Bible Translation Poll - 2020 Edition

[Deleted member 6112]

I appreciate the concise overview.

Question: where would one find these marginal notes?

In the margins, naturally.

In all seriousness, I think the Cambridge reference bibles typically have them; the Westminster Reference Bible has them (I don't know about other TBS bibles). I imagine Allan bibles would. I use a CBP Turquoise Reference Bible and it has them.

 

[J.L. Allen]

In the margins, naturally.

In all seriousness, I think the Cambridge reference bibles typically have them; the Westminster Reference Bible has them (I don't know about other TBS bibles. I imagine Allan bibles would. I use a CBP Turquoise Reference Bible and it has them.

That gave me a hearty chuckle.

I currently have a large print edition from Thomas Nelson. The larger print is helpful for me. I could do without the "words of Christ in red" though. I also have a Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Neither have such marginal references.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The Reformation Heritage study notes help make sense of some of the archaic words, and the family worship guide is great!

I second this.

I voted for the ESV which is my main translation. I love the ESV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. But I have also come to love the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. The notes are particularly strong on experiential Christianity.

By using both study Bibles, one gets to use an excellent translation in the CT tradition, but also an excellent translation in the RT tradition.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

That gave me a hearty chuckle.

I currently have a large print edition from Thomas Nelson. The larger print is helpful for me. I could do without the "words of Christ in red" though. I also have a Reformation Heritage Study Bible. Neither have such marginal references.

To be clear, they typically show up in the reference column. They're not explanatory notes, but they enrich the translation. I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.

@Jonathan Lee Allen, nevermind. I can't seem to find you.

 

[J.L. Allen]

To be clear, they typically show up in the reference column. They're not explanatory notes, but they enrich the translation. I think we're friends on Facebook. I'll send you a picture.

I'm taking a Facebook break for a bit. However, I'm still on Messenger.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

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"?

just that it’s highly literary, yet understandable. You don’t feel like you’re being talked down to, but also don’t feel like a bunch of academics are droning on. The translators were very good with English.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

The Newly Revised New Revised Standard Version???

Not that long maybe the RRSV!

Seriously it’s the NRSV-UE (Updated edition), like the NASB was in 1995.

 

[wcf_linux]

A funny thing about editions that italicize words not directly from the original language. Quite a useful feature for the informed. But I knew a clique in school who collectively decided to completely disregard the italicized bits , to the great horror of the faculty.

 

[OPC'n]

I have ESV because that's the version my church uses.....

 

[Harrison]

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.

I used the NRSV through most of an MDiv degree program at a conservative evangelical seminary (only noticing one other person using one there, and that only once), and it never failed me. I developed great respect for it being both incredibly easy to read while at the same time very trustworthy in its translation choices. It makes me happy when I see conservative scholars using or citing the NRSV in their publications - which happens more often than I would expect (just sitting here and recalling it popping up in Heiser, Blomberg, Fee, Schreiner....). My primary translation has been the NKJV, but your post may be inspiring a mutiny.

 

[W.C. Dean]

KJV for the reasons the others have said before. My mother always used the NIV (not sure what year) while raising me and my sister. I was using the HCSB when I became Reformed because it was our church used. Studied the textual issues last year and became convinced that the KJV is what I want to use, for me and my future (Lord willing) family. I have no major issues with the NKJV or the MEV. I want to check out the Geneva this year. It's so nice to see translations discussed peacefully.

 

[David Taylor]

I used the NRSV through most of an MDiv degree program at a conservative evangelical seminary (only noticing one other person using one there, and that only once), and it never failed me. I developed great respect for it being both incredibly easy to read while at the same time very trustworthy in its translation choices. It makes me happy when I see conservative scholars using or citing the NRSV in their publications - which happens more often than I would expect (just sitting here and recalling it popping up in Heiser, Blomberg, Fee, Schreiner....). My primary translation has been the NKJV, but your post may be inspiring a mutiny.

Interesting, when I see a scholar quoting the NRSV primarily it usually sends red flags up for me.

 

[Delahunt]

I use the NASB95 - grew up on a NASB/NKJV combo platter. Dabbled with the ESV during my college years where I attended a large popular Baptist church in Minneapolis during that time. Had to go back to my roots, love the way the NASB reads! Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.

 

[David Taylor]

Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.

That may be what the 2020 edition is going to use, but those resources were not out when NASB95 was released.

 

[iainduguid]

I use the NASB95 - grew up on a NASB/NKJV combo platter. Dabbled with the ESV during my college years where I attended a large popular Baptist church in Minneapolis during that time. Had to go back to my roots, love the way the NASB reads! Not to mention the fact that the NASB uses UBS5 and Nestle-Aland 28, which is a plus.

That may be what the 2020 edition is going to use, but those resources were not out when NASB95 was released.

​

I routinely say this, because it is constantly misunderstood (even by the marketing arms of Bible publishers!): No translator worth their salt "uses" UBS5 or NA28 as more than a collator of the most up to date information. That is, they invariably make their own judgments as to the relevant text critical choices; they do not go "Oh! NA28 disagrees with NA27 here, so we have to adapt our translation to match it." They may come to similar conclusions based on a thorough survey of the text critical issues, but the critical texts are mere collators of text critical information, not authoritative sources (even though seminary students may sometimes treat them that way).

 

[David Taylor]

I routinely say this, because it is constantly misunderstood (even by the marketing arms of Bible publishers!): No translator worth their salt "uses" UBS5 or NA28 as more than a collator of the most up to date information. That is, they invariably make their own judgments as to the relevant text critical choices; they do not go "Oh! NA28 disagrees with NA27 here, so we have to adapt our translation to match it." They may come to similar conclusions based on a thorough survey of the text critical issues, but the critical texts are mere collators of text critical information, not authoritative sources (even though seminary students may sometimes treat them that way).

Yes, that is a good distinction to point out.

 

[Username3000]

1,700 thread views and only 77 replies!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.

 

[David Taylor]

I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV.

I'm surprised as well.

 

[JimmyH]

I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.

Allan bindings brought out an NRSV in Highland Goatskin. It has speckled page edges. I had always heard the NRSV was 'liberal' and avoided it. The speckled page edges overcame my resistance and I went for it.

I began comparing chapters with my NKJV which was my primary last year using the M'Cheyne 1 Year Reading Plan. I was very impressed with the flow and readability of the NRSV translation/revision. I had looked into it and read that it was the choice, by and large, of Academia. Some said it is the most 'accurate' translation, as opposed to literal. (no such thing as a literal translation really)

So .. there are choices the translators made that annoy me no end. For instance, in Ezekiel, 'Mortal' instead of 'Son of Man.' In Genesis 1:2 'a wind from God swept over the face of the waters,' rather than 'the Spirit of God.'

I compared that verse with the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh Translation, and they also translate it 'wind', and in Ezekiel they also use 'Mortal.' I suppose those who translated that know what they are doing. Of course in Koine Greek πνευμα can be translated either wind or spirit, so I suppose Hebrew offers the same choices. As far as 'Mortal' goes, perhaps the JPS Tanakh is also gender neutral ?

The NRSV was the first, as far as I know, to use 'gender neutral' nouns/pronouns. That in the 1990s, and was widely disparaged because of it. Now it is one of the many. It is beautifully written. I'm using it as my primary this year with the M'Cheyne plan.

I'm sure there are more choices made by the translators that will bother me, but I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Here are the speckled page edges that I found irresistible ;

 

[David Taylor]

Allan bindings brought out an NRSV in Highland Goatskin. It has speckled page edges. I had always heard the NRSV was 'liberal' and avoided it. The speckled page edges overcame my resistance and I went for it.

I began comparing chapters with my NKJV which was my primary last year using the M'Cheyne 1 Year Reading Plan. I was very impressed with the flow and readability of the NRSV translation/revision. I had looked into it and read that it was the choice, by and large, of Academia. Some said it is the most 'accurate' translation, as opposed to literal. (no such thing as a literal translation really)

So .. there are choices the translators made that annoy me no end. For instance, in Ezekiel, 'Mortal' instead of 'Son of Man.' In Genesis 1:2 'a wind from God swept over the face of the waters,' rather than 'the Spirit of God.'

I compared that verse with the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh Translation, and they also translate it 'wind', and in Ezekiel they also use 'Mortal.' I suppose those who translated that know what they are doing. Of course in Koine Greek πνευμα can be translated either wind or spirit, so I suppose Hebrew offers the same choices. As far as 'Mortal' goes, perhaps the JPS Tanakh is also gender neutral ?

The NRSV was the first, as far as I know, to use 'gender neutral' nouns/pronouns. That in the 1990s, and was widely disparaged because of it. Now it is one of the many. It is beautifully written. I'm using it as my primary this year with the M'Cheyne plan.

I'm sure there are more choices made by the translators that will bother me, but I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Here are the speckled page edges that I found irresistible ;
View attachment 6606

Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?

 

[JimmyH]

Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?

I'm flying by the seat of my pants in my reply to this question. Dr Duguid, of Reverend Keister could undoubtedly give an informed answer to the question. That said, in my opinion ... The NRSV was a revision of the RSV.

Famously, like its predecessor, the RV, translating Isaiah 7:14 as 'young women' rather than Virgin. That, among other choices, was the impetus for the ESV revision of the RSV. The other 'usual suspects' that I know of are probably inclusive in all of the CT translations.

The treatment of the long ending of Mark, the Pericope Adulterae, Johannine Comma, atoning sacrifice rather than propitiation in 1 John 2:2, leaving verses out of the text because they are not in the earliest manuscripts (included in footnotes, or bracketed)

There are undoubtedly more reasons it is considered liberal, but I'd guess that the same could be said of all the modern/mainstream translations currently. The NRSV was a stand out in that regard because it was the earliest to go as far as it did.

 

[W.C. Dean]

Ok, so why does the NRSV have a reputation for being liberal other than gender language?

It's also the standard Bible for the PCUSA so that doesn't help.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Which is funny as in many mainline churches it seems the Common English Bible is overtaking the NRSV.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Username3000]

ESV 36
KJV 35

Close.

 

[David Taylor]

ESV 36
KJV 35

Close.

It's not surprising as the ESV is a direct descendant of the KJV.

 

[iainduguid]

Although, "young woman" for Isaiah 7:14 is technically more accurate.... There's also Exodus 20:13, which the NRSV adds a footnote expanding the meaning of the 6th commandment; also more accurate at this point.

It's more complicated than that. An 'almah is not just a generic young woman; that would be na'arah. She is a young woman who has reached puberty and is therefore ready for marriage. The problem is that in English we don't have a word for that, so have to choose between imperfect alternatives. Other languages (such as Zulu) find it much easier.

 

[Harrison]

It's also the standard Bible for the PCUSA so that doesn't help.

I am surprised how many people have a positive view of the NRSV. When I was last in Oxford I attended a couple of evensong services in one of the colleges at which the readings were from the NRSV. The first time, I did not know what version was used in the readings and was surprised to see it was the NRSV, as I thought that the readings were particularly excellent on that occasion.

I have taken to comparing the NRSV with the ESV on some of the stranger translation choices I have found. That because I found the NRSV and ESV translations being identical in NOT matching up with other translations, such as the NKJV or NASB. Stranger yet - when the NRSV and ESV make the same translation choices and yet they do NOT match up with the RSV.

It's not surprising as the ESV is a direct descendant of the KJV.

It's more complicated than that. An 'almah is not just a generic young woman; that would be na'arah. She is a young woman who has reached puberty and is therefore ready for marriage. The problem is that in English we don't have a word for that, so have to choose between imperfect alternatives. Other languages (such as Zulu) find it much easier.

Apparently my deleting my comment (wanted to rephrase the Exodus 20:13 part) and your reply occurred around the same time. The NRSV does include "the virgin" in the footnote - perhaps making the combination of "the young woman" and "the virgin" more accurate overall, given the lack of an English word. I have read the claim that the meaning of almah changed over time, although I have not seen enough on that to know for sure.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

ESV 36
KJV 35

Close.

Sure. But if you count the KJV and NKJV together (which I tend to do in this kind of poll), it's 52 [N]KJV v. 36 ESV. Not as close.