What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which Translation is the best.

Over the years I've owned several KJV translations, NIV, NKJV, and studied the background of many others. I taught out of the NIV for several years to new believers because it was easy for them to understand. Later I took them into the NKJV and stuck with that. I have "The MacArthur Study Bible" NKJV which has been my favorite for years. About a year ago I purchased a paperback edition of the English Standard Version and compared it to the KJV and saw what I felt was a better translation closer to what my "The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers" edition. I compared many words that the ESV changed from the KJV and found the ESV closer to the Greek & Hebrew renderings. For me, I like it and plan to stick with it until the Lord indicates to me different. I purchased a lovely leather bound ESV Study Bible by Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, Illinois. The leather is glove soft and the finest leather bound Bible I've ever had, and I've had a few.

In my opinion, the ESV is the best!
 
It depends what you're looking for really. It's difficult to translate Greek and Hebrew into English perfectly, so each translation has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

KJV - obviously the wording can be tough sometimes, but remember it was written at the peak of the English language. Definitely read it with a dictionary next to you. If you look up every word you don't understand you will strengthen your vocabulary immensely (that pretty much goes for any translation, but especially the KJV).
NIV - great for beginners. I don't have much use for it beyond that. I'm grateful for the NIV as it was the version I used first as a teenager. Amongst preachers and serious students it's referred to as "the Not Inspired Version." Just a light-hearted joke, so please don't get offended. ;)
NASB - the most literal translation. This is especially handy for the historical narratives of scripture along with the epistles. Not always the best for the wisdom literature/poetry and some prophetic passages.
NKJV - a very user-friendly version of the KJV. This is better than the NASB Bible for wisdom literature/poetry and some prophetic passages.
Amplified - can be an interesting resource as a study tool for looking at a verse from a different angle.

If you've read the Bible before and feel like you're in a rut, sometimes it can help to change up the translation for a season. The NLT and/or The Message can be good for this type of approach.

Hope this helps!
 
lol, not inspired version, I told a friend here. friends don't let friends read the niv. or my favorite the lxx the niv of the Hebrew tanach. don't feel like learning Hebrew thought go to the lxx my friend lol.
 
Andrew Mason said:
It depends what you're looking for really. It's difficult to translate Greek and Hebrew into English perfectly, so each translation has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

NIV - great for beginners. I don't have much use for it beyond that. I'm grateful for the NIV as it was the version I used first as a teenager. Amongst preachers and serious students it's referred to as "the Not Inspired Version." Just a light-hearted joke, so please don't get offended. ;)
Click to expand...

I actually know a number of preachers/pastors who teach out of the NIV and use the NIV as the pew Bible.

A serious student doesn't study using one translation, a serious student uses multiple translations and sometimes no translation, they use a Greek text. They also use various lexicons, commentaries, dictionaries and other resources.
 
Did anyone look some of these up? When you leave out the blood of Jesus you leave mans only hope in the dust. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.. Hebrews 9:22

Today's English Version By the American Bible Society

THE BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS IS OMITTED 15 TIMES

See Matthew 27:4,24,25; Acts 5:28, 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:14,20; Hebrews 10:19; I Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5, 5:9.

http://www.o-bible.com/bbe.html

Then there's this..

24 BIBLE VERSIONS EXAMINED

Compare with the 200 References at the beginning of this file. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics, are counted as not authentic according to BRAINWASHED modern scholarship.

A new Christian is wolf meat with these omissions..

New English New Testament (Omissions)......197 out of 200
New International Version..................195 out of 200
Revised Standard New Testament.............189 out of 200
Berkeley Version New Testament.............185 out of 200
Weymouth's in Modern Speech N.T............184 out of 200
New American Standard New Testament........183 out of 200
Good News for Modern Man N.T...............182 out of 200
Williams' New Testament....................180 out of 200
Ivan Panin's Numeric New Testament.........180 out of 200
Goodspeed's American Translation N.T.......179 out of 200
Moffatt's New Translation N.T..............175 out of 200
Wuest's Expanded Translation N.T...........169 out of 200
Amplified New Testament....................165 out of 200
Twentieth Century New Testament............161 out of 200
Phillip's New Testament....................142 out of 200
Darby's Translation New Testament..........138 out of 200
Living New Testament Paraphrased...........130 out of 200
New Confraternity New Testament............119 out of 200
Norlie's New Translation N.T............... 62 out of 200
Lamsa's Eastern Text New Testament......... 49 out of 200
John Wesley's Translation N.T.............. 43 out of 200
Martin Luther's German New Testament....... 0 out of 200
King James Version New Testament........... 0 out of 200
Textus Receptus (King James Greek) N.T..... 0 out of 200

http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

tob
 
PrivateTimm said:
I actually know a number of preachers/pastors who teach out of the NIV and use the NIV as the pew Bible.

A serious student doesn't study using one translation, a serious student uses multiple translations and sometimes no translation, they use a Greek text. They also use various lexicons, commentaries, dictionaries and other resources.
Click to expand...

I am one of those preachers who teaches out of the NIV. My church uses the NIV as the standard translation to teach and preach from. I agree with everything else you said. I was simply answering the title of the thread, which only referred to the translation.
 
OhFarouk said:
I don't know if J N Darby or C I Scofield actually met, but they were buddies when it came to what they believed.

Great guys, in my humble view.

Blessings.
Click to expand...
I am With you Farouk. Most people will say that Scofield started it, dig a little deeper, the next guy to "blame" is Darby. Go just a bit farther and we find others to "blame."

I agree with Scofield and Darby on most teachings, but to "blame" them for "starting" the dispensational school of thought is a deception that one wants to hold if one disagrees with dispensations. It is easily shown that VERY early teachers taught the "ages" or dispensations. Dispensations were widely suppressed for many years, but they were taught and taught very early.

1. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)....possibly the first to give systematic form to the ages and dispensations

2. Irenaeus (AD 120-202)

3. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Tertullian, Methodius, and to a minor degree Victorinus of Petau also taught dispensations.

Bible instructor Larry V. Crutchfield, of Baumholder, West Germany,Ages and Dispensations Of The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
 
I am one of those preachers
Click to expand...

Mason...I could tell you were a preacher with your post #23 on this thread. Very political response to the "which bible" question and the use of the word season.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll also use this post to make a new statement for the OP. You were asking which bible for your son. You say you want a modern English, mainstream literal version. You used the NKJV for years and then switched to the ESV.

ESV uses updated new testament texts. It doesn't have the gender neutral language which is important to some people. If I was to recommend one translation, as is one bible you can buy, not earlier how I was saying to use different obscure different OT's & NT's, since I prefer the KJV's renderings, the NKJV with the modern English is the closest to that so it would be my recommendation for you. Since you already said you used the NKJV for years, and prefer the ESV now, he's your son, you like the ESV, I think you should recommend to him the ESV. The only thing I don't understand about the ESV is in the introduction, they say, "In the tradition of the KJV,..". Are they trying to trick people or something? The ESV is an update of the RSV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gr8grace said:
I am With you Farouk. Most people will say that Scofield started it, dig a little deeper, the next guy to "blame" is Darby. Go just a bit farther and we find others to "blame."

I agree with Scofield and Darby on most teachings, but to "blame" them for "starting" the dispensational school of thought is a deception that one wants to hold if one disagrees with dispensations. It is easily shown that VERY early teachers taught the "ages" or dispensations. Dispensations were widely suppressed for many years, but they were taught and taught very early.

1. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)....possibly the first to give systematic form to the ages and dispensations

2. Irenaeus (AD 120-202)

3. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Tertullian, Methodius, and to a minor degree Victorinus of Petau also taught dispensations.

Bible instructor Larry V. Crutchfield, of Baumholder, West Germany,Ages and Dispensations Of The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Click to expand...
martyr which I have read his writings on the end times only believed in the chialism and he wasn't a pre tribber. but believed after the millennium the resurrection would occur and the church was isreal. something that neither darby nor c.i.s. would embrace.martyr also didn't address that the temple would be used as such as taught by futurists. just mentioned that jesus would reign in Jerusalem and the land blessed. no other references given to Ezekiel, just quoted isiah and peter on the day is the lord is as a thousand years. while one could say that Ezekiel is the chapter where jesus Is mentioned to return from the east and so forth. but this is from the jewish pharisitical view,. martyr may believed that but he didn't quote and it could be likely the since he was talking to a jew(trypho) that he felt no need to quote Ezekiel to him.
 
Jason, a guy we know and love has an 1909 edition of the scofield Bible i find it interesting how the Scofield notes have 'adjusted' after his death.
 
reba said:
Jason, a guy we know and love has an 1909 edition of the scofield Bible i find it interesting how the Scofield notes have 'adjusted' after his death.
Click to expand...

Were some of the Scofield notes abridged? I wonder which edition has 'the real McCoy'...

I must confess to liking C I Scofield. And J N Darby.

As gr8grace suggests, they are strong in the dispensational distinctions.
 
reba said:
Jason, a guy we know and love has an 1909 edition of the scofield Bible i find it interesting how the Scofield notes have 'adjusted' after his death.
Click to expand...
hitch? oh man he would have a field day with that. I have found c.i.s notes online and its not much. I really don't see the hub-hub with him. Clarke, barnes and also henry have a lot to say. but c.i.s. ? some of his notes on a chapter that you would think would be a lot is little considering he is a futurist.

compare this http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=24

to matthew henry of the same chapter . http://www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=24

the later has more meat to it.
 
jasoncran said:
hitch? oh man he would have a field day with that. I have found c.i.s notes online and its not much. I really don't see the hub-hub with him. Clarke, barnes and also henry have a lot to say. but c.i.s. ? some of his notes on a chapter that you would think would be a lot is little considering he is a futurist.

compare this http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=24

to matthew henry of the same chapter . http://www.studylight.org/com/mhm/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=24

the later has more meat to it.
Click to expand...

CI gives kind of the bare bones, succinctly, to a wide audience.

He kind of followed some of Darby's definitions. I don't know if they ever met, mind.
 
uhm Henry was a puritan pastor was told NOT to preach during the corrupt days of the puritans. he instead felt the need to get the WORD out so he raised money and wrote his commentary to the bible and had it sent out to the people so that they could STUDY the bible. he did his work on what he says. ADAM Clarke even more so. I prefer Clarke over Henry as Clarke knows the jewish view on the tanach and quotes the same sources I have used. for a gentile to do that then is quite remarkable.the Talmud isn't a light and easy read. the bible wasn't meant to be easy reading. it was meant to both simple and in depth.
 
jasoncran said:
uhm Henry was a puritan pastor was told NOT to preach during the corrupt days of the puritans. he instead felt the need to get the WORD out so he raised money and wrote his commentary to the bible and had it sent out to the people so that they could STUDY the bible. he did his work on what he says. ADAM Clarke even more so. I prefer Clarke over Henry as Clarke knows the jewish view on the tanach and quotes the same sources I have used. for a gentile to do that then is quite remarkable.the Talmud isn't a light and easy read. the bible wasn't meant to be easy reading. it was meant to both simple and in depth.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that those who talk about wanting to impose the law on dispensationalists today are arguing similarly to those in the 17th century who tried to prohibit or jail preachers of the Gospel not authorised by the state in England.

I do like Mathew Henry.

Blessings.
 
impose the law on futurists? you do realize that futurism believes the law returns. man if hitch was here he would post that facts. I lost the links to the stuff he sent me on that. he had a ton of it. I read it and I saw and I meet a pastor who believed that it would return. I also have heard it on the radio.
 
jasoncran: I suppose when you refer to futurists you're referring to what I called dispensationalists. Anyway, what you may be referring to would also be after the Rapture; after the church has gone.

Blessings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top