What are the main deciding factors for your main English Bible of choice?

[37818]

What the written word of God being inerrant is the driving factor. I do not believe any single translation is without error. The issues with the KJV are well known. I learned more often than not, the reading typically rejected in the KJV was the common New Testament reading. And of the variant readings typically used to call inerreancy in question, were of the CT readings. The KJV became my first chioce.

 

[Deacon]

What the written word of God being inerrant is the driving factor. I do not believe any single translation is without error. The issues with the KJV are well known. I learned more often than not, the reading typically rejected in the KJV was the common New Testament reading. And of the variant readings typically used to call inerreancy in question, were of the CT readings. The KJV became my first chioce.

So... if you would have started reading the NASB (or the NIV or ESV) variant reading are typically footnoted supplying the readings found in 'other manuscripts'.
...and you may have had the same inerrancy question from the opposite viewpoint!!!

But inerrancy does not concern itself deeply with manuscript tradition.

Inerrancy applies only to the original autographs. Our Scriptures do not promise an inerrant transmission.
But as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms, "copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original" (Article X).

Modern New Testament Greek editions (to include the many editions of the textus receiptus) are based upon a compilation of numerous ancient copies and thus are many steps away from the original autograph. Through the process of NT Textual Criticism scholars over the centuries have attempted to reconstruct the original autograph; it is not a perfect science.
Yet the availability of a mountain of preserved manuscripts gathered from over almost two millennia confirm that the Hebrew and Greek text has been well preserved. The authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Variances in textual tradition not withstanding, in view of the frequent repetition through the Word of God, no serious Hebrew or Greek edition or its translation has destroyed our sacred writing's meaning in a way that renders it unable to give its reader “the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3.15 NASB).

Rob

 

[37818]

. . . the NASB . . . .

I still have my first NASB, a New Testament 1963 edition. But before I had obtained it, I had gotten in 1968 a Nestle Greek New Testament. It was what had, that already convinced me of that the KJV generally would have the better reading. Of the modern translations early on, I considered the NASB to be a best available.

Regarding textual criticism, what ever a variant happens to be, we have a reading that may not be God's word.

 

[Deacon]

So I guess it was a matter of too much information at a young age; it can be quite confusing.
I became a Christian around '72 and my mentor suggested I use the NASB (old and new testament) which came out the year previously - I still have my old blue hardback Reference Edition.

I have developed the habit of using a different bible version every few years, for me it keeps things fresh and alive.

Currently it is the recent NASB.

Rob

 

[37818]

So... if you would have started reading the NASB (or the NIV or ESV) variant reading are typically footnoted supplying the readings found in 'other manuscripts'.
...and you may have had the same inerrancy question from the opposite viewpoint!!!

But inerrancy does not concern itself deeply with manuscript tradition.

Inerrancy applies only to the original autographs. Our Scriptures do not promise an inerrant transmission.
But as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms, "copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original" (Article X).

Modern New Testament Greek editions (to include the many editions of the textus receiptus) are based upon a compilation of numerous ancient copies and thus are many steps away from the original autograph. Through the process of NT Textual Criticism scholars over the centuries have attempted to reconstruct the original autograph; it is not a perfect science.
Yet the availability of a mountain of preserved manuscripts gathered from over almost two millennia confirm that the Hebrew and Greek text has been well preserved. The authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Variances in textual tradition not withstanding, in view of the frequent repetition through the Word of God, no serious Hebrew or Greek edition or its translation has destroyed our sacred writing's meaning in a way that renders it unable to give its reader “the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3.15 NASB).

Rob

At issue are the actual words from God.

 

[37818]

So I guess it was a matter of too much information at a young age; it can be quite confusing.
I became a Christian around '72 and my mentor suggested I use the NASB (old and new testament) which came out the year previously - I still have my old blue hardback Reference Edition.

I have developed the habit of using a different bible version every few years, for me it keeps things fresh and alive.

Currently it is the recent NASB.

Rob

Of the modern translations I favor the NKJV. It mostly follows Greek of the KJV. But has M, majority text, and NU, Nestle Aland, United Bible Society texts variants in the notes. Most useful. More informative.

 

[37818]

@Deacon,
Thank you for discussing this.

 

[Deacon]

At issue are the actual words from God.

At issue is Authority!

…and God’s word remains authoritative despite minor textual differences!​

I’ve have good friends that lead our Bible study group who enjoy the NKJV.
Who am I to complain?

If you’re arguing about simple words you are missing God’s message.

Seems to me that although the passage may differ a bit, the meaning and message remains the same.
If one argues too intensely about the minor differences they are making a mountain about a mole hill.
It’s fun to poke at people here on the Baptistboard but I’d never confront a person about it face to face… unless of course they got in my face about it, lol

Jesus and the Apostles referenced a variety of variant Scriptures in their sayings and writings.
The word differences in the Septuagint are not minor in places yet we don’t read of any arguments or discussions of theirs about this fact.



Rob

 

[37818]

…and God’s word remains authoritative despite minor textual differences!

God's word is immutable, it has not changed. Psalms 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." What we have of it are translations of the copies handed down to us.
When we are give different versions of it, we have reasons to doubt.

Where whole verses are thrown away. 1 John 5:7. Not just one, but many.

 

[37818]

FYI, I am not a KJV onlyist. I am a for the NKJV at this time. I had for a time switched to the NKJV, but had switched back to a KJV.

Now the modern translations are currently what are in common use as the,the believers source for God's word. What is actually God's word remains at issue.

So a believe's choice in one's English translation is of importance.

It could be as simple as it is the translation used at one's church.

 

[Mikoo]

God's word is immutable, it has not changed. Psalms 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." What we have of it are translations of the copies handed down to us.
When we are give different versions of it, we have reasons to doubt.

Where whole verses are thrown away. 1 John 5:7. Not just one, but many.

Or whole verses were added. Not just one, but many?

 

[Deacon]

God's word is immutable, it has not changed.
[snip]

….whole verses are thrown away. 1 John 5:7. Not just one, but many.

You certainly have read the arguments for and against this verse… no need to go over that dead horse.
Does the absence of that verse effect any doctrine? Nope… both sides confirm the Trinity.

Most of the absent verses are found in other parts of Scripture.
There are some important differences between the various manuscript traditions but missing verses is not a big one.

Rob

 

[37818]

Or whole verses were added. Not just one, but many?

Give me an example, which modern translation, where a whole verse was added.

 

[Salty]

Actually, I dont think there is any one answer -
Depends on what you are seeking:
A word-for-Word translation
A phrase translation
A reading level translation
ect, ect

Here is one chart:

Comparison Chart

Which is best for my needs

 

[37818]

Does the absence of that verse effect any doctrine? Nope… both sides confirm the Trinity.

That was just one well known example. How about Matthew 17:21. Teachings are affected. Some rightly so, and some not. This is not a small issue.

 

[Deacon]

Give me an example, which modern translation, where a whole verse was added.

Psalm 145 in the ESV adds a verse between verses 13 and 14.

13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,

and your dominion endures throughout all generations.​

[The Lord is faithful in all his words

and kind in all his works.] ​

14 The Lord upholds all who are falling

and raises up all who are bowed down.​

Compare with Psalm 145:13-14 in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, AV 1873

13 (מ) Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
14 (ס) The Lord upholdeth all that fall,
And raiseth up all those that be bowed down.

Rob

 

[37818]

Psalm 145 in the ESV adds a verse between verses 13 and 14.

13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,

and your dominion endures throughout all generations.​

[The Lord is faithful in all his words

and kind in all his works.] ​

14 The Lord upholds all who are falling

and raises up all who are bowed down.​

Compare with Psalm 145:13-14 in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, AV 1873

13 (מ) Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
14 (ס) The Lord upholdeth all that fall,
And raiseth up all those that be bowed down.

Rob

The extra line is from the Greek LXX.

 

[Mikoo]

Give me an example, which modern translation, where a whole verse was added.

Should have been:
Or whole verses were added to the KJV. Not just one, but many?

 

[Mikoo]

That was just one well known example. How about Matthew 17:21. Teachings are affected. Some rightly so, and some not. This is not a small issue.

Maybe it was added to the KJV. Jesus gave His answer in verse 20. Looks like someone added verse 21. Jesus explained that faith was the issue. But you want us to believe that Jesus the added verse 21?
i.e. - Oh by the way, P.S. - Except this one. No faith required. "...., this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” (Sound like someone added verse 21 to ease their conscience because they lacked the faith Jesus was referring to in verse 20. IMHO)

 

[37818]

Should have been:
Or whole verses were added to the KJV. Not just one, but many?

The KJV 1611. Give a verse example of an earlier Engish translation.