First the NAS, then the KJV, then the ___??

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
I've only used two main Bible versions for reading and study since I was saved. I started out using the NAS, and enjoyed reading it for the first few years. Then I read some books about the KJV and the perversion of modern translations, so I started reading the KJV. The KJV has been the main version I've used over the years.

Yesterday, as I was reading the Bible, I started thinking about maybe checking out another version. I have no problem reading the KJV, I enjoy reading it, but I started thinking it wouldn't hurt to read the scriptures in language closer to the way we speak now. Quite often I come across old English words that aren't part of my normal vocabulary, I look in the margin to find out their meaning, and it seems more often than not the word in the margin is what's used in more modern translations.

Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?

It's a question of degree. All the main modern English translations use a whole range of texual sources.
 

Grillsy

Puritan Board Junior
English Standard Version (ESV). It reads beautifully and is strongly accurate. I would say that would be the closest to what you are looking for.
 

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
Frankly, you're going to get a plethora of opinions on this particular topic--so here comes the flood! :lol:

Personally, I prefer the ESV, but the NASB 95 is good too. If you want to stick with the same Greek text as the KJV, then you want the New King James Version.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
The NKJV doesn't use the same texual sources as the KJV. I don't remember how many off hand, but I'm sure there are dozens of times the NKJV uses the MT instead of the RT.
 

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
 

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
The NKJV doesn't use the same texual sources as the KJV. I don't remember how many off hand, but I'm sure there are dozens of times the NKJV uses the MT instead of the RT.

Actually it does.

"...the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column." Preface to the New Geneva Study Bible - New King James Version
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
You don't happen to know his website, do you? I started googling, but the first site I found had this to say:
The Modern King James Version or MKJV is becoming popular among many people who want to avoid the obvious perversions in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. The only thing is that they are falling for another perversion. The MKJV is hardly a King James Version. It is another modern perversion that seeks to put secular thinking above godly reasoning.

The publisher and maker of the MKJV is Jay P. Green, a Calvinistic Bible perverter.​
I'd rather bypass the commentary on the version, if you know what I mean.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."

Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?
 

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
You don't happen to know his website, do you? I started googling, but the first site I found had this to say:
The Modern King James Version or MKJV is becoming popular among many people who want to avoid the obvious perversions in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. The only thing is that they are falling for another perversion. The MKJV is hardly a King James Version. It is another modern perversion that seeks to put secular thinking above godly reasoning.

The publisher and maker of the MKJV is Jay P. Green, a Calvinistic Bible perverter.​
I'd rather bypass the commentary on the version, if you know what I mean.

Bibles - New Bibles - KJ3 - Literal Translation New Testament, paperback edition, Jay Green, Sr. Translator - Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc.http://http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubecart/bibles/new-bibles/kj3-literal-translation-new-testament-paperback-edition-jay-green-sr-translator/prod_34.html
I know the New Testament KJ3 is being sold as I have a copy. The Entire Bible should be out soon if not already. Hope the website link helps.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."

Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?

This is what I understand. I have the book The New King James Version in the Great Tradition; they mention that they considered going MT for it, but decided on the TR due to trying to update the old KJV, and referred to the MT and CT in the notes.
 

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the side reference column."

Thanks. Does that refer to one specific edition of the NKJV? And does that mean no CT or MT readings of any type are used in the text, but only noted in the margin?

As far as I know Thomas Nelson, Inc. hasn't changed the NKJV. I'm definately open to correction if anyone knows better. I would imagine that if they were to incorporate the MT or CT into the body of the NT text they wouldn't be able to issue it as the NKJV. It would be a completely different version.

In any case, here's an online version of the NKJV's preface. It's the same as the preface found in my New Geneva Studt Bible. The part I quoted is found near the end of the preface.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/NKJV.html
 

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
The Modern King James Version by Jay Green uses the TR in the New Testament. On his website he stated a while ago that he will soon be releasing the KJ3 which is the same translation in his 4 vol Interlinear Bible distributed by Hendriksons. That uses the TR as well.
You don't happen to know his website, do you? I started googling, but the first site I found had this to say:
The Modern King James Version or MKJV is becoming popular among many people who want to avoid the obvious perversions in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc. The only thing is that they are falling for another perversion. The MKJV is hardly a King James Version. It is another modern perversion that seeks to put secular thinking above godly reasoning.

The publisher and maker of the MKJV is Jay P. Green, a Calvinistic Bible perverter.​
I'd rather bypass the commentary on the version, if you know what I mean.


Jay Green is no Bible perverter. His Interlinear Bible (4vol or 1vol) is highly regarded and is published by a Mainline Publisher.The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek-English Bible, 4 Volumes - Edited By: Jay P. Green By: Jay P. Green - Christianbook.com
An Orthodox Jewish Bookshop here in Toronto stocks a copy, and when I surprised, asked the owner why he stocked a Christian Translation of the Bible, he told me that although Christian, it was accurate. High Praise indeed from an enemy of the Faith.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Thanks. I appreciate your responses.

You know what's the hardest part about choosing another version? Reading about why other versions are inferior, or not as good (or perversions). I know its par for the course, but...
 

Contra Marcion

Puritan Board Freshman
TR vs. MT vs. CT........

I think part of the problem is that we've gotten used to referring to these Greek manuscripts as though they were, well, manuscripts. Every time you say something uses the "TR", you're really saying that, in most cases, the particular translation makes the same textual-critical decisions as Erasmus did in the sixteenth century. There is no "TR" out there as some sort of original document. Erasmus compiled many texts, largely Byzantine, and created a new work. Before Erasmus and his own scholarly decisions, there simply was no "TR".

Even if we were to grant that the term "TR" refers to some sort of original text-type, which edition of the TR would that be? One of several that Erasmus edited? Stephanus'? Beza's?

Each word must be evaluated in light of all the textual evidence, not because it does or does not conform to some man-made compilation of many texts. Would we really say that we may not use the same principles in translation and text selection that Erasmus used in formulating his TR? Or that the KVJ translators used in translating it?

One may accuse the NASB, ESV, etc. of being corrupt, but they would have to provide manuscript evidence, not sixteenth century compilations, to back such assertions. :soapbox:
 

Reformed Thomist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Which modern translation are at the top of the list as far as faithfulness in translation and ease of reading? Which modern translations use the same Greek text as the KJV?

Go with the NKJV. It is a faithful ('essentially literal') translation, a joy to read (in my humble opinion), and, according to Michael Marlowe @ Bible-Researcher.com, is...

"... a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes)."
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
This is especially grievous in the Bibles like the NIV that use “Dynamic Equivalence” as their translation methodology.
This is a quote from the description of the KJ3. Just wondering which versions besides the NIV use this method.

Do most here agree that the "Dynamic Equivalence" method, regardless of which manuscripts you use, is not the best method to use?...or not?
 

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
Even if we were to grant that the term "TR" refers to some sort of original text-type, which edition of the TR would that be? One of several that Erasmus edited? Stephanus'? Beza's?

You're right and that needs to be made clear. There are various versions of the TR and they are all "critical" editions.
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
Sounds like you are looking for The New King James Version. It is close to what you are used to (both in source documents and style), but with a more modern vocabulary.

Lots of reformed folks are infatuated with the ESV. You might want to check it out, but it's more of the family of translations such as the RSV.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
If you're willing to go with a critical text version, the ESV and NASBU are great.

If you want a majority text translation, World English Bible and the English Majority Text Version are good, but you won't be able to get a good print edition.

If you want a revision to the KJV, there are many of these. NKJV is the most common and it is a good translation from what I have read of it. There are also others like the American KJV (AKJV).

If you want a more dynamic translation, NET is a good choice.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Try to find the NKJV of the Reformation Study Bible edited by Sproul. Some are still available, even used ones that are in good shape. The current version uses the ESV, but I found a used NKJV at amazon.com a few months ago.

AMR
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
The ESV is an essentially literal translation of the Bible which I use. NKJV is also good (though still not quite accurate to modern usage--but my copy of the RSB is NKJV). NIV is as far as I (rarely) venture into the realm of "dynamic" translation (ie: paraphrase).

As far as "using the same texts" goes, I tend to see it as a non-issue because the TR is flawed, but so is any other collected text simply because humans make fallible judgment calls. Only the originals were truly infallible but as it is, we have a pretty good notion of what they said anyway.
 

Jesus is my friend

Puritan Board Junior
Frankly, you're going to get a plethora of opinions on this particular topic--so here comes the flood! :lol:

Personally, I prefer the ESV, but the NASB 95 is good too. If you want to stick with the same Greek text as the KJV, then you want the New King James Version.

Well said!
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
If you're willing to go with a critical text version, the ESV and NASBU are great.

If you want a majority text translation, World English Bible and the English Majority Text Version are good, but you won't be able to get a good print edition.

If you want a revision to the KJV, there are many of these. NKJV is the most common and it is a good translation from what I have read of it. There are also others like the American KJV (AKJV).

If you want a more dynamic translation, NET is a good choice.
I usually like to make informed decisions. It would appear that may not be possible in this case for quite some time. Critical text :confused:, majority text :confused:, KJV revision :confused:, dynamic translation :confused:

Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being :lol:
 

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe I should just stick with the good old KJV for the time being :lol:

That would be just fine. I was raised on the KJV. It's a wonderful translation. Keep reading it. Keep studying textual criticism. Reserve judgment for some time in the future. Don't sweat it.
 

Grymir

Puritan Board Graduate
I stick with the KJV. Having and relying on one translation has alot of benefits. You know the ins and outs without having to relearn them.

If I want to compare translations, I use the Geneva 1599.

There's nothing wrong with the KJV lingo, we speak it in our home, and it's actually nice to use and hear. It add's a touch of familiarity.
 

DMcFadden

Puritanboard Commissioner
I prefer two Bibles: NKJV and ESV (with the KJV as a back up).

NKJV

The NKJV is the only one I know that offers you footnotes identifying the Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Text (NU) and Majority Text (Byzantine) variations from the KJV (Textus Receptus). This can be VERY handy in that you have essentially all of the major variations for any NT text in the TR, MT, and eclectic textual traditions.

The Reformation Study Bible in genuine leather is full of GREAT study helps. My wife uses the ESV version of it. For some reason the leather in the Reformation Study Bible NKJV is much more supple and flexible than the ESV version. In fact, it is the most flexible leather of any Bible I own and one of the most inexpensive. Of the various editions of the NKJV, the Reformation Study Bible is my absolute FAVORITE.

Frankly, I find the NKJV to read aloud more smoothly than the ESV. For some reason, the cadences seem to flow more naturally more often. This came as a great surprise to me since I made fun of my wife (based on my own ignorance and lack of first hand examination); she used it for years .

ESV
For the ESV, you have three very good options.

1. For a sit on your desk reference edition, the recent ESV Study Bible is overwhelmingly full-featured. It has the best maps, graphics, and articles. Not completely Reformed, but essentially so, it is a good 700 pages longer than almost any other study Bible. This makes it a great desk reference and a lousy "take to church" Bible.

2. Reformation Study Bible (ESV). It has an edited version of the entire Concise Theology by J.I. Packer sandwiched in as special interest boxed articles and sidebars throughout the Bible (helpfully indexed in the front, however). And, it has solidly Reformed study notes throughout. It is difficult to find fault with it on any score. And, it is not too heavy to take to church.

3. R.L. Allan, "often known to be the best bound Bibles on earth. Publishers (and customers) nationwide have noted that R.L. Allan uses techniques and materials which truly make it the 'Gold Standard' in publishing" has some ESV settings that are to die for and almost affordable too. Evangelicalbible.com (R.L. Allan ESV, KJV and NIV) distributes the Allan Bibles in the US.

Their ultra high end ESV is on sale for $160.

As far as the KJV goes, I dropped enough hints that I think my wife might be getting me an Allan Oxford Longprimer Ref Ed. (KJV) Highland Goatskin (model 53) or the Allan-Oxford Brevier Blackface Edition (Highland Goatskin)20BR for my upcoming birthday!!! Brother Underwood got me salivating after he got his Longprimer a while back.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top