The selection of a primary CT Bible.

Status
Not open for further replies.
HI etexas, I thought Thomas made some good points. I read your first post to see what i had missed when you said focus. the only thing that I could see was that it was 'recommended' to use a new (CT) translation. ?? is that what you meant by making it clear ?? I was going to chime in and say don't do it. As a lay person, i would say we are smarter than some on the board than some give us credit. I've been asked to change from my trusty KJV many times. (Well, after a couple of times the pastor gave up after he finally asked me why I wouldn't change. It actually became the agreed on wording when we didn't have the greek or hebrew available). I've taught 1st graders, teenagers, middle-aged to old folk. I've never had any trouble like some people have tried to say would happen. Actually I'm currently torn between changing between the Geneva or KJV. I may have missed something in your original post, I'm not the best in the subtle nuances of things people take for granted. anyway my 2 cents.

"I never give you up my preciousssss, thou the dark lord gives many rings (bible) to men, they will turn into wraiths, i've got my preciousssss. It controls all the otherssss" said the KJgolem
Tim, my reference was I had made clear that I am going to NEED a CT Bible for some Lay-Studies. Not that I was going to abandon my "trusty" AV. I told him to focus since I made this abundantly clear in Post #1. Pax.
 
Oh, ok. the need part didn't come through in your first post. I wouldn't of waxed eloquent otherwise. sorry.
 
I get a bit more frustrated when i read the HCSB than the ESV. They both have their quirks...and they both are solid translations, but the HCSB seems to frustrate me a bit more.

For instance...

I think 1 Cor 7:1 is a bit too general of a translation in the HCSB...

ESV: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

HCSB: About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman."

I disagree that Rom 4:8 should end in an exclamation mark as in the HCSB.

1 Sam 20:30 the HCSB translates the Hebrew "amar" as "shouted" instead of "said", which i also disagree with.

In 1 Pet 1:17 the HCSB translates the Greek "phobas" as "reverance" instead of "fear". I feel "fear" is the better translation.

In Eph 2:2 i really don't like the HCSB translation of what should simply be "air"...

ESV: in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

HCSB: in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient.

I do prefer some of the HCSB translations...such as Mat 16:19.
 
From a layman's point of view, I love the ESV. I grew up on KJV and during my Bible training, I was encouraged to find a CT Bible. I settled with the NASB, because it is a great study Bible, but I never felt comfortable just reading it. When the ESV came along, I switched to it. The ESV also has a nice online version where you can compare it side by side with other translations. I use it often when studying rather than dragging out all my versions.
 
If you can find it, the 1901 ASV might be a good choice.

That is a great translation; I like the way it uses Jehovah. I managed to find one over here a year ago. Never seen one before, never seen one since.
There is still one publisher in the States that does it. I have an OPC friend who HATES it, he says all the Church of Christ folk use it, I don't know, never been t a CoC so I will take his word!:):):):):)
 
Last edited:
If you can find it, the 1901 ASV might be a good choice.

That is a great translation; I like the way it uses Jehovah. I managed to find one over here a year ago. Never seen one before, never seen one since.
There is still one publisher in the States that does it. I have an OPC friend who HATES it, he says all the Church of Christ folk use it, I don't know, never been t a CoC so I will take his word!:):):):):)

Al Martin used it for years (I think he preaches from the NKJV now).
 
i dont know what "CT" means.

But i do use an ESV and NASB (both wide margin of course!) In my personal opinion the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.

I really enjoy the ESV style and renderings but for sermon preparation and study I use the NASB primarily. One of the reasons is that I find it much more helpful to study from a text which has the verses on separate lines for greater ease of studying each word of the text. The ESV has used a paragraph form which, while it is probably easier to read through chapters, I find difficult to use for study.

There are presently a real shortage of good study Bibles in the ESV also. The Reformation Study Bible is great, the Scofield Study Bible comes in ESV, and also the recently released Literary Study Bible.
 
The ASV is very nice in some ways. Barring the original RV it's probably more like the AV in its use of language (older pronominal forms, etc): and it seems to be very consistent in the application of its translation philosophy. It is probably not quite as easy to read as the ESV, but since you're not looking to get sucked in by an attractive CT version, this might be a good option for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top