Bible Translation For Family Memorization

[Brother John]

What are your thoughts on what translation to use in family memory work? My wife and I both read from the NASB currently but I am thinking about not memorizing from it. My sons are 6 and 4 and I want all of us on the same version for the memory work. (I have been thinking about switching to the ESV )

 

[Wayne]

Some think that the KJV or Geneva provide an easier text for memorization, since the "speech pattern" is different from contemporary speech.
In the same way, poetry is easier to memorize than prose.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

ESV is great. NASB, I have been told is harder because it is awkward with English at times.

 

[Todd King]

I prefer the King James for it's style and flow. Just my opinion, but I think that if the end of the world as we know it happened and we became a barter society, that the KJV would be the most heavily sought of all Bible translations for the style, flow and the richness of it's text.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I prefer the King James for it's style and flow. Just my opinion, but I think that if the end of the world as we know it happened and we became a barter society, that the KJV would be the most heavily sought of all Bible translations for the style, flow and the richness of it's text.

That's weird.

 

[Jack K]

With my kids I considered:

- Will they understand it?

- Will it be a translation that lasts, so that 20, 30, 40 years from now they won't have learned something no one uses anymore.

That last consideration rules out any version of the NIV, even though it's understandable, and makes KJV an appealing choice. Understandability moves me toward the ESV. The NASB is lacking in understandability, and I'm not sure it has any more staying power than the ESV. All that said, I go back and forth a bit but my favorite passages for memory are understandable passages from the KJV.

 

[NB3K]

Just give me God's Word, and the Spirit of the Lord will do the rest! I personally like the ESV, but I have every English translation I can get my hands on.

 

[Todd King]

I prefer the King James for it's style and flow. Just my opinion, but I think that if the end of the world as we know it happened and we became a barter society, that the KJV would be the most heavily sought of all Bible translations for the style, flow and the richness of it's text.

That's weird.

Yes, one of those weird random thoughts that sometimes come with such a question.

However, although rare, there have been times throughout history when God's word was outlawed for a time. If I were ever in one of those countries, I would yearn for the language found in the KJV.

Is that a little less weird? Probably not...

 

[Wayne]

Todd:

Please run and fix your signature block. See the link there beneath my name for instructions.

 

[Todd King]

Wayne,
Sorry, thought I had it fixed. We'll find out right now if not.

 

[ClayPot]

With my kids I considered:

- Will they understand it?

- Will it be a translation that lasts, so that 20, 30, 40 years from now they won't have learned something no one uses anymore.
.

Jack,

I think your second point would rule out almost any modern translation. Language does change faster than it used to, and consequently, Bible translations are updated fairly often (save 5-10 years) and probably also to address updated scholarship. Only a historic translation like the KJV would be set in stone I think.

 

[fredtgreco]

With my kids I considered:

- Will they understand it?

- Will it be a translation that lasts, so that 20, 30, 40 years from now they won't have learned something no one uses anymore.
.

Jack,

I think your second point would rule out almost any modern translation. Language does change faster than it used to, and consequently, Bible translations are updated fairly often (save 5-10 years) and probably also to address updated scholarship. Only a historic translation like the KJV would be set in stone I think.

Minor changes are one thing, but most modern translations have been around a long time.

NASB - 40 years
NKJV - 30 years
ESV (if you count the RSV, which is pretty close) - 60 years.

 

[matthew11v25]

I prefer the King James for it's style and flow. Just my opinion, but I think that if the end of the world as we know it happened and we became a barter society, that the KJV would be the most heavily sought of all Bible translations for the style, flow and the richness of it's text.

This is the premise of the movie "the book of Eli"

 

[PreservedKillick]

We use the NASB, since that's the pew Bible in our church as well as the one my wife and I use. We had an ESV children's Bible for my son, but it had images in it, so we're replacing it with a large print hardcover NASB.

 

[FCC]

We use the KJV. Given it's rich history and style, which has already been mentioned, we prefer it. I still am amazed at those who claim it is hard to understand! My son had little problem with understanding the passages we were memorizing, given a little instruction, he picked right up on what the KJV was teaching.

 

[Galatians220]

For hundreds of years, little ones were taught and memorized the King James, and it was further education for them to learn some of the archaic terms. Only the King James does not have people scurrying around and saying "hath God said...?" Only through the King James does Scripture so perfectly and beautifully explain and interpret itself. Are children dumber now than they were 100 or 200 years ago? No! Should they blend more into and become more relevant to the world than children of 200 or 50 years ago based on their version even of God's word? No!

As one who was prohibited from reading the Bible (especially the King James) until I was old enough to be out from under my parents' thumbs, I so prize God's real word as found in the Received Text that I can't even fully describe it. The RT is precious beyond its mere words, for they are God's words, not equivocations or nods to gender neutrality or 20th or 21st century "correctness." Children deserve better than merely their parents' subjective decisions; they deserve the counsel of the whole church and they deserve the richness of the Bible that has stood the test of time, not for just 30 or 60 years, but for 400. Fine Christians have found the basis of their regeneration, faith, perseverance and assurance in the King James and the Geneva Bible for hundreds of years.

I have such confidence in all of the above, despite - or maybe because - three Reformed churches in the past 11 years have tossed me merely for vocalizing these ideas in private, to pastors or elders.

This is probably my posting "swan song..."

Margaret

 

[PreservedKillick]

I personally like the language of the KJV, and prefer that version for the Psalms. It's not for reasons of readability that we use the NASB, but because that's our church's version, so I would argue that it wasn't a subjective decision. My issues with the KJV have more to do with its historical context.

 

[BobVigneault]

I agree with all the arguments here and have concluded that your best bet is to teach your kids Koine Greek and have them memorize the original language versions (sorry, you'll still have to decide between Nestle-Alland and Westcott-Hort.) Teach them Ugaritic to make it easier with portions of Job. Hebrew and Aramaic, of course, for the rest. Happy memorizing!

 

[BobVigneault]

BTW, we use the ESV for family memorization and I sleep just fine.

 

[PreservedKillick]

I agree with all the arguments here and have concluded that your best bet is to teach your kids Koine Greek and have them memorize the original language versions (sorry, you'll still have to decide between Nestle-Alland and Westcott-Hort.) Teach them Ugaritic to make it easier with portions of Job. Hebrew and Aramaic, of course, for the rest. Happy memorizing!

I'm all for it! Actually, that's always my argument when the "KJV is the only inspired version" thesis comes up--note, in my mind that position is distinct from the KJV-only argument.

 

[BobVigneault]

Safe, you will be if the NASB you decide to use... young Skywalker.

 

[PreservedKillick]

Safe, you will be if the NASB you decide to use... young Skywalker.

I'll be safe using the NASB...and these aren't the droids we're looking for...

 

[BobVigneault]

These are not the droids we're looking for. Hmmm, strong with the uptake you are.

 

[Galatians220]

I personally like the language of the KJV, and prefer that version for the Psalms. It's not for reasons of readability that we use the NASB, but because that's our church's version, so I would argue that it wasn't a subjective decision. My issues with the KJV have more to do with its historical context.

This (James VI of Scotland - SermonAudio.com) is a very nice sermon which I just watched a week ago for the first time on the historical context of the King James Bible. Dr. Phil Stringer presents his case well.

Margaret

 

[Robert Truelove]

For memorization, I'm moving back to the KJV from the ESV. When it makes sense to do so for my children in their catechism memorization (along with the answers, they memorize the Scripture proof texts) I'll be moving them back to it as well.

I prefer the KJV for memorization because it is THE literary masterpiece of the English language and very memorable. Also, it is not going to change as it is established as a historical text. I'd hate to spend all my time and my kids time memorizing a translation that may fall out of use in the next 30 years or be shelved by the publisher who holds the copyright so they can sell a new, liberalized edition.

 

[PreservedKillick]

One benefit of the KJV was when that was the Bible all English speaking Protestants had, everyone in the church could memorize the same verses in the same translation. The translation used in Sunday school for the children can change as someone goes to a new church or a new curriculum is adopted.

For memorization, I'm moving back to the KJV from the ESV. When it makes sense to do so for my children in their catechism memorization (along with the answers, they memorize the Scripture proof texts) I'll be moving them back to it as well.

I prefer the KJV for memorization because it is THE literary masterpiece of the English language and very memorable. Also, it is not going to change as it is established as a historical text. I'd hate to spend all my time and my kids time memorizing a translation that may fall out of use in the next 30 years or be shelved by the publisher who holds the copyright so they can sell a new, liberalized edition.

 

[Josh Williamson]

For memorization, I'm moving back to the KJV from the ESV. When it makes sense to do so for my children in their catechism memorization (along with the answers, they memorize the Scripture proof texts) I'll be moving them back to it as well.

I prefer the KJV for memorization because it is THE literary masterpiece of the English language and very memorable. Also, it is not going to change as it is established as a historical text. I'd hate to spend all my time and my kids time memorizing a translation that may fall out of use in the next 30 years or be shelved by the publisher who holds the copyright so they can sell a new, liberalized edition.

I'm in the same boat. Personally I love the ESV, I think it is a great translation, and it should be read and preached from. However, I have the KJV easeier to memorise from. Thus, I am backeth to the KJV for memorising.

 

[PreservedKillick]

I do wonder if this can sometimes be a problem. In my own case, one reason I switched to a more modern translation was that I was getting distracted by getting caught up in the beauty of the language. Am I off base here, or has anyone else run into this?

I prefer the KJV for memorization because it is THE literary masterpiece of the English language and very memorable.

 

[BibleCyst]

I do wonder if this can sometimes be a problem. In my own case, one reason I switched to a more modern translation was that I was getting distracted by getting caught up in the beauty of the language. Am I off base here, or has anyone else run into this?

It's funny. I have the opposite problem! I grew up using the NIV, but when the Lord really put it on my heart to read his word, the "simplicity" would cause me to drift off. I switched to the ESV for a while, but the ESV isn't always grammatically correct, and that distracted me. So, I then switched to the NKJV. I loved my NKJV. However, the footnotes distracted me! For those who don't know, the NKJV has the differences between the Critical Text and the Majority Text in the footnotes. I found myself "judging" God's word, which disturbed me when I realized. I now use the KJV and Geneva Bibles. The KJV for pin-point accuracy, the Geneva for Reformed footnotes and more free-flowing text.

 

[PreservedKillick]

That's really interesting. For my study Bible, I use the New Geneva, which is NKJV, and it's my favorite Bible. (It's also falling apart).

I do wonder if this can sometimes be a problem. In my own case, one reason I switched to a more modern translation was that I was getting distracted by getting caught up in the beauty of the language. Am I off base here, or has anyone else run into this?

It's funny. I have the opposite problem! I grew up using the NIV, but when the Lord really put it on my heart to read his word, the "simplicity" would cause me to drift off. I switched to the ESV for a while, but the ESV isn't always grammatically correct, and that distracted me. So, I then switched to the NKJV. I loved my NKJV. However, the footnotes distracted me! For those who don't know, the NKJV has the differences between the Critical Text and the Majority Text in the footnotes. I found myself "judging" God's word, which disturbed me when I realized. I now use the KJV and Geneva Bibles. The KJV for pin-point accuracy, the Geneva for Reformed footnotes and more free-flowing text.