Which Translation and Why?

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Everyone has a preferred Bible Translation and some are very strict on their view. What is yours and why is it the one you chose? Which do you think is the best?

Personally, I think the KJV is the truest word for word translation. I like the flow of the NIV and NLT and feel these are more thought for thought type translations. But, for study I'm going with the NKJV as I feel it follows the word for word, but in updated grammar.

I've recently ordered the Nelson Study Bible in NKJV and the Life Application Study Bible in NLT. I'm going to have to choose between these two and send one back, but may keep both. Any thoughts on these two books?

God Bless

[Gold Dragon]

For literal translations, I personally prefer the NASB over the KJV because it is actually a more literal translation from a committe of evangelical scholars based on more accurate manuscripts and in more accurate modern english than the KJV which was very accurate in manuscript evidence and english for its time in 1611.

The difficulty with literal translations is the differences in greek and hebrew grammar and sentence structure compared to english, making them difficult to understand. Another difficulty is the literal translations of analogies, comparisons, puns, units of measurement, etc that no longer have any meaning in our language and culture today.

Dynamic Equivalence translations like the NIV, NAB or HCSB are less literal in these instances, making the translation easier to read and understand for modern readers.

I personally prefer the NASB, KJV and NRSV for indepth word-level studies. The NIV for more casual reading and The Message for a strongly interpreted take that identifies well with today's language and culture.

[ksen]

I stick with the KJV because I believe it is the best translation of the Received Text.

[mesue]

I use the KJV.
One reason is:
It is the purest form of the Modern English language and therefore more accurate in it's translation.

[SumTinWong]

I prefer the NASB for word studies like GD said, but will read on occasion the NAB (because it has the apocrypha and it is easy to read), the NIV, and the ESV is fast becoming my favorite because it combines the strictness of the NASB and the ease of reading in some spots like the NIV.

[GreenEyedLady]

I also only use the KJV.

[FreeinChrist]

I prefer the Greek interlinear with either KJV or NASB. With the KJV, however, I find it is more necessary to check out the Greek meaning than the NASB, but in some places, the KJV does it better than the NASB. I also like to check out Young's Literal Translation.

[Carrye]

I've always been taught that the NRSV is the academic standard, and so I've used that for word-phrase studies, papers, and such. For devotionals I use the NAB, simply because that's what I have . . . until I learn Greek that is. :)

[SumTinWong]

I've always been taught that the NRSV is the academic standard, and so I've used that for word-phrase studies, papers, and such. For devotionals I use the NAB, simply because that's what I have . . . until I learn Greek that is. :)
have you tried the New Jerusalem? I have heard the notes are pretty intense, but I have yet to pick one up.

[Crazy Liz]

I can't pick one favorite. Currently, I tend to go first to NIV for an overview of a whole book, NRSV for public readings, and at least half a dozen translations, plus Greek or Hebrew for study. The pocket Bible I carry around with me all the time is NKJV. I like it because it has a familiar, comforting sound when read aloud, but updates the vocabulary from the KJV. If I need something to read quickly in an unexpected crisis or to someone in distress (such as an unscheduled hospital visit) it is my first choice.

:clap: I rejoice and thank God that we English speakers are so blessed with many good translations of the Bible, and so many of us have the material wealth to be able to afford more than one! :clap:

[SumTinWong]

I thank the Salvation Army for giving away Bibles for free at some of their locations :)

Hey Crazy Liz, you are in seminary right?

[ksen]

have you tried the New Jerusalem? I have heard the notes are pretty intense, but I have yet to pick one up.

Here's an interesting sidenote about the Jerusalem Bible.

Did you know that J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, translated the book of Job in the Jerusalem Bible? As a big LOTR fan that little tidbit really interested me.

Besides, I had always wondered why Job's friends in that version were named Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, and Pippen. ;)

[Crashfreak]

I don't think translations are that important. I believe in the word of God and that the Holy Spirit will guide me while reading his word. I tend not to nitpick over individual words and rather try get a good feel of the themes, emotions and important concepts that are being told through the stories, parables and history. Any translation is going to be off from the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, simply because the English language is not able to translate it correctly. For example there are various different synonyms for the word Love in Hebrew, so all those words are just translated into love when you go from Hebrew to English. So if you want to understand word for word and make sure that "the" doesn't actually mean "a" (stupid example I know) then it would probably be better to learn hebrew, and greek and read the original text.

It's what the Holy Spirit guides you to understand through his word rather then each individual word themselves.

[SumTinWong]

Here's an interesting sidenote about the Jerusalem Bible.

Did you know that J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, translated the book of Job in the Jerusalem Bible? As a big LOTR fan that little tidbit really interested me.

Besides, I had always wondered why Job's friends in that version were named Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, and Pippen. ;)
hahahaha oh that was precious...LOL

Thanks for the laugh that was awesome :)

[Gold Dragon]

I don't think translations are that important. I believe in the word of God and that the Holy Spirit will guide me while reading his word. I tend not to nitpick over individual words and rather try get a good feel of the themes, emotions and important concepts that are being told through the stories, parables and history. Any translation is going to be off from the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, simply because the English language is not able to translate it correctly. For example there are various different synonyms for the word Love in Hebrew, so all those words are just translated into love when you go from Hebrew to English. So if you want to understand word for word and make sure that "the" doesn't actually mean "a" (stupid example I know) then it would probably be better to learn hebrew, and greek and read the original text.

It's what the Holy Spirit guides you to understand through his word rather then each individual word themselves.

The danger in not caring about specific words and relying completely on the Holy Spirit is the practice of eisegesis (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-48,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Eisegesis), where we read our own personal ideas into the text that aren't there.

I acknowledge that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand the bible without formal training in hermeneutics or interpretation, but historically, completely relying on that practice has also lead to many instances of scriptural abuse, something to be wary of.

As you mention, understanding the original languages is also very beneficial to proper interpretation.

[lonnienord]

My first choice is the New Century Version. The Bible i most enjoy reading is The Message The New Jerusalem and NRSV and RSV are all close at hand for comparasons.

An old Baptist preacher was asked what is the best translation. Everyone expected him to say the KJV but he supprised us all by saying: "The one you read!!"

all for JESUS!!
lonnie

[Beoga]

My favorites are the ESV, NKJV and the NASB. I like their accuracy and readability.
sometimes i will read the kjv

[Crashfreak]

The danger in not caring about specific words and relying completely on the Holy Spirit is the practice of eisegesis (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-48,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:Eisegesis), where we read our own personal ideas into the text that aren't there.

I acknowledge that it is possible for the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand the bible without formal training in hermeneutics or interpretation, but historically, completely relying on that practice has also lead to many instances of scriptural abuse, something to be wary of.

As you mention, understanding the original languages is also very beneficial to proper interpretation.

Very true, I agree with you 100%. I think in my post I emphasized the guidance of the Holy Spirit, maybe a bit too much. As you noted it is extremely beneficial to understand the original text. My point was more that if you nit pick over single words here and there, you kinda miss the point as well. And I feel that you can abuse the scriptures just as badly that way. By not looking at the overall context and themes, individual words will not make any sense. Hence the reason why I believe that it really isn't all important over which translation you read.

Unfortunately whether you feel guided by the Holy Spirit or not, you always bring your own ideas into the text and believe what you feel is true. It is the nature of us humans.

[Stefan Davidovich]

I hope its okay my sharing my thoughts on this (I am a Baptist although not labelled Baptist in my profile...i'm new and i don't quite understand the rules yet)...

I agree with many of you who have highlighted the accuracy of the NASB. As a formal equivalence translation it is (among scholars) regarded as the most accurate word for word translation. I am currently studying greek at seminary (some of you will be way beyond me) and I've found the NASB to be the closest the greek text - of course there is debate about which greek manuscripts to use...

As a minister in training i generally find out what the congregation prefers and read from that particular translation. For my own reading I like the NLT as a modern formal equivalence text. I most widely use the NASB, NLT, NIV and KJV.

In principle i prefer formal equivalence because I like the opportunity to figure out the what the author is trying to say rather than reading the interpretation according to the scholars. For this reason I find the KJV less useful because it was (as I understand it) a dynamic equivalence in its day.

However, I am confident that God can use various translations - so long as we don't rely entirely on the paraphrase and the dynamic equivalence I am confident that we make use of just about any of the various translations now available.

Just some thoughts...it was neat reading the various responses to this question. I think we have proven the value of multiple translations...

God Bless,

Yours in Christ,
Stephen

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

I preach/speak from the KJV, becuase of the problems it can cause in many churches. I study mainly from the KJV, for personal comfort and it helps to study with the translation you preach with. For reseach I use many translations (NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.) for a wider understanding of the text.

[Gold Dragon]

Very true, I agree with you 100%. I think in my post I emphasized the guidance of the Holy Spirit, maybe a bit too much. As you noted it is extremely beneficial to understand the original text. My point was more that if you nit pick over single words here and there, you kinda miss the point as well. And I feel that you can abuse the scriptures just as badly that way. By not looking at the overall context and themes, individual words will not make any sense. Hence the reason why I believe that it really isn't all important over which translation you read.

Unfortunately whether you feel guided by the Holy Spirit or not, you always bring your own ideas into the text and believe what you feel is true. It is the nature of us humans.

Some great points and I agree totally! :thumbsup:

[Crazy Liz]

I thank the Salvation Army for giving away Bibles for free at some of their locations :)

Hey Crazy Liz, you are in seminary right?

Yup. That's right.

[ksen]

I don't think translations are that important. I believe in the word of God and that the Holy Spirit will guide me while reading his word. I tend not to nitpick over individual words and rather try get a good feel of the themes, emotions and important concepts that are being told through the stories, parables and history. Any translation is going to be off from the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, simply because the English language is not able to translate it correctly. For example there are various different synonyms for the word Love in Hebrew, so all those words are just translated into love when you go from Hebrew to English. So if you want to understand word for word and make sure that "the" doesn't actually mean "a" (stupid example I know) then it would probably be better to learn hebrew, and greek and read the original text.

It's what the Holy Spirit guides you to understand through his word rather then each individual word themselves.

How do you get these "themes, emotions, and important concepts" without individual words? :scratch:

The words are extremely important if you want to get the correct "themes, emotions, and concepts" that the Holy Spirit intended to impart.

[ksen]

In principle i prefer formal equivalence because I like the opportunity to figure out the what the author is trying to say rather than reading the interpretation according to the scholars. For this reason I find the KJV less useful because it was (as I understand it) a dynamic equivalence in its day.

Thanks for your thoughts Stefan.

You are very welcome to post in here in whatever fashion you want if you are a Baptist. The Baptist icon is not mandatory, as you can see from my own.

On to your point above, the KJV was not translated using dynamic equivalency. It is a formal equivalence translation. That said, the translators did have to use some dynamic equivalence because of the difficulty of getting some of the language to translate into english word for word.

I like what the KJV does. It puts the words that are not explicitly in the text in italics so we can see what the translators added for ourselves.

[Gold Dragon]

I like what the KJV does. It puts the words that are not explicitly in the text in italics so we can see what the translators added for ourselves.

The NASB is another formal equivalence that does this.

[ksen]

The NASB is another formal equivalence that does this.

I didn't know that. It seems to me like that device helps to keep the translators "honest." I'll have to check out the NASB. Do you know which Greek Text it uses?

[Gold Dragon]

I didn't know that. It seems to me like that device helps to keep the translators "honest." I'll have to check out the NASB. Do you know which Greek Text it uses?

It isn't the TR so you probably wouldn't be interested in it.

The original 1971 edition was based on Nestle's 23rd Greek Edition for the NT.

The 1995 edition that is more common today is based on Nestle-Aland's 26th edition from the UBS (United Bible Society) .

The OT for the 1995 edition is based on both the MT and DSS. Considering the recent discovery of the DSS (discovered in 1947 but results published gradually between 1950-95), I would assume the 1971 edition did not use the DSS as a source for comparison.

Bible Researcher - New American Standard Bible (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html)

The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971. The Greek edition used by the NASB revisers was the 23rd edition of the Nestle text (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-n.html#nestle1927).

Bible Researcher - NASB > Preface (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html)

HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

...

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.

[ksen]

It isn't the TR so you probably wouldn't be interested in it.

You're right, I wouldn't be interested in using it as my everyday Bible. It still may be useful for help in understanding some of the more difficult passages in the KJV though.

[Gold Dragon]

You're right, I wouldn't be interested in using it as my everyday Bible. It still may be useful for help in understanding some of the more difficult passages in the KJV though.

The NKJV is probably more helpful in that regard than the NASB since it is based on the TR.

This link does a good job of comparing the NASB to the NKJV.

Bible Researcher : New King James Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html)

[woman.at.the.well]

NIV for sure! It is the easiest to read and to my knowledge very accurate. I am currently trying to read the Amplified and honestly find it to be too wordy and therefore confusing at times. I think I'd just rather read the bible without all the extra "stuff" in it.

Does anyone else feel that way about the Amplified? I don't NOT like it. I guess I'm just having trouble getting use to it.

[Richard]

I'd go with NIV , since it is one of the most understandable for the young

[ZiSunka]

I've recently ordered the Nelson Study Bible in NKJV and the Life Application Study Bible in NLT. I'm going to have to choose between these two and send one back, but may keep both. Any thoughts on these two books?

God Bless

They are both great. You should keep them both and use them. If you can't afford both, just give up something else less valuable, like cable TV or fast food until you have enough money for both. :)