Do you struggle with which version to use?

[Glenn Ferrell]

Margaret, I don't want to speak for Pastor Glenn, but

...

he posted something some months ago which I interpreted to mean that calling the TR the perfectly preserved Word of God down to the last jot and tittle would be tantamount to the heresy of claiming a second act of inspiration.

Tim:

Don’t know what you have in mind I might have written.

A faithful copy of the Greek text can’t be considered a “second act of inspiration,” as it is a faithful representation of the first act of inspiration.

The KJO folks do make the English AV translation of 1611 equivalent to a post canonical act of divine inspiration, which is a heresy.

I’m not stuck on the TR as the perfect text; but do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism, and one should take an exception to it.

When I’ve found the NIV, or some other modern translation, does a good job of expressing in English what the original text says, I’m not beyond quoting from it in a sermon to further clarify the text. At one time I used the RSV, then NIV; progressed to the NKJV and used it for years, before settling on the AV exclusively for public reading.

My point in posts above was NOT to question the authority of a session, in consultation with the pastor, to decide on the typical version of the Bible to be used in their public worship. Nor would I have a problem with a church forbidding the use of modern translations from their pulpit.

My concern was that an absolute prohibition of the historic common English translations may prevent ministers from churches with which we have fraternal relations from ever preaching in our pulpits on extra-confessional grounds which may violate their consciences.

With a visiting preacher, better to express preferences and discuss what can be done without compromising anyone’s conscience, taking into consideration pastoral concerns, rather than making an absolute prohibition.

 

[TimV]

The KJO folks do make the English AV translation of 1611 equivalent to a post canonical act of divine inspiration, which is a heresy.

I’m not stuck on the TR as the perfect text; but do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism, and one should take an exception to it.

Thanks, that's what I remember you saying some months ago. And since you're here, how would you address the claim that all the promises by God to preserve His Word are to be taken to mean the exact, word for word reading of the TR?

On of the guys here who is an AVer said that if someone could prove that, say, Rev. 16:5 had a reading not found in any Byzantine manuscript, then he'd be willing to make those sorts of few and minor changes in the TR. Others disagree with him, and say that any changes to the TR are tantamount to adding and subtracting to the exact Words of God?

 

[RTaron]

Glenn said:

but do wish the Reformed and evangelical gave more attention to the Byzantine-Majority-TR text tradition. If one unquestionably accepts the critical text, question 107 doesn’t belong in the Shorter Catechism, and one should take an exception to it.

Right on, I agree.

If we are Reformed then we are serious about Sola Scriptura, and thus this verse has no authority to teach us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only, and in our prayer to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power and glory to Him; and, in testimony of our desire and assurance to be heard, to say, Amen.

 

[FenderPriest]

To answer the title question: No, I don't struggle with which version to use.

Same here. The ESV was a no-brainer for me, but I'd also second using what the preaching Bible is in your church.

 

[tgoerz]

Does not the NKJV have neutral gender issues among other translation problems?

 

[Igor]

Does not the NKJV have neutral gender issues among other translation problems?

As far as I know, it is the NRSV that has those issues, not the NKJV.

 

[Clay7926]

Great thoughts, all.

I struggled for a few years on which version to use. I alternated between the KJV/NIV prior to becoming Reformed, and once i crossed the river, I became a NASB guy. I do own and use the NASB, ESV and NKJV for studying, and also plan to get a HCSB sometime in the future.

I think the ESV is a great translation, but am not a fan of how the publishers placed some verses in the footnotes rather than in brackets in the main text like other translations do.

One thing I think would help assist folks struggling with Bible translations is if publishers would be nice with each other and publish more Parallel bibles. I had an NIV/KJV parallel bible I used for years until it fell apart. What was nice about it was the ability to have the two translations side by side so I could compare the translations.

I personally would love either a ESV/NASB or a NASB/NKJV parallel bible to use in public worship and private study. Or better yet, how about a Parallel NASB/ESV with the ESV Study Bible notes?