Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?

  • CFN has a new look, using the Eagle as our theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • CFN welcomes a new contributing member!

    Please welcome Beetow to our Christian community.

    Blessings in Christ, and we pray you enjoy being a member here

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

D

Dave...

Independent Reformed
Member
Nov 15, 2003
1,996
134
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I like the, the New King James Version (NKJV) because it updated many of the outdated words from the original King James Version. Like, instead of 'charity', it used 'love'. It also corrected a few translations that I agree where not accurate. I never did care for the "ye's" and Yeah's" anyways, no matter how poetic it may sound.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) isn't bad either. I've used the New International Version (NIV) when I started out because it was easier to understand.

My go to is the NKJV.

Anything outside of those big four I probably wouldn't trust.

Dave
 
I use the Open Bible KJV. I love the concordance, cross references, archeological discoveries, guide to Christian workers, a list of OT prophecies that are fulfilled in the NT, a beginning outline of each book and just so much more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave...
Hi all,

I use several, but my 'go to church' copy of the Scriptures is the NKJ translation. But I do like the 1984 copyright of the NIV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave...
I use a few including KJV, NIV, ESV, and NKJV. My favorite is the NKJV. Not using other translations does not mean I do not trust them. I do not read or understand the ancient languages so I am not in a position to judge the validity of any translation. Translations rarely, if ever, work word for word but are basically a thought for thought conversion so the best I can do is to compare different translations side by side to see if they are more or less expressing the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave...
LSB, NASB95, ESV, KJV and YLT

LSB is fairly new and based off of NASB from my understanding.

I use NASB95 most of the time.

Think there is an updated one as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave...
My NKJV was a MacArthur study Bible, BTW.

I purchased a NASB because of Kenneth Wuest, one of the translators of the NSAB. I was introduced to him by way of some of his private writings. I though that NASB may be 'thee one' translation. Not bad, but NKJV is still better in my opinion. I also purchased a NASB because I needed a large print Bible anyways. 👓

Dave
 
My go to is a KJV Thompson Chain Reference Bible , I am not KJV only .
LCBP-Thompson-Chain-Reference-Bible-058.jpg
 
Dave... said:
I like the, the New King James Version (NKJV) because it updated many of the outdated words from the original King James Version. Like, instead of 'charity', it used 'love'. It also corrected a few translations that I agree where not accurate. I never did care for the "ye's" and Yeah's" anyways, no matter how poetic it may sound.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) isn't bad either. I've used the New International Version (NIV) when I started out because it was easier to understand.

My go to is the NKJV.

Anything outside of those big four I probably wouldn't trust.

Dave
Click to expand...
I like the KJV bible.
It is the purest.
 

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.
2024-12-16 20_51_59-Systematic Theology.docx - Last saved by user - Word.png
 
Fastfredy0 said:

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.
View attachment 17401
Click to expand...
I have read great things about the AMP.

Word for word is also plus and I will be looking into this.

Thank you.
 
My go-to for the last 50 years has been the NASB. First the '72 and now the '95. I got a first edition of the NIV when it came out and was quickly convinced it was seriously watered down. I do like the NKJV, but mostly as the best representative of the Textus Receptus family of Greek texts.

Another good one, but not for everybody, is the Tree of Life Version. It is as word-for-word with the Nestle Aland text as the NASB, but does so in Hebraic/Messianic terminology.

If I am writing something where I am quoting a LOT of scripture, I often will use the WEB - World English Bible (both the regular and the Messianic Edition) for copyright purposes. It is based off of the American Standard Version which is public domain so the WEB is also public domain in all its flavors.
 
Fastfredy0 said:

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.​

Click to expand...
Yeah - I REALLY dislike commentary put in as biblical text.

Commentary is fine, but put it in the footnotes or a side bar. When it is within the text, it is too easily considered scripture itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jasonc and hawkman
electedbyHim said:
I have read great things about the AMP.

Word for word is also plus and I will be looking into this.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Well, the downside of the AMP is the it is choppy at times when you just want to read word-for-word and skip AMP's insertions. Overall, I think the insertions are a plus. AMP not good for group study IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: electedbyHim
D-D-W said:
Yeah - I REALLY dislike commentary put in as biblical text.

Commentary is fine, but put it in the footnotes or a side bar. When it is within the text, it is too easily considered scripture itself.
Click to expand...
That's a valid point. At times the insertions disrupt my reading. At other times it makes things clearer. The textual flow of word-for-word versions can be difficult at times and the AMP smooths it over. On the other hand, putting in insertions could be abused.
 
Fastfredy0 said:

Which Bible translation do you prefer and why?​

The AMP because it inserts inside of brackets commentary within the text. Also, it is a word for word translation.


I do not crare for the KJV as it has issues I've read about and the English is difficult. This is not say it is bad, just inferior IMO.

I favor "word-for-word" translations and don't care for "thought-for-thought" translations.
View attachment 17401
Click to expand...
I think it's good to use at least three from across the spectrum. Formal equivalence can be choppy to read and doesn't always convey the author's meaning. That is just the nature of trying to translate word-for-word from one language to another. Hence the need for a dynamic equivalence translation, such as the NIV, or even the NLT. One could, and perhaps should, also choose from versions whose scholars are not American or even Evangelical, to get a sense of how other interpret the text.

But, I also agree with you about the KJV--it's good but inferior. That it uses archaic language certainly doesn't help, as some words have changed meaning since then and one could actually get wrong ideas about what is being said. The NKJV is hardly better--updated language but the same inferior manuscripts of the KJV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D-D-W, electedbyHim and Fastfredy0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom