Take Your Pick VI: Bible Versions
Which version (even if its not shown here) do you or would you use for your personal quiet time, and why?
posted by marc at 12/15/2005 12:03:00 AM
Thursday, December 15, 2005
About Me
- Name: marc heinrich
- Location: minnetonka, mn
musician, songwriter, worship leader, beggar
Previous Posts
-
You Supply the Caption XI
Gone But Not Forgotten VI: George W. Hensley
Help! I'm Going Hyper!
Book Roundup VIII: Searchin' for the Arky Arky
Indulgence Granted to Evil Babies & Thinking Men
In the Palm of His Hand...
Separated At Birth X
Between G-d and Galatia: Is Messianic Judaism a m...
Divine Vinyl VI: Lucifer, Yultide Disco and the Re...
Christmas Bonus - You Supply The Caption
I'm a
Redeemed Sinner
in the
WDJD Ecosystem
48 Pleas:
I use the NASB, because unlike its reputation I find it reads well.
In some places more naturally than the NIV.
I also use the NKJV-because I like the flow.
The newer ESV is good as well--but I don't have my own copy.
The NASB & ESV are great for study--but why can't I use that for quiet time as well.
I'm also reading through the old ASV (The version that uses "Jehovah" instead of LORD" for YHWH)
I like my NKJV MacArthur Study Bible. I grew up with a KJV, and NKJV is slightly easier to read. Other times I find that my ESV is wonderful for it's simple clarity. (Besides it's the only Bible I have that doesn't have commentary which is often nice. :-)
errr, well, the NRSV actually. Didn't seem to be an option though.
The NKJV, because it's the only version I actually own that's suitable for study and also fairly easy to read. As well as this, it is used at my church, and I don't see the need to have a Bible for every occasion. I also have an NLT which I use occasionally.
I use The Message because it's the Word of God in English form. If you don't use The Message, I'm afraid you'll have to start, and you'll have to be re-baptized if you used any other 'translation'.
Go Dynamic Equivalency! Go! Go! Go!
AV. In black leather, with the Scots Psalms in the back. Because it's accurate, poetic, and... I have to go.
With Scottish metrical psalter in the back, highland host?! Why that's almost anglican prayerbook-like :o - and it's certainly adding to the word of God ;-)
I use ESV. Used NKJV until ESV arrived, when I switched because I reckon on the Majority text but not on dynamic equivalence as much as NIV. I would get annoyed with not being able to know every word, follow logical argument etc if used the NIV though it is sometimes more readable than the ESV (though sometimes uses much more bizarre words and the ESV more simpl!), and I do get annoyed with the ESV having clumsy or archaic English in places. But then so does the NIV. Ah the joy. Also use the Louis Segond Edition Genève 1979. French is beautiful to read, and it seems to me that it has retained structure closer to the Greek (so that phrases like "the glory of God" work whereas we'd never say "the dinner of the child"). But it's not a better translation than the ESV in English.
Such simple statements with such cans of worms behind each. Most people claim to use a version because it's 'accurate'. But we all disagree! But lo, far be it from anyone to suggest that every Christian is not an expert in linguistics and translation.
What with being a pedant, very concerned to know exactly what's said and how, having appreciation of the nuance and flow of language and some practical knowledge of translation coming from living in a different country, I'm not satisfied with any of them. Ha, the joke's on me. But I'm happy that a few of them are good enough to work with.
I don't use 'study Bibles' because I prefer to have any commentary separate - partly so that I have to do the work myself (sufficiency of Scripture and all that) and partly so that if looking at it with someone else they know that they're getting the word of God. Too many cults and for that matter the RC institution (and dare I say it, Scofield) have used notes in Bibles to push false doctrine.
NRSV Catholic edition (Apocrypha incorporated into the rest of the canon as opposed to in an appendix at the back) it doesn't have commentary in it because for some reason I tend to equate commentary with scripture if I see it on the sasme page. Growing up Baptist, I never read the apocrypha of course and now that I have it I can't find anything any more because there's extra books in there. its like reading the Bible for the first time.
Does The Message actually count as a Bible? I think of it more as "The Gospel According to Eugene Peterson."
You missed off the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia...
I use ESV and only think it lacks one thing:
I wish, like the NASB, it put in italics the words that do not actually appear in the text. That is so helpful!
I use the Jewish Bible by David Stern.
ESV/NASB
ESV, though I used NIV for years. ESV reads well and I don't feel like I have to second guess the translation. I still like NIV for the NT, but the poetic sections in the OT are better in NKJV or ESV.
I abandoned the NIV a few years ago for the NKJV, but for the last year I've been using the ESV exclusively. I just ordered the Reformation Study Bible (ESV, of course).
NKJV with forays into RSV and because of lectionary/denominational prerequisites, the astoundingly awful NRSV.
I'm still basically an NIV reader. I know, I know there are things wrong with it, as there are with them all. But all translations have things wrong with them, (as Carson says 'translation is teason' - inevitably) even the ESV! So most of the time I use the NIV. In the past I used the NKJV but I'm not persuaded it works on the best manuscripts. I do look at the ESV when doing sermon prep etc, but whilst accuracy is obviosuly important, I do think we underestimate the importance readability. The NT was in the vernacular. Is it not slightly odd therefore, to produce translations that are not? But ultimately we should be grateful that it's even possible to have a discussion like this when, as Wycliffe Translators say, 380 million people don't have a single verse in their mother tongue!
OK - Carson probably didn't say 'translation is teason', that should be 'treason'!
Oh dear I've just spotted other spelling mistakes too! Never mind. Just rearrange the words and letters however you want. Hey - you could create your own meaning from the text! That's what do in the 21st century isn't it?
You left out the KJV. I know, you included the 1611, but no one actually uses that - except for oddballs like me sometimes.
I use the KJV (of1768) and the NKJV. The rest of you are going to Hell.
NASV. I feel cheated if I read any other translation.
King James. It's the one we use at Church (isn't that just the silliest reason for using a particular Bible?). I like the sound of it, and I don't need to use the list of old-fashioned words in the back. Well, not often.
ESV... Fantastic translation without the muddled nature of the NIV and the wodden language of the NASB - very readable. In fact I need to read for a bit right now!
I most often use the NKJV with occasional forays into the NASB. When I really want the straight skinny I check a digital version of Darby, Young's or Jay Green's Literal.
I like the NKJV because of its readability. I grew up hearing the KJV most often and like the similar phraseology in the NKJV.
ESV
I did use the NASB Key Word study Bible (NASB still is what I teach from) because it has many words defined and a good set of Hebrew and Greek language tools. I have recently switched to the ESV because I am reading larger pieces of scripture at a time. I think it flows smoother, without giving up too much of the original languages like the NIV etc.--Dirk
NIV, because that's the one I use for quiet time.
NASB.
'Cuz that's what Jesus used for His quiet times.
Have you guys never read 'New Age Bible Versions' by Gail Riplinger?
I think its time you did.
I often read from the Weymouth New Testament. My Greek/Hebrew study bible is NIV, but a huge part of my study is done in front of eSword, with the ESV up probably more than most.
interesting question. one i've been thinking about.
i'm not typically as interested in a person's favorite translation, as much as for their reasons. i had a missionary friend that said "new AMERICAN standard" wasn't received well in international english speaking countries. i see his point that the name is rather small sighted.
i think our church will be switching to preaching mostly out of nasb instead of niv. i'm probably going to be doing more preaching in the church and i LOVE the nasb. i want to explain to the Body why we are going to be making that change, but here's my dilemma:
1) our other pastor who does much of the preaching loves niv. he asked me why i don't just preach out of niv and i explained that i don't enjoy having to stop in the middle of the text to explain that what i just read from the Bible isn't really what the author meant. if i explain this issue, do i make the other pastor not look scholarly...that these issues don't bother him?
2) frankly, it seems that our Body may put too much of an emphasis on readability and not on accuracy. it seems that many in our Body are choosing translations based on whether they are "fresh" or if it is easy to read. it goes hand in hand with a bit of "what does this passage mean to you?" type comments i hear crop up in small groups from time to time. i'd like us as a Body to start learning to weed some of that out. it seems to me that an emphasis on accuracy could spark an understanding of pursuing authorial intent.
3) i don't want to sound all dogmatic about it. ultimately, it's a preference thing. i know esv is good, i've got one and enjoy it, but after spending so much time in the nasb now, it just feels natural (and to me, feels the most readable, now that i've been so exposed to it). i've been in a church before where the pastor would only affirm that the KJV Bibles in the church were "real" bibles. i don't want to be doing that.
i guess in some ways, it's more concerning how a person may approach the Word than what translation they will use. however, i can't help but think that a particular approach will also lead a person to a particular set of options. dunno, maybe i'm way off.
Good point Danny2. Hence the why in the original question.
Gail Riplinger is a <duck noise>.
I use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV and NET bibles, though I have flipped through a NIV, and even read a good news bible - the others I have read cover to cover each on more than one occasion - well, except the KJV- I only read that through cover to cover once.
I found the Lord in all of 'em.
I should mention I use Nestle/Aland 27 as my Greek text.
I have a shelfload of Bibles, but I prefer NASB for study. I also like the ESV. And a read through THE MESSAGE can always be fun.
I currently use the ESV because I'm reformed and I have to. Not really, we use it at my Church and I like it, but I still find myself longing for the NASB and its stilted prose, I'm not sure why. I like a more literal translation so there you have it.
Fantastic translation without the muddled nature of the NIV and the wodden language of the NASB - very readable.
Of what tongues of wood do you speak?
I'm an NASB reader. I grew up on the NKJV in church. I still have the NIV I got as a child (I've since removed the pictures of Christ).
Doxo,
Really?
Do you like it?
NIV for church people, since most of them are familiar with it, although I love reading passages to the church (after exegeting) from the Message.
King James is great if you're four hundred years old, or don't know any unbelievers, but I'll take an understandable version anyday when I'm giving a non-Christian friend a copy of the Bible (which I've been privileged to do many times).
Art Farstad/Zane Hodges MAJORITY TEXT
If I have to read the english, I prefer NKJV for it is still a majority text and was a replacement for the KJV that I studied for the years following:
believing on Jesus Christ for eternal life
by which resulted in the immediate and present possesion of eternal life
Because
Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him for it
Apart from works on the front or back end of the intermediate agency of faith alone in Christ alone apart from works.
Antonio,
I'm going to tell you this once more. Stay on topic and don't use the comment section of my blog to launch into a free grace sermon. Next time I delete. Please respect this.
King James is great if you're four hundred years old, or don't know any unbelievers
I'm not the least bit KJVO, and I think Daniel's opinion of Gail Riplinger (Gail Riplinger is a <duck noise>) is too generous, but that is just an ignorant comment, right on par with my (facecious) comment "The rest of you are going to Hell."
I don't find the NASB wooden--it can be a bit awkward in spots--but overall it is not an odd read.
As I said before there are spots the NIV is awkward.
One of my stylistic complaints is how the often break up sentences with the "He said" in the middle of the sentence for no apparent reason. It breaks up the thought too much.
If anybody wants an example I'll have to dig oone up--I haven't read it much for a while.
Y'know, when the "You might be emerging..." post went up, a lot of us who are part of the emerging conversation came over here, and had a good laugh at ourselves. Marc did me the honour of visiting my blog, and suggesting that I comment over here, as well.
Maybe I'm dumb as well as ignorant, Mr. Kjos, but perhaps you could explain what you find ignorant about my facetious comment, as I don't see anything worthy of your snide response.
Unless, of course, you were still being facetious; if so, then I apologize and will not take your comment seriously.
On versions, I usually read from the NASB, but I usually compare it with the NRSV and NIV. I'm getting to know the TNIV a little bit. I suppose I should try out the ESV, too, since I keep hearing good things about it. Back I cannot read from the KJV since its English is grossly outdated for today's readers and the underlying Greek text is very poorly attested. The NKJV reads better but it's in the same textual camp as the KJV. The text has made singificant improvements with the new manuscript discoveries in the 19th and 20th centuries (and still there are discoveries and publications coming out on NT mansucripts/papyri and on the Dead Sea Scrolls [well, not so much of discoveries with the DSS, but at least with the publications]).
Libbie, I think the technical terminology is now "Functional Equivalence" instead of "Dynamic Equivalence."
Interesting, antonio, that you hold so deeply with the NKJV and the Majority Text. A few years ago I wrote a Master's Thesis on the theological presuppositions of the Majority Text. Basically the faith-guided premises undermine the scientific, historical pursuit of textual criticism. I'm with daniel on a better Greek NT text. No Greek text is perfect, but certainly we can use a more accurate text than the Majority Text. I don't believe in that stuff that "God has most faithfully preserved the text through the Byzantine/Majority Text." It's just too faith-guided. The Critical Text has its problems, but I would choose it before the Majority Text. Besides that, back in the 1970's-80's Gordon Fee did amply well to rebutt Zane Hodges' arguments. Also, read up on one of the most well-informed scholars on the Majority Text debate: Daniel B. Wallace (of Dallas Theological Seminary, where Hodges taught formerly); another guy is Timothy John Ralston (also of DTS). Although I don't agree with their theology totally (in other fields of study), their textual studies are classics.
Maybe one day I'll have my own blog and make available to the public a revised paper of my thesis (in PDF). We'll see...
Jeremy
robbymac - If your comment was meant to be facecious, then I didn't get it an I apologise.
HEY! Where's the Greek text?
Devotional, I use KJV - cause I want to. I like the flow. But hey, I like reading plenty of other books written in such "archaic" language too - John Bunyan and such.
I use NKJV sometimes, and with my kids.
I don't own, have never read the Message, or most of the "15 other 'translations'" used by my church.
I don't own, in fact sold, an ESV. What?? - ducking out fast.
TNIV and the HCSB rock my face off!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home