malcolmmaxwell60
Puritan Board Freshman
The authorized King James Version of 1611
Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
Poll; Which Translation Does Your Congregation Use ?
- Thread starter JimmyH
- Start date
- Status
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
Interesting. I used to follow along 1769 readings with the 1611, but I found most of the differences between them seemed to be fixing mistakes in the 1611 (Psalm 69:32 is one that comes to mind, as well as a verse in Deuteronomy that repeated). What print edition of the 1611 do you use in your congregation? I have a Thomas Nelson that's basically a re-print of the original, except that (most) of the Gothic type is replaced with modern type, but the old spelling (including ligatures) is retained.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
We have the NKJV (and a couple old NASB's) in the pews and that is what I preach from.
I find the NKJV the easiest to read aloud of the contemporary translations.
I find the NKJV the easiest to read aloud of the contemporary translations.
The Nas is still seen as being a very good version by those who prefer the CT and a more formal translation...
I actually prefer that version, as it does seem to be the closest to rendering what the original texts stated, but it is also strange to read at times, as they sought to reserve the greek construction such as in Greek verbs into English...
The formal versions such as the Nas/NKJV though do tend to overall keep closest to what the original languages texts stated, but the Csb and Esv would be smoother to read and are both still quite accurate...
The trick in translation the scriptures is that we need to balance being faithful to the original text and being able to be understood by the reader. The Esv and now the Csb seem to do a good job balancing those two extremes, while the Nas/NKJV still preferred for just used for studying only...
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
To be fair, the ESV is inconsistent in the amount of editing. The New Testament (and especially Pauline letters) were edited more substantially from the RSV than the Old Testament did, especially deep in the prophets. (Note: I haven't found something to confirm this, but from my own reading this seems to be the case)
I have read that the Esv is about 85-90% of the old Rsv, and much of the changes were in the OT portions of it, reflecting Jesus as being seen in the prophetic elements more closely...
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
Gotcha. Do you have a source? I'd like to read more. They definitely changed prophetic passages for this reason (Isaiah 7:14 was a big complaint with the RSV that was changed), but there seems to be less general editing for readable and such in the Old versus the New (the latter tends to be less awkward in my opinion).
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
Simple way to really find out how different the RSV is minus a computer analysis...use it at church if your pastor is an ESV guy.
A few years ago I was listening to a series by Ray Stedman. He died in 1992. You'd think he was using the ESV. But it wa the RSV. Very few words were different as I read along with my ESV.
This may prove convenient for me in one way. Roman Catholics often use RSV. My brother-in-law read through the NT last year. His Bible is nearly Word-for-word like mine.
A few years ago I was listening to a series by Ray Stedman. He died in 1992. You'd think he was using the ESV. But it wa the RSV. Very few words were different as I read along with my ESV.
This may prove convenient for me in one way. Roman Catholics often use RSV. My brother-in-law read through the NT last year. His Bible is nearly Word-for-word like mine.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Here is Michael Marlowe's Bible Researcher site again. I cannot vouch for the accuracy, as he knows far more than I ever will, but I've read his site quite a bit. He seems to know his stuff.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/NASB.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/NKJV.html
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not canon? Do you subscribe to the WCF? In 1.2, when the 66 books of the Scripture are listed, does this include 1 John 5:7 or not?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
As I understand it, by 1769 (158 years after it was published), the King James had acquired so many typographical errors, printing errors, and other sorts of boo-boos (that's a technical printing term [LOL]) that a committee was formed of scholars from both Oxford and Cambridge universities, who went through the entire translation with a fine-tooth comb for the purpose of removing all these printing errors. As far as I know, no substantive changes in the text were made.
When you go to a bookstore and buy a KJV, what you're buying is the 1769 cleaned-up text.
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
The WCF is speaking to canonical status of books. It's not dealing with lower textual criticism. 1 John is canonical. If John truly wrote 5:7, then yes, that verse would be included. If John did write 5:7, but someone added it centuries later, then it is not God-breathed and the non-God-breathed WCF (as wonderful as it is) cannot transform it into God-breathed Scripture.
good point, as the WCF will give to us what is seen as being the true canon of the scriptures, but in each inspired book, we will still have to deal with textual criticism for what is to be seen as actually included within the text..
You are correct, that that most of the KJV today bought and used will be based off the 1769 revised text, and also think at one time Zodervan version was based of the 1984 Schrivers text, which is still seen as being the best TR text to use...
He thinks that the Nas and the NKJV versions are the best versions to use for serious studies now... Which is fine with me, as I agree with his assessment...
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
These errors are easy to fix before posting rather than have someone come along and correct:
1894 Scrivener's text
Please develop the habit of reviewing a post after it is made (beforehand is better) and then going back and editing it for correctness when it comes to glaring errors like the above.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, that's why I was curious about Malcom saying his congregation using the 1611. I have and have used the 1611 and I don't see why you would use that in a congregation when the 1769 is available.
I personally find with the NKJV you get the best of both worlds, since it notes the differences in the CT and MT against the TR. It's helpful too when following along with different people who might use a different translation so you can get an idea of what is translation versus manuscript difference.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?
I like to keep people on their toes.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
You preach from the NKJV and a couple of old NASBs?
I like to keep people on their toes.
Ha ha! Well-played, both of you.
Thank you for your patience with me, as I am trying very hard to correct myself.
Kona Kuyperian
Puritan Board Sophomore
"And the three are one" shouldnt be in the text (and thats why post KJV dont include it)
tangleword
Puritan Board Freshman
Our church uses ESV, though I wish we would switch to NASB or CSB. One thing to be aware with is the ESV now has at least 3 different versions, with changes in each of them, and the most recent version has had quite a bit of controversy specifically to their translation of Genesis 2 (enough for them to back off making it the final version).
BGF
Puritan Board Sophomore
Our church uses the ESV (switched from NASB a few years ago). Our members, however, seem to use every version available. When someone reads a passage during SS its anyone's guess which version will be read. I'm able to follow along very well so it doesn't bother me. My wife, however, has poor reading comprehension and needs to be in the same translation or she will get lost.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
