Which Bible Version do you Prefer?
- Thread starter Bill The Baptist
- Start date
- Status
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
THIS! I thought I was the only one.
If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.
Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that.
Since you don't seem to have a preference as to the underlying texts, what is about either the NKJV or ESV that you think needs to be improved?
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Bill. I actually do prefer the Majority Text so the NKJV is my go-to-Bible (which is what I voted for). However, the ESV is quite helpful in some places, the language is much clearer at times since it doesn't feel like it has to be so constrained to follow the KJV. There are instances I just find it to be a better translation. One particular help (as an example is Hebrews 4):
So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (ESV)
Compared to:
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (NKJV)
I first learned of the Hebrews 4 interpretation of the Sabbath Day from the ESV, so I'll always fondly remember it as such.
So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (ESV)
Compared to:
There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (NKJV)
I first learned of the Hebrews 4 interpretation of the Sabbath Day from the ESV, so I'll always fondly remember it as such.
THIS! I thought I was the only one
If someone would take the best bits from the NKJV and the best bits from the ESV and stick them together in one version, then that would be my favourite translation.
Please let me know when somebody gets round to doing that.
Since you don't seem to have a preference as to the underlying texts, what is about either the NKJV or ESV that you think needs to be improved?
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
I like the AV footnote on Hebrews 4.9, because of its accuracy.
Josh, the funniest experience I had with accents was when my brother shifted to South Africa. I got him to meet my pastors wife who was a South African. She made a comment about certain tribes who killed each other by fighting. Unfortunately my brother misunderstood her accent and wondered how people could possibly be killed through fartingFush and chups
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I prefer the KJV for its textual basis, its accuracy, its idiomatic beauty, and the significant role it has enjoyed in the history of English Protestantism and western society.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Yeah! Why do you think we broke away from you guys in the first place? LOL
M_Scott
Puritan Board Freshman
I've always been partial to my 1981 NASB Study Bible from Holman but the font is too small. I've been using the ESV (2011) in pdf and eSword and really enjoy it. I plan to pick up the new Crossway ESV Study Bible large print and ESV Bible large print when they come out in July/August 2014 - I will probably seek advice where most of you shop online for your bibles. I used to buy from Evangelical Bible Bookstore in San Diego but they closed a few years back after what was 30 or 40 years in business.
I would also enjoy the flavor of the NKJV in a study bible but have no clue what a good large print would be (publisher etc), so...
ESV, NASB, NKJV are good choices in my opinion.
I would also enjoy the flavor of the NKJV in a study bible but have no clue what a good large print would be (publisher etc), so...
ESV, NASB, NKJV are good choices in my opinion.
Gloria Dei
Puritan Board Freshman
I prefer the KJV (as I'm a TR guy), though I love to utilize the ESV and NASB for comparisons. The NKJV is useful for distinguishing between textual variations of the Textus Receptus compared to the Critical Text and Majority Text. Also, love the Geneva Bible, but use it primarily for its notes.
Yes, this is helpful but a little out of date. The majority Text scheme of Maurice Robinson etc is probably the more up to date MT.
Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've been reading NASB for 30 years, but I'm surprised by how much is in my memory from KJV. I like to read both to my kids in school just so they know the older English and the beauty of the language. As for the NASB, I can't count the number of times my pastor has said, "a better translation of this passage would be ..." then give something close to the NASB from his own translation, not, I should mention, as a contrast to KJV.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Wow, I'm a bit surprised that no one will admit to using the NIV. Come on now, I know you are out there, there is no judgment here 
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I reference the old NIV on a pretty regular basis in my weekly study and sermon preparation. But I would never recommend it to any believer as a reliable translation. Especially since the 2011 revision which is really the TNIV being rebranded as the "NIV."
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I guess the NIV is like a Justin Bieber album, millions get sold and yet no one claims to own one.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Excellent way of putting it. But the question now is, Does Bill Perkins own a Justin Bieber album?
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
If you mean an NIV, yes I have a copy that I occasionally consult. I find that it is not as bad as many people make out, but at the same time I often find it to be too interpretive for my taste. As for Justin Bieber, I would rather have my eardrums boiled in Tabasco sauce.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rev. Ruddell no doubt refers to the note "keeping of a sabbath" in the margin.
Herein lies one of the problems with the AV, at least with regard to the footnotes. Some editions have no note at Heb. 4:9. And it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is an officially licensed version in the UK or some "Wild West" public domain edition in the USA. Here, in order, are the results of the KJV's in my library that I checked. (I kept checking because the first one did not have it.)
Collins New Brevier Reference--No. (Collins is the official (exclusive?) publisher in Scotland with an official license from the crown. This one was really surprising as it does have some marginal notes. This is a smaller Bible but it is bigger than a Pitt Minion.)
Nelson KJV Reference--No (This one has marginal notes from the Open Bible, if I'm not mistaken, so no surprise here.)
Zondervan KJV reference--Yes (This is a 1994 edition and I'm not sure if Zondervan uses it anymore. It has a lot of footnotes but I don't know what the source is i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, etc.
AV 1611 facsimilie published by Zondervan in 2011--Yes
Oxford "Old" Scofield Reference--Yes! (I thought the Scofield (him or the cmte-it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery and one not likely to be solved at this point) stripped all of the Oxford notes (including marginal ones) out in favor of its own. (I'm pretty sure there are some Scofield specific marginal notes in addition to the study notes.) Evidently I was mistaken, at least in this case. I haven't spent enough time with it to know otherwise.)
Cambridge Pitt Minion--Yes
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
For years my preference was the NKJV. But largely due to the lack of quality editions, especially "black letter" editions, (red letter is very hard for me to read at this point, theological and other considerations aside) I've pretty much laid the NKJV aside as I don't want to use a Study Bible as my "main" Bible and I haven't broken down and shelled out for a NKJV Cambridge Clarion. The way I am, I would probably get one and then decide to use another translation anyway. I did have a Schuyler NKJV but decided I didn't like it when I discovered that it didn't have the full complement of NKJV marginal notes. I know it's supposed to be a "reader" but I'd still prefer to have all of the marginal notes and generally prefer cross references as well.
Since then, I've read the KJV through for the first time and have continued reading from it as well as the NASB, HCSB and ESV. So it's really still up in the air. I'm guessing I may end up on the ESV bandwagon.
But I really don't wanna! (I jumped on the ESV bandwagon right after publication (before many had any familiarity with it) and then jumped off about a decade ago for reasons I've enumerated here in the past.)
Since then, I've read the KJV through for the first time and have continued reading from it as well as the NASB, HCSB and ESV. So it's really still up in the air. I'm guessing I may end up on the ESV bandwagon.
But I really don't wanna! (I jumped on the ESV bandwagon right after publication (before many had any familiarity with it) and then jumped off about a decade ago for reasons I've enumerated here in the past.)
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I did the same thing for a season. But after a thorough study of textual criticism my views changed in favor of the Traditional text. Additionally, after week-in-week-out interaction with the ESV in sermon preparation, I saw that the ESV was not nearly as literal as the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. It frequently follows the the NIV in its translation choices. It often tends more toward translation choices that interpret the text rather than merely translating it. Of course the ESV is not alone in this, and all in all, it's by no means a bad translation. But I don't feel it comes anywhere near living up to the hype that surrounds it. And putting at the front of the pack in terms of literalness as some have done simply does not reflect reality.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
He's not speaking for me.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I agree 100% with you on literalness. Those who put together the charts showing the ESV way over on the left by the NASB (thus claiming it is more literal than NKJV and KJV) are very ignorant if not dishonest. I do think that not having the "supplied" words in italics is a minus for the ESV as well, although admittedly that isn't a perfect practice. I'm not sure that it is much more literal than the HCSB in many places. (And the HCSB has a lot more textual and other marginal notes. When it departs from a literal reading it usually seems to be footnoted.) It's just that the ESV retains more of that "KJV feel." But it's still off enough to throw me off in churches where it is used (and recited) since I'm more used to the KJV and especially NKJV.
As an aside, something else that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the NASB often uses more contemporary language than the ESV does and often translates Hebraisms into more contemporary English idiom. (That is actually one reason why I prefer the NKJV. If the NASB is supposed to be the most "literal" then why not translate "gird up the loins of your mind" literally?) I'm not sure that there is that much archaic language in the NASB. The awkwardness is more a reflection of the syntax than the vocabulary.
The contemporary translation advocates (including the ones for the ESV) will tell us that that "nobody speaks KJV today." But there are plenty of places in the ESV where the same could be said. "Fret not?" "Behold!" Who speaks like that? I actually prefer it but the proverbial "man on the street" might not unless he has some familiarity with the Bible or maybe Shakespeare.
Another thing I don't like is that it is more "radical" than the NASB and HCSB in relegating TR/Byz readings to the margin. In some cases, as with the NIV, it relegates whole verses to the margin. There is a time and place to address textual criticism. But I've had to do that in Sunday School classes where I hadn't planned ahead for it. We were going through a historic confession and I was having people read the proof texts. "Would you please read John 5:4." "But my Bible doesn't have it?!" (It wasn't that text, (it was something from the synoptics) but that's the kind of thing that can happen.)
Those who want to put the KJV on the scrap heap will often tell us how bad it is and how riddled with errors it is. They decry the polemics from KJV Onlyists that point out problems in the modern versions and thus undermine confidence in them. But don't the modern version advocates effectively do the same thing when Betty Baptist and Patricia Presbyterian hear that the KJV they've relied on for 50 years is full of errors?
Last edited:
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you, Chris, for your reference work given in your post. This is a difficulty. I did note that the Cambridge edition included the note--the TBS editions will as well. My point was that the "keeping of sabbath" note is indeed the most accurate translation of that verse (in my opinion). I also have a TR/Majority text preference, so the AV wins there as well. But the final advantage of the AV is the distinguishing of the second person plural from singular--this is so very important, and so seldom discussed. In John 3, when Christ says to Nicodemus, "marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again" I submit that it is impossible to make out what Christ is saying apart from that distinction. "Thee" refers to a singular "you", and "ye" refers to a plural amount "y'all or youse-guys". Christ tells Nicodemus that all "ye Pharisees" must be born again. When modern translations omit that distinction, translating "marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again", the meaning is lost.
The AV is not a perfect translation, but this factor weighs heavily in its favor, and ought not to be downplayed, or worse, left to silence.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
(spoken sotto voce) This man needs more consistency in his life.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
OK. I had read 'here' to mean the PB, not you personally. With that clarification....
ReverendJim
Puritan Board Freshman
Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, ESV.
- Status
Similar threads
