Which translation and why?

[cyberjosh]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .

Nice line up. I have a KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. How did you get your hands on an ESV? That's awesome. The ESV and ASV are the middle texts between the transition from KJV to the NASB. It has a good balance.

I prefer the NASB because it is quite literal. And I love the NKJV for its beautiful language and the fullness of its text in coorespondence with the Textus Receptus. The NKJV also has updated scholarship on Hebrew words that weren't that well known in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. And for those who didn't know, the NKJV has the most full set of cross references and textual notes of any English translation. So the NASB and NKJV are my two favorites, and when I want to get extemely down and dirty into the language I go to the KJV, although sometimes it doesn't always use the best wording, but it represents the best syntax from the Hebrew & Greek IMO.

As for the NIV, well... it tries to adhere to traditional KJV readings in places but ultimately it goes off on its own. I can only give it meager praise for superiority on a few passages when it comes to the meaning of a passage. When I can't understand the literal rendering of the KJV or the NASB I'll go to the NIV for some help because it tries to bring out the "thoughts" or idea present in the Scripture. Sometimes this works stupendously, sometimes it is absolutely horrible. I like the NIV, but not as a study Bible.

 

[golfjack]

reply

Thanks Jg. I have a question? In another thread, I noticed that some are saying that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. I can give 18 proofs from the Biblical standpoint that He is theSon of God. Can I write such a long post? If not, would it be better to present it in parts?


May God bless. golfjack

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: reply

Thanks Jg. I have a question? In another thread, I noticed that some are saying that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. I can give 18 proofs from the Biblical standpoint that He is theSon of God. Can I write such a long post? If not, would it be better to present it in parts?

If you do please post them here: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 2&start=30 . I already posted 8 proof Scriptures there for Imagician to ponder over. Are any of those the one's you were going to post?

 

[cyberjosh]

PreacherBoy said:

Cybershark5886 said:
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

That hurt!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

“You mean Jesus grunted?!?!â€Â

Priceless!!!! *Dies laughing again*



Thats an instant classic!

LOL! I can't believe you dug that up. That was really hilarious though. :D

 

[jgredline]

Actually golf and Cyber.
Here is the latest link to the latest topic.
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=25045
Please your more than welcome. Golf
The debate is not is Jesus the Son of God, But is Jesus God.
Come on over and post away
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=25045

 

[Steve]

Re: reply

What about the Amplified Version? I once went to a Preyspetarian Bible study, and they handed me a sheet that give all the reasons to use The KJV Only version. Also, they gave me verses that they say proves how one can lose their salvation. Needless to say, I never went back. Today, this church has split and become very liberal. They belong to the National Council of Churches, which to me is part of the Apostate church. One more comment: Does anyone use a thompson chain linc Bible KJV. version. I used this for study at Rhema.



May God bless, golfjack

Oh, the Amplified!!!! :smt078 This one has been made popular again by Joyce Meyer. The Amplified is perhaps one of the most difficult reads out there. The prob here is that extra words are given, leaving it to the uninitiated to accept what they think is the correct amplification of the Greek. I have tried it a million times, and wound up taking each one back to the store for a refund. I dislike it intensely.

 

[Steve]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .

Nice line up. I have a KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. How did you get your hands on an ESV? That's awesome. The ESV and ASV are the middle texts between the transition from KJV to the NASB. It has a good balance.

I prefer the NASB because it is quite literal. And I love the NKJV for its beautiful language and the fullness of its text in coorespondence with the Textus Receptus. The NKJV also has updated scholarship on Hebrew words that weren't that well known in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. And for those who didn't know, the NKJV has the most full set of cross references and textual notes of any English translation. So the NASB and NKJV are my two favorites, and when I want to get extemely down and dirty into the language I go to the KJV, although sometimes it doesn't always use the best wording, but it represents the best syntax from the Hebrew & Greek IMO.

As for the NIV, well... it tries to adhere to traditional KJV readings in places but ultimately it goes off on its own. I can only give it meager praise for superiority on a few passages when it comes to the meaning of a passage. When I can't understand the literal rendering of the KJV or the NASB I'll go to the NIV for some help because it tries to bring out the "thoughts" or idea present in the Scripture. Sometimes this works stupendously, sometimes it is absolutely horrible. I like the NIV, but not as a study Bible.

I pretty much agree with a lot of this. I just picked up off e-bay a Genuine Leather 1973 edition of the NASB Side Column Reference Bible in perfect condition from Creation House. I think it more literal and exacting than the 1995 Update.I've been pretty much using that along with the Calfskin Deluxe Reference Edition of the ESV, and the ESV Reformation Study Bible, and the black-letter NKJV Scofield 3, and the Scofield 3 NIV. I am very gradually coming around to tolerate the NIV. They have undertranslated in many areas, but I dont think it is the great bugaboo that some feel about it. The NKJV is a very good translation of the Textus Receptus. i do notice that Nelson keeps making small word changes in it without telling anybody. The translation notes give you a very adequate picture of how all the manuscript families translate. I have very little patience for the KJV, and, although I have some very nice editions of it, they are all gathering dust. I also refer occasionally to the Thompson NASB.

 

[jgredline]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .

Nice line up. I have a KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. How did you get your hands on an ESV? That's awesome. The ESV and ASV are the middle texts between the transition from KJV to the NASB. It has a good balance.

I prefer the NASB because it is quite literal. And I love the NKJV for its beautiful language and the fullness of its text in coorespondence with the Textus Receptus. The NKJV also has updated scholarship on Hebrew words that weren't that well known in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. And for those who didn't know, the NKJV has the most full set of cross references and textual notes of any English translation. So the NASB and NKJV are my two favorites, and when I want to get extemely down and dirty into the language I go to the KJV, although sometimes it doesn't always use the best wording, but it represents the best syntax from the Hebrew & Greek IMO.

As for the NIV, well... it tries to adhere to traditional KJV readings in places but ultimately it goes off on its own. I can only give it meager praise for superiority on a few passages when it comes to the meaning of a passage. When I can't understand the literal rendering of the KJV or the NASB I'll go to the NIV for some help because it tries to bring out the "thoughts" or idea present in the Scripture. Sometimes this works stupendously, sometimes it is absolutely horrible. I like the NIV, but not as a study Bible.

I pretty much agree with a lot of this. I just picked up off e-bay a Genuine Leather 1973 edition of the NASB Side Column Reference Bible in perfect condition from Creation House. I think it more literal and exacting than the 1995 Update.I've been pretty much using that along with the Calfskin Deluxe Reference Edition of the ESV, and the ESV Reformation Study Bible, and the black-letter NKJV Scofield 3, and the Scofield 3 NIV. I am very gradually coming around to tolerate the NIV. They have undertranslated in many areas, but I dont think it is the great bugaboo that some feel about it. The NKJV is a very good translation of the Textus Receptus. i do notice that Nelson keeps making small word changes in it without telling anybody. The translation notes give you a very adequate picture of how all the manuscript families translate. I have very little patience for the KJV, and, although I have some very nice editions of it, they are all gathering dust. I also refer occasionally to the Thompson NASB.

Steve
So how do you like the ESV? I have almost started to use it exclusively.
I have new Scholfield ESV and its great. The chain referance is also great.
I also have a Hebrew / greeK NASB that I love and used it to teach..

 

[cyberjosh]

I also have a Hebrew / greeK NASB that I love and used it to teach..

I have an accompanying Zondervan Lexicon for the NASB. It's better than Strong's (which uses the KJV as its default). Also the Zondervan NASB Lexicon has more updated definitions for the Hebrew and Greek in the back. I like the Lexicon alot.

 

[Steve]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .

Nice line up. I have a KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. How did you get your hands on an ESV? That's awesome. The ESV and ASV are the middle texts between the transition from KJV to the NASB. It has a good balance.

I prefer the NASB because it is quite literal. And I love the NKJV for its beautiful language and the fullness of its text in coorespondence with the Textus Receptus. The NKJV also has updated scholarship on Hebrew words that weren't that well known in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. And for those who didn't know, the NKJV has the most full set of cross references and textual notes of any English translation. So the NASB and NKJV are my two favorites, and when I want to get extemely down and dirty into the language I go to the KJV, although sometimes it doesn't always use the best wording, but it represents the best syntax from the Hebrew & Greek IMO.

As for the NIV, well... it tries to adhere to traditional KJV readings in places but ultimately it goes off on its own. I can only give it meager praise for superiority on a few passages when it comes to the meaning of a passage. When I can't understand the literal rendering of the KJV or the NASB I'll go to the NIV for some help because it tries to bring out the "thoughts" or idea present in the Scripture. Sometimes this works stupendously, sometimes it is absolutely horrible. I like the NIV, but not as a study Bible.

I pretty much agree with a lot of this. I just picked up off e-bay a Genuine Leather 1973 edition of the NASB Side Column Reference Bible in perfect condition from Creation House. I think it more literal and exacting than the 1995 Update.I've been pretty much using that along with the Calfskin Deluxe Reference Edition of the ESV, and the ESV Reformation Study Bible, and the black-letter NKJV Scofield 3, and the Scofield 3 NIV. I am very gradually coming around to tolerate the NIV. They have undertranslated in many areas, but I dont think it is the great bugaboo that some feel about it. The NKJV is a very good translation of the Textus Receptus. i do notice that Nelson keeps making small word changes in it without telling anybody. The translation notes give you a very adequate picture of how all the manuscript families translate. I have very little patience for the KJV, and, although I have some very nice editions of it, they are all gathering dust. I also refer occasionally to the Thompson NASB.

Steve
So how do you like the ESV? I have almost started to use it exclusively.
I have new Scholfield ESV and its great. The chain referance is also great.
I also have a Hebrew / greeK NASB that I love and used it to teach..

Hi! :-D
I love the ESV. My second Bible after becoming a Christian, was Harold Lindsell's old Harper Study Bible in the RSV. I used this for years. So, when the ESV came out, I started in again with it. It is only about 7% changed from the RSV, which is(except for a few places)a very good formal equivalence translation. There are some spots where the ESV could have used more up-to-date language, but, I await the fruits of the revision of the ESV, which should be out early in 2007 with the Single Column Reference Bible. The ESV is not quite as literal as the NASB, but it makes better textual choices than does the NASB. It also adheres to the Colorado Springs guidlines regarding inclusive language(which I personally can't stand). The problem with the ESV in the eyes of the egalitarians is that it is not inclusive enough. Another problem with the ESV is its publisher---Crossway. They make lousy, and I mean lousy, Bibles, and it is pretty well known. Oxford Press makes a good Bible---they are all smyth-sewn, and will last. Oxford's latest thing is to publish all leather Bibles with thumb indexing. I hate that with a passion, and hope they relent on it. They have done a marvellous job with the Scofield augmentations, and it will be out next year in the HCSB.

 

[jgredline]

For those who follow my posts know that I use the NKJV, ESV and the NASB.. When I used to teach the adult sunday School cLASS i used the KJV as it was what was most were familiar with .

Nice line up. I have a KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. How did you get your hands on an ESV? That's awesome. The ESV and ASV are the middle texts between the transition from KJV to the NASB. It has a good balance.

I prefer the NASB because it is quite literal. And I love the NKJV for its beautiful language and the fullness of its text in coorespondence with the Textus Receptus. The NKJV also has updated scholarship on Hebrew words that weren't that well known in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. And for those who didn't know, the NKJV has the most full set of cross references and textual notes of any English translation. So the NASB and NKJV are my two favorites, and when I want to get extemely down and dirty into the language I go to the KJV, although sometimes it doesn't always use the best wording, but it represents the best syntax from the Hebrew & Greek IMO.

As for the NIV, well... it tries to adhere to traditional KJV readings in places but ultimately it goes off on its own. I can only give it meager praise for superiority on a few passages when it comes to the meaning of a passage. When I can't understand the literal rendering of the KJV or the NASB I'll go to the NIV for some help because it tries to bring out the "thoughts" or idea present in the Scripture. Sometimes this works stupendously, sometimes it is absolutely horrible. I like the NIV, but not as a study Bible.

I pretty much agree with a lot of this. I just picked up off e-bay a Genuine Leather 1973 edition of the NASB Side Column Reference Bible in perfect condition from Creation House. I think it more literal and exacting than the 1995 Update.I've been pretty much using that along with the Calfskin Deluxe Reference Edition of the ESV, and the ESV Reformation Study Bible, and the black-letter NKJV Scofield 3, and the Scofield 3 NIV. I am very gradually coming around to tolerate the NIV. They have undertranslated in many areas, but I dont think it is the great bugaboo that some feel about it. The NKJV is a very good translation of the Textus Receptus. i do notice that Nelson keeps making small word changes in it without telling anybody. The translation notes give you a very adequate picture of how all the manuscript families translate. I have very little patience for the KJV, and, although I have some very nice editions of it, they are all gathering dust. I also refer occasionally to the Thompson NASB.

Steve
So how do you like the ESV? I have almost started to use it exclusively.
I have new Scholfield ESV and its great. The chain referance is also great.
I also have a Hebrew / greeK NASB that I love and used it to teach..

Hi! :-D
I love the ESV. My second Bible after becoming a Christian, was Harold Lindsell's old Harper Study Bible in the RSV. I used this for years. So, when the ESV came out, I started in again with it. It is only about 7% changed from the RSV, which is(except for a few places)a very good formal equivalence translation. There are some spots where the ESV could have used more up-to-date language, but, I await the fruits of the revision of the ESV, which should be out early in 2007 with the Single Column Reference Bible. The ESV is not quite as literal as the NASB, but it makes better textual choices than does the NASB. It also adheres to the Colorado Springs guidlines regarding inclusive language(which I personally can't stand). The problem with the ESV in the eyes of the egalitarians is that it is not inclusive enough. Another problem with the ESV is its publisher---Crossway. They make lousy, and I mean lousy, Bibles, and it is pretty well known. Oxford Press makes a good Bible---they are all smyth-sewn, and will last. Oxford's latest thing is to publish all leather Bibles with thumb indexing. I hate that with a passion, and hope they relent on it. They have done a marvellous job with the Scofield augmentations, and it will be out next year in the HCSB.

OH, MY I so agree with you its not even funny. I was thinking and have the very same thoughts. Scary. I am glad they fixed the liberal translation mistakes of the RSV..
gOOD POst

 

[Steve]

This thread can actually be a very pleasant one until the edit crowd comes in here and starts stirring things up with a stick.

 

[jgredline]

Steve
Yea, I agree. Thats why I stood out of it when its was going through the edit season. I think too often we take for granted all the wonderful tools the Lord has blessed us with, when there are many, many places on earth that tribes, cities, towns still have to share 1 bible..
Here we have the Internet bibles and Christian book stores and everything we could want or need and so when I hear these edit DEBATES I know what the Apostle paul meant when he said to avoid foolish controversies..

 

[Solo]

Well if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!

I prefer the KJV over the modern translations, and I follow up the KJV with the Greek/Hebrew lexicons, as well as with Young's Literal Translation, the NASB, and others to get a look see into the whole translation scheme of things. I take the Textus Receptus as foundational.

I had a Thompson chain reference NIV years and years ago, but I trashed it after I found that it said something completely different than intended.

 

[Steve]

You're certainly entitled to that.

 

[AVBunyan]

This thread can actually be a very pleasant one until the edit crowd comes in here and starts stirring things up with a stick.

You mean calling you folks' hands on these modern Egyptian/Roman versions?

This Christian world was on the upswing a while back until you folks with your modern marketing techniques flooded the place with these confusing and conflicting authorities.

Now Christianity is going down the tubes - not only is Christainity not enduring sound doctrine they don't know sound doctrine.

Christainity is at it's most carnal, fleshly, and worldly state ever. I firmly believe these modern verions has been a primary cause. There is a famine in the land. If you don't have the word of God then you might as well throw in the towel.

Don't really post here any more but I came back searching out a post and saw your post Steve and just couldn't resist - don't worry - I'm not hanging around for more. Carry on with your "Modern Bible Study" - kind of like Burger King - "You can have it your way!" :-D

 

[jgredline]

Steve
did you know that if your salvation came via the preaching or teaching of someone using any bible other than the KJV that you need to get saved all over again. You see Salvation by no other bible counts.. :wink:

 

[Atonement]

To be more specific on this matter. I take with me to Church my NKJV. However, when I'm studying I use KJV, NKJV, a Mesiac Greek Bible my Bible dictionary along with my concordance. As if this was not enough I also use my Bible Library software on my computer (buy at most book stores) which translates the Bible into 25 different languages, along with thousands of Bible references, hundreds of maps and footnotes. Great software for the Bible Student who is serious about their studies..

 

[jgredline]

Atone
What bible software do you have and use?
I have been thinking about buying some, but don't know what to buy.
Rigth now I have the NASB electronic edition and the JV magee collection. I also have e sword which is free on line, but I don't really use any of them. There is something about books that I love.
Javier

 

[D46]

Sword Searcher is one of the best (my opinion) if you're going with software. I have that and PC Study Bible on the computer but, SS is my pick if you don't mind spending a little bread. You can get the freebee but, it doesn't have all the goodies the paid version has, naturally.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/

The debate over bible versions came up some months ago and it wasn't resolved then and it won't be now. Folks are going to use their choidce regardless of the reasons why another is better and those reasons are explained...been there. I think that's one of the more "friend destroying" debates you'll ever get into and there is a lot of history about textual criticism and the people behind all this change and their intents. Bottom line is that it's all for money. New and different bibles sell, and that's all the Christian bookstores are interested in. Bibles that leave out much of the verses and words that are found in 90% of all extant uncials and cursives particularly need to be held as suspect. So also are bibles that continually refer in the marginial footnotes or elsewhere that..."this verse not found in the oldest and best mss" or "not found in the ancient and authoritative mss" need especially to be held as suspect. It's like saying..."Yea, hath God said...?"