary translation of use. I still like reading the AV, but don't use it at this time when preaching. I'm a NKJVer at this point. Of the translations I've mention the NKJV, AV, ESV, and the NASB are the only ones I recommend.

I've used many different translations in study, but interestingly I've never read the HSB. Imagine...a Southern Baptist who has not read it! I think I should purchase a copy however. It seems better than some.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Mark,

My question was not a snub...it was serious. I've heard a number of reasons why someone believes they cannot understand the KJV and like translations. My husband and others I know that grew up on modern translations, now find they prefer the KJV BECAUSE of the differences. A study done several years back actually showed the NIV replaced simpler English words (in the KJV) with more complicated English words in many passages. Other areas it left out parts of a passage altogether (and yes, I've heard all the excuses why).

Despite all of this, it was not a criticism of your use of the NIV...it was a sincere question. There is one circumstance where my husband and I (being KJV or older translations) have actually given and recommended a newer translation/version. We knew a gent who was sincere in wanting to study the Word and yet barely could read...only enough to fill in a job application and acquire a bluecollar job. We gave him a parallel Bible (4 translations side by side). We told him to read it in the KJV, then the NKJV, the NASB...and the reasons we didn't recommend the NIV, but naturally if he wanted, just read all 4. That helped him in many respects...one was that he bettered his reading and became accustomed to being able to read the KJV and NKJV as well as the other translations. He even was able to pick up on the differences from what I understand.

Just a thought.
 

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
I know some folks who, because of their reverance for the KJV, they even pray out loud in church in old english.

It is very strange to me.

It seems that the most clear way of talking in your native tongue should also be the way one prays, and we should strive for our Bible translations to be clear likewise.

I "pray out loud in church in old english" which is for three reasons:

1. The language is more God honouring i.e. addressing God as Thee, Thy and Thou.

2. I often will quote Scripture in my prayers which naturally comes from the AV

3. As a Church in the service I attend (8am Holy Communion) we use the BCP 1662 which is obviously from 1662 ;)

in my opinion "It is very strange to me" why you would not do this. But at the end of the day, you speak to God how you wish (up to a point of course) and I will do likewise. :handshake:
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I voted ESV, which is the version I carry in my pocket. I grew up KJV, but my thirst to truly understand God's word led me away to the NIV when I was around 19 - my weakness, I'm sure, but the funny thing is - most of the verses in my memory are KJV.

Truth be told, I reference many versions at Bible Gateway when I research/study and "test" the texts (and my presuppositions!) with the Interlinear Study Bible.

It has these sources:

Old Testament Source
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)
Septuagint (LXX)

New Testament Source
Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text
1894 Textus Receptus
1991 Byzantine Greek Text
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
I did see the Geneva fac with the buckle and it is VERY cool, I would never use that, I would keep it as a collectors piece.:up:

Those fac copies are VERY hard to read, though... I did a bit of reading in the 1599 during grad school when the Cornell library had bought a copy (at my request! :)) but not only do you have to do the translation of f's to s's and the like, but the copy on those is often quite smudgy.

My poll answer is "other" - I'm very thankful that Tolle Lege came out with the 1599 reprint last year - it's my usual reading bible, though I do go to the ESV, NASB and AV for cross-checking.
 

Ivan

Pastor
Those fac copies are VERY hard to read, though... I did a bit of reading in the 1599 during grad school when the Cornell library had bought a copy (at my request! :)) but not only do you have to do the translation of f's to s's and the like, but the copy on those is often quite smudgy.

My poll answer is "other" - I'm very thankful that Tolle Lege came out with the 1599 reprint last year - it's my usual reading bible, though I do go to the ESV, NASB and AV for cross-checking.

Todd,

Has Tolle Lege corrected the problems with their first printing of the Geneva?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Those fac copies are VERY hard to read, though... I did a bit of reading in the 1599 during grad school when the Cornell library had bought a copy (at my request! :)) but not only do you have to do the translation of f's to s's and the like, but the copy on those is often quite smudgy.
I've seen one IRL. The print doesn't bother me, though I could see how it would most people. I love old things and the f's to s's comes easily to me now since I was learning German from Luther's Bible.
 

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
I appreciated your post LadyFlynt, thanks. Just one comment:

I don't read the NIV, I read the HCSB! I grew up on the NIV, but during college I realized I really needed to change that. My school used the NRSV as its translation, but I didn't like it, nor the reasons it was chosen. Eventually I went to the ESV but still had a hard time with it, and finally have rested on the HCSB for my reading Bible. in-depth study of course I will look at all sorts of translations, including the KJV ;)

:cheers:
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I appreciated your post LadyFlynt, thanks. Just one comment:

I don't read the NIV, I read the HCSB! I grew up on the NIV, but during college I realized I really needed to change that. My school used the NRSV as its translation, but I didn't like it, nor the reasons it was chosen. Eventually I went to the ESV but still had a hard time with it, and finally have rested on the HCSB for my reading Bible. in-depth study of course I will look at all sorts of translations, including the KJV ;)

:cheers:

Mark - Could you post some text from the HCSB, from a familiar passage, like Romans 1, for example? I'm not familiar with this translation at all. I've seen copies, but I don't think I've ever cracked one open. If you've a mind to do it, just post 8 or 10 verses; that should be enough to get a feel for it.

Others on the PB have said they read it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's curious.
 

VaughanRSmith

Puritan Board Sophomore
For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
 

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
The big thing with the HCSB is the footnotes. Wherever they dynamically translate the passage too much they will place a more literal translation in the footnotes. I probably wouldn't have made the HCSB my reading Bible without the footnotes.
 

D. Paul

Puritan Board Sophomore
Am I gonna get smacked around if I say how much I am beginning to grow very fond of the NET Bible? I learn much from the translator notes and actually like the phraseology. Please don't :duh: or :mad: or :rofl:

Will it save me if I say I carry my Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) to church?:pray2:
 

3John2

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm still a KJV man. Though I have many other translations. I DO like the Phillipp's for the NT.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Am I gonna get smacked around if I say how much I am beginning to grow very fond of the NET Bible? I learn much from the translator notes and actually like the phraseology. Please don't :duh: or :mad: or :rofl:

:

Well, I like Darby's version as well. Whenever anybody challenges that, I tell them to read it. His eschatology and ecclesiology were wacked, but his scholarship is remarkable. (He first translated it into French, and also into German).

There is sort of a rumor that the 1901 ASV translators kept a Darby Bible around as a "pony". The similarities are striking (but not total), but I think it is because they were all using a critical text. Darby noted departures from the TR in his notes.

But, as I noted above, my reading bible is the AV, and always will be. But I look to various others for study too.

Will it save me if I say I carry my Geneva Study Bible (NKJV) to church?

:lol: No, only the original Geneva will do.
 

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
Am I gonna get smacked around if I say how much I am beginning to grow very fond of the NET Bible? I learn much from the translator notes and actually like the phraseology. Please don't :duh: or :mad: or :rofl:

Actually, I had a stint with the NET Bible. However, I received right before I went to India and I gave it away to an Indian friend of mine going to a Christian college there. I thought the footnotes would be extremely valuable to him given the lack of resources in India.

Since then, I haven't really gone back to the NET Bible because I find myself reading the footnotes much more than the actual text!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top