Top 3 English Translations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bladestunner316

Puritan Board Doctor
Ok now besides having the original greek and hebrew both of which im illiterate in.
Which 3 english translatiosn would you suggest be the best for me to study with.

bladestunner316:wr6:

[edited to correct spelling....the word English was originally spelled "Engilsh" in the title] :lol:

[Edited on 6-21-03 by pastorway]
 
NKJV is best
KJV is fine if thou likest olde Engish.
These use the Received Text which I prefer to the Critical (Majority Text would be better still, but I await a MT Bible).
NASB and ESB are good if you like the CT.
NIV is poor, the rest are rubbish. We want God's words, not what someone else thinks God would have said if He'd been as clever as the translator!
Blessings,
Steve
 
[b:3d1296c4b4]grace2U wrote:[/b:3d1296c4b4]
NASB and ESB are good if you like the CT.

CT...Does that stand for covenant theology or critical text? :D

Bob
 
[quote:1387a00f03][i:1387a00f03]Originally posted by RICK[/i:1387a00f03]
If you're doing inductive study, NKJV, NASB or ESV.

For general reading, NIV. [/quote:1387a00f03]

I agree with the NKJV, NASB and ESV. I would not use the NIV for anything beyond study to know what it says in a given instance -- and usually to see how it butchers a passage.
 
ESV, NASB (1977), & NASB (1995)

in that order

But there is nothing quite like working with the original languages on their own unique terms. A translation is still a translation. There's a professor of the biblical languages who tells his students that reading a translation is like being kissed through cellophane - however ardent and well-planted the kiss, it lacks a certain immediacy. :bouncing: That is not to say, however, that one must be fluent in the languages in order to read and understand Scripture; but there is a lack of emphasis on the languages in our local churches that should be corrected.
 
[quote:7a1d9028a7][i:7a1d9028a7]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:7a1d9028a7]
DC - quite true.

Do any of your churches teach Greek or Hebrew? [/quote:7a1d9028a7] My church will be offering a free first year Greek course on Sunday afternoons starting this Fall. We have done so in the past to great interest. We are also looking at putting together an advanced course, probably using Wallace and the NA27. I personally tutor a young man in NT Greek on Saturdays using Colwell's little reader. We have 2 guys who are fluent in Hebrew, and I am encouraging them to teach the rest of us. I've dabbled in Hebrew on my own but have no formal study in it yet. I believe, based on the principle we have in 2Tim.2:2, that local churches should in essence be their own seminaries - teaching church history, the languages, theology, etc. That we send qualified men "out" of the local church for training under someone else's authority is indicative of a problem, In my humble opinion.

In Christ, dC
 
Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two.
 
[quote:866c7ee013][i:866c7ee013]Originally posted by calvinistkid[/i:866c7ee013]
Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two. [/quote:866c7ee013] One of the weaknesses of the NIV is that its vocabulary is toned down to a 3rd grade reading level (you won't find the word "propitiation" anywhere in your NIV). Readability (easy reading) was the driving force behind the NIV; verbal accuracy was not. Rather than a word for word translation, the NIV translators went for more of a concept for concept translation. All this allows for much more commentary within the translation and for less accuracy.

As for the NKJV or KJV, they too have weaknesses that keep them off my top 3 list. Namely, they are translated from an inferior Greek manuscript which contains errors. R.C. Sproul explains:

"One fact concerning the King James Version [all of the following applies to the NKJV also] cannot and must not be ignored: the King James Version is simply [b:866c7ee013]less accurate in its representation of the original writings of Scrtipture[/b:866c7ee013] than most modern translations. There is a crucial historical reason for this. The Greek text from which the King James Version was translated (the [i:866c7ee013]Textus Receptus[/i:866c7ee013]) is [b:866c7ee013]clearly inferior[/b:866c7ee013] to more modern reconstructed Greek texts. [b:866c7ee013]Many texual errors[/b:866c7ee013] found in the King James Version have been eliminated by more recent translations. Manuscript discoveries since the sixteenth century have greatly enriched our knowledge of the original texts. ... If we are interested in [b:866c7ee013]accuracy[/b:866c7ee013] and [b:866c7ee013]purity[/b:866c7ee013] of biblical translation, we must go beyond the King James Bible." [Sproul, R.C. [b:866c7ee013]Knowing Scripture[/b:866c7ee013] Intervarsity Press; Downer's Grove, IL: 1977, pp.117-118.] Emphasis mine.

Grace and peace, dC
 
[quote:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]Originally posted by calvinistkid[/i:995693c15f]
Why don't you guys like the NIV? That is what I have always used... I was given a NKJV at my highschool graduation, but as of yet have not noticed a huge difference between the two. [/quote:995693c15f]

Kid,

The quickest way to address this is to say that the NIV uses a fundamentally flawed method of translation called "dynamic equivalence." What that basically means is that instead of translating words (i.e. nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc) it translates "thought for thought." the only problem is that the Bible is plenarally verbally (word) inspired not thought inspired. Actual words have importance to the Scripture. The NIV does this in order to "be more readable" to the modern man.

Let me give you just one example. 1 Peter 1:13 is translated as follows:


[quote:995693c15f]
[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NIV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Therefore, [u:995693c15f]prepare your minds for action[/u:995693c15f]; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed


[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NKJV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Therefore [u:995693c15f]gird up the loins of your mind[/u:995693c15f], be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]Young's Literal Translation[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
Wherefore [u:995693c15f]having girded up the loins of your mind[/u:995693c15f], being sober, hope perfectly upon the grace that is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ[/quote:995693c15f]

If we take a look at the underlined portion, we may think that there is not much difference. But we also know from our theology (verbal inspiration) that there is a [b:995693c15f]reason[/b:995693c15f] that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write "gird up the loins of your mind" and not "be prepared". Greek certainly has a word for "be prepared." It is not even an uncommon word. In fact, "gird up the loins of your mind" is not even a common Attic or Greek idiom for "be prepared."

So there must be something else at work here. Well, if will help if we try and think about where else "gird up" is used in Scripture. The word used in 1 Peter 1:13 [size=15:995693c15f](anazwnnumi)[/size:995693c15f] is closely related to the word used in John 13:4-5 [size=15:995693c15f](diazwnnumi)[/size:995693c15f] , where Christ girds himself (so KJV) and washes the disciples feet. It is also used in John 21:7, where Peter girds himself to jump into the water and see his resurrected Lord. Similar cognates can be found in Luke 12:37; Luke 17:8; and Acts 12:8, where the idea of girding oneself for [u:995693c15f]service[/u:995693c15f] is in view.

Now we have all these connotations, which would obviously be in view for Peter (since he wrote this), and we have lost this completely, since the translators of the NIV decided that it was too burdensome on readers to understand the concept that if men were to be prepared to act and serve, they would need to bind up their long flowing robes to get them out of the way. Does this make sense?

Secondly and finally for now, the NIV also just plain blunders many passages. The worst in my mind is John 1:13, which is the dumbest example of a mistranslation I think I have ever seen. Even the NLT get this right:

[quote:995693c15f]
[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NIV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or [u:995693c15f]a husband's will[/u:995693c15f], but born of God.

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NASB[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NKJV[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God

[b:995693c15f][i:995693c15f]NLT[/i:995693c15f][/b:995693c15f]
They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan--this rebirth comes from God[/quote:995693c15f]

As you can see, the NIV translators make the inexplicable decision to translate [size=15:995693c15f]aner[/size:995693c15f] as husband. It just makes absolutely no sense in this context. It is quite frankly evidence of sloppiness and laziness.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I haven't even touched on the Critical Text v. Majority Text issue yet. :D
 
[quote:33866f3a23][i:33866f3a23]Originally posted by doulosChristou[/i:33866f3a23]
As for the NKJV or KJV, they too have weaknesses that keep them off my top 3 list. Namely, they are translated from an inferior Greek manuscript which contains errors. R.C. Sproul explains:

"One fact concerning the King James Version [all of the following applies to the NKJV also] cannot and must not be ignored: the King James Version is simply [b:33866f3a23]less accurate in its representation of the original writings of Scrtipture[/b:33866f3a23] than most modern translations. There is a crucial historical reason for this. The Greek text from which the King James Version was translated (the [i:33866f3a23]Textus Receptus[/i:33866f3a23]) is [b:33866f3a23]clearly inferior[/b:33866f3a23] to more modern reconstructed Greek texts. [b:33866f3a23]Many texual errors[/b:33866f3a23] found in the King James Version have been eliminated by more recent translations. Manuscript discoveries since the sixteenth century have greatly enriched our knowledge of the original texts. ... If we are interested in [b:33866f3a23]accuracy[/b:33866f3a23] and [b:33866f3a23]purity[/b:33866f3a23] of biblical translation, we must go beyond the King James Bible." [Sproul, R.C. [b:33866f3a23]Knowing Scripture[/b:33866f3a23] Intervarsity Press; Downer's Grove, IL: 1977, pp.117-118.] Emphasis mine.

Grace and peace, dC [/quote:33866f3a23]

Respectfully, I would have to disagree with RC. To say that God did not providentially preserve His word in its proper form for a few hundred years (remember that Vaticanus and Synaticus were out of existence -- in garbage cans, literally, from about 300 A.D. to 1700 A.D. ) is a dangerous position. Remember that many of the differences are not trivial. If we take this position, we must say that God misled His people into thinking that the end Mark 16 and the passage about the cripple at the well in John 5 were actually part of the Bible when they are not.
 
[quote:e0b0f90510][i:e0b0f90510]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e0b0f90510]
Respectfully, I would have to disagree with RC. To say that God did not providentially preserve His word in its proper form for a few hundred years (remember that Vaticanus and Synaticus were out of existence -- in garbage cans, literally, from about 300 A.D. to 1700 A.D. ) is a dangerous position. Remember that many of the differences are not trivial. If we take this position, we must say that God misled His people into thinking that the end Mark 16 and the passage about the cripple at the well in John 5 were actually part of the Bible when they are not. [/quote:e0b0f90510] How long was God's word buried and forgotten by the time it was found and brought to King Josiah? Your argument that it was God who misled the church during the dark ages is unconvincing. Surely, you do not argue that 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV/NKJV was penned by John, do you? The overwhelming evidence and testimony of our finest Greek manuscripts is against it. The added words simply do not appear in our earliest manuscripts. It is a clear example of scribal addition, and I do not think it is dangerous for R.C. to say so. Sproul, having served on the New King James Bible Review Committee as it was assembled, carries a lot of weight on this one. James White and D. A. Carson, in both their books against KJV-onlyism, point out the same facts. Good work on citing examples where the NIV distorts the text.

In Christ, dC
 
[quote:aa85e45da9][i:aa85e45da9]posted by puritanpilgrim[/i:aa85e45da9]
Message, Living, Good News for Modern Man [/quote:aa85e45da9]

I hope you were kidding. If not, I am more than willing to buy you a real Bible.


:biggrin:


And Fred is correct about the NIV. We are dumbing down the church. Part of the problem is theological. Another part is that we think we need to make God's Word more simple. Why? Just because people cannot read past a third grade level, does that mean we should work to bring the Word to that level, or should it mean that we strive to be effective teachers of the Word, making the meaning plain for our hearers?

The fundamental issue though is the word for word vs thought for thought translation. Check out Alpha and Omega Ministries site for more details on the issue. James White has done some excellent work in the field! http://aomin.org


Phillip
 
Here! Here!

One of the greatest gifts from the church to society in general has been a literate public. Now, we are acquiessing to the lowest common denominator. Sad. Very sad. This also is playing a factor in the 'regendering' of our language.
 
[quote:808e22af6c]
Now, we are acquiessing to the lowest common denominator.
[/quote:808e22af6c]

Please explain what you mean by this statement. It seems to me like Christ acquiessed to the lowest common denominator many times. He told the TRUTH in simple terms. We must be able to explain Reformed doctrines to children, the simple minded, the unlearned, as well as the educated and the scholar. I AGREE that the NIV is a poor translation. There are better ones we can use. We need to explain the difficulties with the more literal translations with those whom we are speaking. We need to be all things to all people. So, please explain what you meant by that statement.

[Edited on 6-21-2003 by Visigoth]
 
A quick example of an NIV blooper:-
John 11:5-6, NIV: 'Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, YET when He heard that Lazarus was sick, He stayed where He was for two more days'.
NKJV (and most other translations): Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, SO when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was'.
The Greek word translated 'yet' in the NIV and 'so' in the NKJV is 'oun'. It always means 'so' or 'therefore'. This is quite important; it is one thing to tell a new believer that even though The Lord Jesus loves him, He may not answer his prayers; what we should be saying is that it is BECAUSE He loves Him that He may not answer his prayers (Heb 12:5ff).
Blessings,
Steve

[Edited on 6-22-2003 by grace2U]
 
Its interesting hearing all this stuff about the NIV since ive been raised on it its just recently(past year) on my own accord that I have started using the NKJV which I love. What about translations such as the RSV and The English Bible?
Also my grandmother uses theLiving Bible which she absolutely loves and her church uses the MEssage Alot. What About those translations?

bladestunnner316:wr48:
 
Vis,
Thanks for the question. The LCD that I to which I was referring is not the presentation of the gospel or the precepts of Scripture. Rather, it was the translated text. Many Christians today are reading 'bibles' that are not faithful representaions of the orginal. Intepretative work must be done in transalation, but sometimes it is taken too far and removes the detail from the text. If one holds to plenary verbal inspiration this is serious business. I believe that young children can be taught to read at a much higher level than the 'experts' say. My seven year old daughter has been reading from the NASB for her entire reading life (an average child can begin reading simply by age three) and is growing from it. When she cannot understand a grammatical structure or vocabulary it prompts a question from her and . . . voila! Education takes place. This same principle applies to adults as well.

Lawrence
 
I hope no one will take offense at this, but I don't see what the big deal is with the ESV. It seems like a warmed-over Revised Standard Version, if you ask me. In fact, it's almost identical.
 
[quote:cc4af25fa9][i:cc4af25fa9]Originally posted by RICK[/i:cc4af25fa9]
I hope no one will take offense at this, but I don't see what the big deal is with the ESV. It seems like a warmed-over Revised Standard Version, if you ask me. In fact, it's almost identical. [/quote:cc4af25fa9]

Rick,

Generally I agree with you; but then again I don't have much use for the Critical Text. The one advantage that I think the ESV has is some corrections of old RSV errors (e.g. the "young woman" not "virgin" passage in Isaiah).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top