-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Best Translation
- Thread starter jeben
- Start date
Agreed. It is a little wooden but if you study greek, you understand why it is the way it is.
Yeah as long as your in the Bible that's a good thing. I personally prefer the NASB, but I think the ESV, HCSB, KJV, and NKJV are all solid translations, among others. I try to steer clear of the NIV and TNIV.
I've been reading the KJV for over 50 years, so it's the best for me. I, too, say the best version is the one you'll read, study, and learn from. There are some to be avoided though, IMHO. The Message, NWT, etc.
I wouldn't use the Message for studying or anything but it's a nice Bible to sit and just read. I've done that before and find it enjoyable. I don't let it take the time away from my regular reading though.
I
I've heard this a lot of times but I used the NASB for several years and never thought it was wooden or clumsy. Maybe my brain is wooden and clumsy. :laugh:
LOL
A nagging spouse is like
the drip, drip, drip of a leaky faucet;
You can't turn it off,
and you can't get away from it.
Proverbs 27:15-16 Message
vs
A constant dripping on a day of steady rain
And a contentious woman are alike;
16He who would restrain her restrains the wind,
And grasps oil with his right hand.
Proverbs 27:15-16 NASB
So, this verse is good for a laugh, but other than that, not much good out of the message. I definitely wouldn't form any doctrine there and such don't see any need to read it. I have an ESV
As for the OP question, i would say the ESV as overall. It's reliable and readible. The NASB is best for being literal.
I think if you are used to the KJV, the NASB is easier to read than if someone came from the NIV to the NASB.
I read Paul's epistles through three times in college. I did it the first time with the KJV, then the NASB and it was much easier than the KJV. Then of course the ESV was the best of all three. Going back to the NASB isn't as easy. So I know exactly what you are speaking of here.
I love the NASB because it's what I'm used to. The ESV is good, but I find it more clumsy than the NASB, even though it's even more wooden.
But for most practical use, I use the TNIV. It's a great translation (even though it was blackballed by some folks). NIV and NLT are great too.
But for most practical use, I use the TNIV. It's a great translation (even though it was blackballed by some folks). NIV and NLT are great too.
It is the KJV since 400 years because of its accuracy and superiority over modern versions.
There is no one translation that is "best" across the board. Several have strong points but also suffer some weaknesses.
As I prefer a bible (NT) translated from the Byzantine textform I like the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, KJV-2000 etc, but they all also have weaknesses (KJV outdated language and syntax, NKJV how they translate the present passive participle, MKJV so literal as to be wooden and inflexible, etc).
Of the bibles (NT) translated from the Alexandrian textform I like the ASV and NASB for their fidelity to verbal and formal equivalence but sometimes, as already mentioned, at the expense of style (IE "wooden").
ANY translation that you read, believe, and live by is better than one that sits in the book shelf except for a brief outing on Sunday.
As I prefer a bible (NT) translated from the Byzantine textform I like the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, KJV-2000 etc, but they all also have weaknesses (KJV outdated language and syntax, NKJV how they translate the present passive participle, MKJV so literal as to be wooden and inflexible, etc).
Of the bibles (NT) translated from the Alexandrian textform I like the ASV and NASB for their fidelity to verbal and formal equivalence but sometimes, as already mentioned, at the expense of style (IE "wooden").
ANY translation that you read, believe, and live by is better than one that sits in the book shelf except for a brief outing on Sunday.
I think people use the term "wooden" in reference to the old NASB --the one pre-1995.However,the 95 update got tagged with the wooden label out of habit. The NASBU is a bit better and flows more smoothly than the ESV a good deal of the time. I've made threads on that in the past. The ESV is superior to the NASBU occasionally in spots.
And by what means have you made the determination that its accuracy is so superior to all the English versions which came after it?
Okay,you know that thought of yours is wrong.
Do you think that it is possible that many folks buy a KJV without realizing its faults?