Preferred English Bible Translation?

Grindboy wrote:

Frozen Fire wrote:That latter point is of great interest to me! As a pastor who preaches through whole books it makes me question if I should preach those texts but the woman caught in adultery is one of THE MOST often quoted passages in this day. How many of us, even from non-Christians, has heard "he who has no sin..."? Is it necessary? Not at all but would I skip over it? That's an interesting question. 

I preached through 1st John a few years ago and did not preach 1 John 5:7 within that particular passage, through I briefly touched on the "controversy." KJV-only folk tend to say all other versions deny the trinity because that verse is bracketed/omitted and is such a clear affirmation of the doctrine.

My brother, who currently comes from a more charismatic angle, is always quoting the ending to Mark because it speaks of tongues, casting out demons and healing the sick (always have to skip the snakes part).

If you look into textual criticism there is a lot of nuance to why certain verses are accepted and others are not. There are no black and white cases.

It IS interesting.  In seminary (at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville KY, considered quite conservative by most) I took a class in John.  When we came to the woman caught in adultery, whether or not we would preach the story was a somewhat major topic.  I was quite surprised when the professor (obviously informed, intelligent, and godly, and pastored a well respected church in town as well) told us that he would preach it, as in his view it would cause more confusion/doubt among his people to try to explain why he was "skipping" it than to just go with it.  Although I completely disagree (and make sure to stay away from even casually using terms like "throw the first stone"), I had and have full respect for the guy.  Personally, I would take it as an opportunity to talk about why it's bracketed off and how it points to how outstanding current scholarship is in being able to be remarkably confident that our translations are done from texts that are amazingly legit, and how learning about it has helped strengthen my belief in Scripture.  But though I maintain my disagreement, it's hard for me to be too tough on somebody who's been so much further down the road than I have.

I agree with your thinking.

The only thing that adds a layer to that is the state of the congregation. That was my struggle with 1 John 5:7. The church I serve was/is very weak biblically (been working on that for near 4 years and now much stronger). Almost no one, when I arrived was in the daily or even regular discipline of reading the scriptures though they'd been in church for 40-70yrs. We were baby Christians, though at that time all but my family and one other person were over 50yrs old. They just never grew. They struggled with most everything in the scriptures. As such the church had shrunk from 250 to 13 for a reason. It was a longstanding legacy and I had only been there for a year or so. Tough to delve into issues like that when people don't even know the Word. If your professor had been there for years, I'd wish that he would have plowed the ground for that already. I was walking into a legacy of weak teaching and fragile faith. I still addressed it, though lightly, and did not preach the verse. Even still I understand and identify with the tension he felt, though I chose differently.

Ultimately, it's not my personality to ignore tough topics and meet straight scriptures head on. What seems to have been a strength to your faith and your confidence in the scriptures has also strengthened mine.

I read NKJV when I first was saved, so it's been my favorite. I read just about every translation/paraphrase though  (NRSV, ESV, Amplified, Eth Cepher, NIV, Message, Septuagents, NLT(not much of a fan), etc,
I think some of the "missing verses" were quoted by early church fathers. However, no manuscripts are totally the same and newer translations still have most (or all) of GOD's Word even if those verses may really be "missing." Also. why would Scripture need to be old english? I enjoy KJV too and it's nice to have a translation not copyrighted.

From what I understand, many of the verses that were left out of all of the CT-based translations (which is basically everything these days besides KJV, NKJV, YLT, and MEV) are ones that were absent from just a couple very early manuscripts, while the vast majority of the manuscripts that we have overall do contain those verses. I'm inclined to believe that the end of Mark, for example, really is the Word of God. This is something that I want to study more deeply at some point.

No Pref.  Ive always used either NAS or NIV

ESV or NASB.  For my morning devotions, I roll with the latter; for the morning, the Blue Letter Bible ESV.

I cut my teeth on the NIV (1984) and it is still my favorite for daily reading, but I also read NAS and ESV on occasion.

While I typically begin my work with the Greek or Hebrew, I usually preach from the ESV because it’s our church’s pew Bible. I’ve also used it for many years so I’m used to it. When I was first saved I used the NASB. 

I tend to gravitate towards the NKJV because I hold to Byzantine priority when it comes to textual issues and because it has the best textual footnotes of the main translations. 

For reading I really like the CSB because it reads very naturally to me while still being close to the Greek and Hebrew.

I’ll also say that the more translation work you’ve done the more you’re likely to be forgiving towards other translations. It’s hard work and judgment calls must be made.

I don't know that I have a preference - right now I am using The Orthodox Study Bible, which uses a proprietary translation (though influenced by previous Protestant translations) of the Greek OT and NKJV for the NT. Based on some recent research, I'm heavily considering switching to the Lexham Septuagint for OT, but I'm not sure about NT just yet.

NIV


I like the way it was translated.

I find it very readable while not seeming to lose anything important.

jeffcorpse wrote:Also. why would Scripture need to be old english? 

I dunno...I love this myself.

Fæder ure şu şe eart on heofonum,
si şin nama gehalgod.
to becume şin rice,
gewurşe ğin willa,
on eorğan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas,
swa swa we forgyfağ urum gyltendum.
and ne gelæd şu us on costnunge,
ac alys us of yfele soşlice.

NKJV, NIV and NASB were my favorites growing up. I still prefer NKJV and now I’ve also been reading the ESV, CSB and NLT. I find the CSB and NLT highly readable. I recently picked up a copy of the LSB and it’s pretty much the NASB from what I can tell…I need to read it more but I do like the translation so far.
When I’m feeling nostalgic, I’ll break out the trusty old KJV that my grandfather read. Oddly enough, that translation is ingrained in my head from when I was a kid.
I love studying the different translations for better understanding. We are blessed!

All that said, I’m still partial to the NKJV.

Funny that this thread got bumped shortly after I brought up modern textual criticism in a different thread.

My view on this topic has shifted somewhat since 3 years ago. I learned a lot more about MTC and the ideology behind it, and I think it is something that needs to be taught more so that people understand what is really going on and can make a more informed decision about which Bible they read.

Different Bible translations are in many cases not actually translating the same thing. The KJV and the NKJV, for example, translate from the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text) for the New Testament. The ESV and most other more recent English translations (the only exceptions I know of being the NKJV and the MEV) translate from one of the modern critical texts, like the Nestle-Aland (NA) or United Bible Societies (UBS) Greek text for the New Testament, and generally allow more influence from the Septuagint on the Old Testament.

The reason this is important is because it means that the actual Hebrew and Greek words that are being translated may be different depending on which Bible you use.

At this point I exclusively use translations that fall into the first of the two categories that I listed (mostly the KJV, occasionally checking things in other translations as well) because I do not trust modern textual criticism. It is an attempt to apply secular ideas about literature to the Bible, and it has the underlying assumption that the Bible that we had before the late 19th century was corrupted in many ways, and that it is the task of scholars to do their best to reconstruct the earliest version that they can. There is no room for any view of the providential preservation (or self-authentication) of Scripture in this ideology. I do not believe that the church corrupted the Bible, because God promised that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)

I used the ESV a lot during college and knew it had been updated a few times, but I had no clue that it was the actual Greek of my New Testament shifting and changing according to the beliefs of the scholars who compiled it. The people doing this work do not believe that they are in any way recovering the exact words that were written by the biblical writers. The people behind the NA and UBS texts would never claim that even one of Paul's epistles, as they have compiled it, would actually match all the words that Paul wrote. They cannot claim this, because they use a fundamentally empirical method and we lack the data to actually prove that what they have created matches the autographs. So instead of having "the very Word of God, written for you and for me", we are left with "an imperfect Bible for an imperfect church." This is why I hold to the Traditional Text (the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) instead - we have good reason to believe that it is what God has providentially preserved for us. It is what was passed down from generation to generation. Obviously there were discrepancies in the manuscripts that needed to be resolved, but that work is done and completed centuries ago. We are farther now than we ever have been from the time that the church actually used manuscripts, and to presume that we have the most evidence and are best equipped to sift through them now, all while doing so according to an unbelieving ideology of what the Bible is, is complete nonsense.

For people interested in learning about this topic, I would highly recommend the following two YouTube channels:
https://www.youtube.com/@theyoungtextlessandreforme7113
https://www.youtube.com/@wordmagazine

For a relatively concise defense of the Traditional Text, see this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMhQm9nArls

Edit: I want to add that this is an issue that matters for all Christians, no matter your theological background. Both of the YouTube channels I linked above feature commentary from men who are Reformed, but this is just as applicable for people from other theological traditions as well.

I grew up with the NKJV for the same reasons that Crimson just mentioned (my dad was big on that). When I started dating my now-wife in Bible School I was bothered that she used the NIV, as I had been taught that it was a liberal translation. It became burdensome using different translations, so I read through the whole NIV. I was surprised how little difference there was. In fact, the only noticeable difference to me was that the NKJV retained more of the poeticism in Psalms. And so I just started using the NIV. 

I've never enjoyed the NLT--after using the KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV for the majority of my life, the NLT seems oversimplified. 

About 10 years ago I was given the NET (New English Translation) by a friend, and that became my go-to Bible. I liked some of the different phrases used, especially in the Psalms. I wish they had gone a little bit further in replacing out-dated terms.

I'm thinking of going back to the NIV or NASB for awhile. But I just gave my son my nice NIV with cross-references, so I think it's going to be NKJV or NASB (that's what I've got on my shelf right now). 

I've got a bit of a thing against the ESV right now. From what I've read, they've purposely translated some passages to favor complementarianism. I feel like they should just translate the Bible and let it speak for itself!

Not a translational issue, but I’ve gotten into using genuine leather Bibles when possible. The fake stuff just starts falling apart after a few years of use.

Pethead wrote:Not a translational issue, but I’ve gotten into using genuine leather Bibles when possible. The fake stuff just starts falling apart after a few years of use.

You make a great point! I listened to a podcast--I think it was on Remnant Radio--maybe a year ago on Bibles. I thought they were going to be talking about translations, but they were talking about the production of Bibles--paper, binding, printing, etc. It was fascinating, and I DEFINITELY appreciate well-made Bibles. That's one reason I was a little ticked at giving that NIV to my son; the pages were really nice, the font was the right size, and it had the type of binding that sits open really nice.

Just last week I was listening to a podcast (which one was it?!?!) and one of the hosts said he had a water-proof pocket Bible! Are you familiar with that, Pet?

I’ve seen them but I don’t own one.

If anyone is interested in why some of us prefer the Byzantine textform, see the works of Wilbur N. Pickering and Maurice Robinson. 

Also note that the Textus Receptus is in the Byzantine family, but the Byzantine textform is much larger than just the TR—in fact, it represents the majority of Greek NT texts.

I roll with the ESV, then the NASB.  Mind-blowing factoid: in my first visit to Lifepoint in town, Pastor Kelly read from the ESV.  He has also read from the KJV, NIV, NKJV, et. al.  None of these KJV-Only things, thank the Lord!

I try to use the website BibleHub since we're blessed to have internet access. That way I can compare various translations quickly, and also reference the original language, commentaries etc. if more insight is needed.

I don't prefer any translation (English or otherwise) except for one thing: copyright. I morally oppose all translations that are copyrighted. They're convenient (and can be read for free online) but I will never monetarily support them.

A recent Muslim-to-Christian convert I know (PRAISE GOD) very much prefers the NIV, but only because it's written in modern English (the only type they know how to read).

In the end, the most important Biblical tool is prayer. If you lack divine instruction and discernment, it doesn't matter if you're reading The Message or the KJV or original manuscripts written by the apostles themselves; all you will be reading is empty ink formed into letters on a page. It takes holy instruction from the Triune to fully understand.

Amen to the copyright issue. That really bothers me as well.

For those who object to copyright, just to point out that the KJV is also copyrighted, in a sense, in the UK, as it was from the beginning under Letters Patent.  It's not exactly the same as copyright as we understand it normally, but is certainly along those lines.  Wikipedia has a brief account of its history as well as this statement from Cambridge.


Cambridge - King James Version

[ltr]Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:[/ltr]

[ltr]Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press,[/ltr]

Ha, I don't need to worry about this.

I do have a small KJV from when I finished highschool if I recall correctly.

Andreas, do Christians in the Netherlands still use the Statenvertaling, or is there something else that is more common?