Featured Which version - Why?

best english versions for 'serious studies" NASB/NKJV
best for reading, general studies of bible Niv 2011/HCSB
Best for just reading through NLT

ESV hard to define, as not quite as literally as NASB, nor as readable as either Niv /HCSB!

 

The NIV'11...

because it is new and I want to say I've read through it.

next year will be a different translation.

 

Wonder when the 2012 Mayan End of the world edition will come off the presses!

Hopefully before Nov 2012!

 

I semi echo what Yeshua1 said.

My go to translations
Study = NASB
General Use = HCSB
Reading = NLT 2nd Edition

I'm still back and forth on the ESV. The HCSB sometimes is weird if you've got your verses memorized in KJV or similar as sometimes it reads different.

 

how do you view the NIV 2011?

 

Tell you the truth I haven't really had the chance to sit down to look at it, so I can't really comment. I'm thinking I might add it to my reading list for the Fall though.

 

Best all-around Bible for reading, serious and general study, the HCSB.

 

New King James Version is in my opinion the best all around. My 9 year old can read it and understand it. The references in the middle will tell you were the ancient text differ.

 

My preferred Bible is the King James Authorized Version, first printing May 1611.

While I have several other "brands" and use several on-line resources to look up scriptures of many more, the KJB is the one I study and carry with me.

Many reasons.

* The beauty and power of the language.

* It has withstood 400 years of challenges.

* It's the one modern versions always point to for comparision.

* It is not under copyright in the US. Thus it isn't changed every 5-10 years to make another buck.

* So far, I haven't read of any translation team, or quality control measures, for modern versions that are equal to who/what was established for the KJB.

* Most, if not all, modern versions are directly or indirectly affected by the works of Hort and Westcott in 1881. (Basically, two differing lines of manuscripts.) This become apparent when studing the same verse(s) in various "brands" of Bibles. They are in agreement and disagree with the KJB. In other instances they disagree with each other and the KJB, too.

* Many of the claims of errors in the KJB have been refuted over and over again. What's worse, IMHO, is when people who know better, distort the truth in order to support their anti-KJB position. (Wish I had the link handy of a collage professor using the printing date of the TR to refute the KJB translators. As if the printing press had anything to do with the manuscripts used.)

There's more, but this is a good stopping place. And, to end where I began.

* The beauty and power of the English language at its height. For example, compare Deuteronomy 6:1-15 (last weeks Sunday school lesson) from the KJB to other versions. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 6:1-15&version=KJV

 

Hey Coach! Welcome!
You're from the belly button of the America; I guess I'm from the arm pit.

For personal study I use the ESV.

Why?

• It's "essentially literal".
• There are no jarring translations.
• It generally reads well out loud.
• The Tyndale cadence of wording makes memorization a bit easier.
• Problematic passages are generally well footnoted and exhibit an eclectic method of textual criticism.
• The use of recent biblical scholarship advances is valuable particularly in the way the text is formatted.

Rob

 

Are you suggesting that you have not read much?

The quality control measures for the KJV were intended partly to protect and promote Church of England positions, especially their Episcopal church government view. Are you unaware of the Episcopal bias in the KJV?

 

If that is supposedly so, why could I find over 50 pages of examples where the NKJV agrees with the 1560 Geneva Bible while the KJV differs?

Are you aware of the places where the 1611 KJV agrees with the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from which the KJV translators borrowed some renderings and disagrees with the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops'] of which the KJV was supposed to be a revision?

The NKJV is translated from the same original language texts as the KJV.

 

In an attempt to steer this back over to the question in the OP, which is a good one...

For preaching/teaching - HCSB
For study - NET, ESV, NIV11, and occassionally JPS OT & NASB

Since most of the people who hear me preach or teach use the NIV84 or 11 (not many are switching to the 2011) I usually reference that in preparation to help them understand translation differences.

I don't have much use for the KJV as in my context nobody uses it. If I'm going to talk with an older group, seniors, I'll probably reference it for them.

Of course in all things the originals are the foundation.

 

Study = Interlineal greek to english straight translation usint the textus recptus
Preaching = KJV it matches up with the Textus Receptus Greek to English really well, of course the KJV has grammatical additons to help it flow as the straight translation can be hard to follow.

Found some error in the NIV and NAS. For instance:

KJV

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

NIV

Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go

NAS

Luke 10:1 Now after this the Lord appointed seventy-two others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come

Some NAS versions show seventy others seventy two.

With seventy representing perfect spiritual order then the 70 of the KJV would fit scriptural exegisis perfectly. Whereas 72 takes away perfect spiritual order and changes the meaning of what Christ was doing with His followers.

Just a He chose 12 disciples with 12 representing Governmental Perfection.

 

NOT really errors, just textual varients, as in 'some read 70, others 72"

KJV version could be the wrong one!

 

With the exception of the Textus Receptus and the meaning of 70 being perfect spiritual order. 7 Spiritual perfection x 10 ordinal perfection = 70 perfect spiritual order. 72 does not carry that meaning.

 

I find it greatly interesting (and an unfortunate misnomer) that many use numerological conclusions such as you are here, and in this case as a proof or support of a version being the one, namely the KJV.

Many KJVOnlyists use such things to prove their version is the correct version. There are other oddities they use to support their views and 'prove' their version is the only true version. It's swiss cheese theology, but hey, they believe it.

Can you provide some documented and credible evidence showing the number 70 is the 'perfect spiritual order' and also define what you mean by this 'perfect spiritual order' and where you got this statement? Also explain where spiritual perfection is the number seven, explicitly stated, and how 10 is 'ordinal perfection' and explain the rest of this mystical reasoning you've alluded to?

 

Re: Luke 10:1

I'll match your 70 and raise you 2. :laugh:

Rob