Featured Question about bible translation?

It's been my experience that in their explanation of the text they will reword things in such a way that it sounds much like the NLT or NIV.

They should just cut to the chase --it would save a lot of time.

 

I would suggest getting a King James Bible. The new versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and altered by the traditions of men. This link has articles exposing the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASV, NLT and etc. I do not endorse the Calvinistic teachings at the bottom of the page, but the information on manuscript evidence is outstanding.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

God bless

 

Here we go.....

 

The source from which you derived your information is corrupt.

KJVOism is a vain tradition of men.

 

You fail to demonstrate that your accusation is correct.

You ignore the fact that the makers of the KJV altered the pre-1611 English Bibles in some places, following Church of England doctrinal views and King James's divine-right-of-kings view, and they borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

You evidently are following the traditions and opinions of men evident in a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

 

Well between the two NASB versions (77 and 95) I think the 95 is quite a bit easier to understand than the 77 or older translations.

The reason may be that it is the version they have studied from the most, and therefore can rely on their personal library of study notes and prior sermons.

Personally, I believe the NASB95 is the most accurate English translation of the Bible, and when a meaning is not clear to me, I can look at other translations (NKJV, NET, HCSB, WEB) and almost always discern the meaning and sort of toss it in parenthetically.

And to make clear, I have never been a "teaching pastor" but as a layperson, have taught in adult Sunday School and Small Group settings.

 

*Sigh*

So you believe a links articles on every translation of the Bible except KJVO but then don't endorse the other teachings???

So how do you know what's correct and what's not?

 

KJVO.....because King James said so!!!
That Lebron can play some hoops also!
.......it makes about has much sense as other KJVO arguments

*For those who don't follow the NBA, Lebron James's nickname is King James.

 

:thumbsup:

Great translation, mine is an NASV John MacArthur study bible.

 

Great combo of a really good translation, and really good study notes!

 

Like you said "consider my(your) audience.". Don't let translation get in the way of the audience. I think the NASB95 is perfectly fine for preaching. I wish more people used it. If you can get away with the NASB95, run it. However, most baptist use NIV.....so you may want to consider that as your primary source of scripture.

 

I use the NASB exclusively as my pulpit Bible. What I do is ask someone in the congregation to read a verse or passage from what translations they have.

In my notes for today I had the opening phrase of II Timothy 1:5 in my notes from three translations:

 CEV: I also remember the genuine faith
 KJV: When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith
 LITV: taking recollection of the unpretended faith in you

We had an individual with a Revised Standard, another with a NKJV and a lady with a tablet with a dozen versions available. Calling on those to read involve them in the teaching and reinforces the point being made.

 

I used to quote a number of different translations, but it really confused people. It was almost like I was searching for a version support what I wanted to say rather than the other way around. So I finally just stuck with the NASB.

I am not sure what you mean by "I consider my audience". Can you explain that?

 

Why '77? That one still uses "Thee" and "Thou." The '95 got rid of those on the logical grounds that the manuscripts do not use special pronouns for the Deity.