Best Translation

[David Lamb]

And by what means have you made the determination that its accuracy is so superior to all the English versions which came after it?

....or, indeed, before it?

 

[Baptist4life]

This is way off topic, but my kids used to watch a children's show called Mr. Dressup. You look AMAZINGLY like the guy on that show!

Sorry.........back to topic! :saint:

 

[Dr. Bob]

I was weaned theologically on the ASV1901 and that was accurate to the Greek base text and comfortable reading. Did NOT care for the update attempt in the NASB.

Memorized the KJV1769 revision so if comfort (not accuracy of Greek or even use of 21st Century English) is the criteria, that would be it.

But of all the translations that I would say would get the "best" qualification, I'd go with the ESV. Not totally throw it all (nor totally thrilled with it all), but "best" in my not-so-humble-opinion.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The 'best' English translation has probably yet to be produced.

 

[TomVols]

Dr. Cassidy is right: you have to qualify what you mean by "best." Do you want the best literal translation? Best dynamic one? Best of the two textforms?

The NASB is considered to be the most literal of the best mss. That said, that begs the question, doesn't it?

True enough, the NASB is no longer as wooden as people claim, though the ESV reads a bit smoother by design as does the HCSB. However, the NASB is more literal than the both of them. NET is literal and very readable, but with some controversial renderings (the notes are invaluable if you are into mss differences).

There are many good Bible translations you can trust. Thanks be to God!

 

[Rippon]

NET is literal and very readable,...

I grant that it is readable. But I wouldn't cast it in the literal category. Even Hall Harris (the Project Director and Managing Editor for the NET Bible) says that the notes are formal while the translation itself is "somewhat more functionally [or dynamically] equivalent."

I don't agree with the following fellow sometimes,but here he has a point. Michael D.Marlowe --of the Bible Researcher website says:"The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (2006) is inconsistent,but in general it is less literal than the New International Version. The translators have for the most part employed a dynamic equivalence method..."

Your buddy,Superman Rick Mansfield said in his review of the NET Bible:"I would place it slightly right of the NIV on the scale from formal on the left and dynamic on the right,but others may disagree."

It's a mediating version --just speaking of the translation,but leaning more to the dynamic side of things in comparison with the NIV,ISV, and HCSB. (In my ever so HO).

 

[TCassidy]

The present President of the Seminary I attended almost 40 years ago wrote an excellent article on the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible.

Here is the first couple paragraphs. Click on the link after the quoted material to read the entire, excellent, article.

Four Hundred Years
Kevin T. Bauder

Welcome to 2011, the four-hundredth birthday of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. Many in the English-speaking world will be joining the celebration. And no wonder—the King James Version has been read by more English speakers and has done more to shape the language than any other document.

These days, Christians express mixed attitudes toward the King James Version. On the one hand are some who treat it as if it were written in a foreign language. They prize readability above all else, and they seem to think that an ordinary person of the 21st century cannot reasonably be expected to decipher such an arcane text. They value the King James Version only as an historical oddity, to be relegated to the museum of religious antiquities.

On the other hand are a few who affirm that the King James Version alone is the Word of God in English. Their professed reasons are diverse, having to do with manuscript preservation and translation theory, but when pressed they generally affirm with tautological certainty that they believe their position “by faith.”

Of course, what the advocates of this second position usually value is not so much the King James of 1611, but the revision of the King James that occurred in 1769. Different publishers, however, have issued different editions of the 1769 revision, and these contain differences in wording. Matthew Verschuur of Australia has gone so far as to insist that only the “Pure Cambridge Edition” of the King James Version is to be accepted as the true Word of God.

Divergent as these two attitudes are, they have one thing in common. Neither takes adequate account of the phenomena of Scripture itself. For example, King James Only advocates have difficulty explaining the divergent ways in which the text of the Old Testament manages to find its way into the New. They have further difficulty explaining how the sayings of Jesus could be rendered differently in the various gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew’s choice of “kingdom of heaven” where Mark and Luke prefer “kingdom of God”). Most of all, they have difficulty finding an actual promise of textual preservation anywhere in the Bible. All of these considerations should give anyone pause before subscribing to the theory that we only have the true Word of God if we have the exact words of God.

http://centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/292-four-hundred-years

 

[BobinKy]

The present President of the Seminary I attended almost 40 years ago wrote an excellent article on the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible.

Here is the first couple paragraphs. Click on the link after the quoted material to read the entire, excellent, article.http://centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/292-four-hundred-years

Tom...

Thank you for sharing this excellent article. If I may, I would like to quote two paragraphs at the end of Dr. Bauder's article.

In sum, a good version of the Bible will be accurate, but it will not oversimplify. It will choose elevated language because it aims to shape feeling as well as thinking. It should be widely used and readily shared. It must leave the reader with the impression that the book wasn’t just written yesterday. It ought to be just a bit archaic.

In my opinion, the King James Version is the only translation of Holy Scripture into English that meets these criteria. It is not just a good version, it is a great one. It is both a great translation and a great work of literature. For me, the use of the King James Version is not simply a matter of nostalgia or sentimentality. It is unsurpassed for use in the corporate church setting, and it is as good as any for private devotional reading.​

I agree.

...Bob

 

[mets65]

I just don't like the use of the word only, but it is an opinion.

 

[Robert Snow]

The church I was saved at was a KJVO church, and it was the version I used exclusively for several years.

Now however, I especially enjoy the NLT.

 

[Friend of God]

The version I prefer is the King James Version, the reason I use it may seem funny to some.

Several years ago I suffered a Nervous Breakdown, and my therapist was a Christian counselor. In order to help my concentration he suggested I use the King James Version for awhile [I was using the NIV] to see if having to really look at every word I read to make sure of it's correct meaning would help my damaged concentration.

My concentration isn't quite what it used to be but it has improved, I believe, because I used the King James as part of my therapy. Neither my therapist nor I are by any means in the KJVO camp [he uses the NIV], but he hit on a unique form of therapy that helped me.

 

[go2church]

TNIV and NRSV are what I use most of the time. Occasionally the NLT especially in the Gospels.

Have at one point used all the major translations and settled on these as my favorite.

KJV - don't like it, accuracy is medium at best, language dated

NASBU - fine, but sections just get unreadable it is so literal, I'm sure I'm missing the point

ESV - for a modern version, it seems dated already

NIV - fine, like the TNIV better

NKJV - don't like it, would rather read the KJV

I have enjoyed reading The Voice and The Message, awaiting the complete Common English Bible the New Testament has been interesting

 

[God's_Servant]

TNIV and NRSV are what I use most of the time. Occasionally the NLT especially in the Gospels.

Have at one point used all the major translations and settled on these as my favorite.

KJV - don't like it, accuracy is medium at best, language dated

NASBU - fine, but sections just get unreadable it is so literal, I'm sure I'm missing the point

ESV - for a modern version, it seems dated already

NIV - fine, like the TNIV better

NKJV - don't like it, would rather read the KJV

I have enjoyed reading The Voice and The Message, awaiting the complete Common English Bible the New Testament has been interesting

Harsh... :tear:

 

[go2church]

Harsh, how so?

 

[Rippon]

The version I prefer is the King James Version, the reason I use it may seem funny to some.

Several years ago I suffered a Nervous Breakdown, and my therapist was a Christian counselor. In order to help my concentration he suggested I use the King James Version for awhile [I was using the NIV] to see if having to really look at every word I read to make sure of it's correct meaning would help my damaged concentration.

My concentration isn't quite what it used to be but it has improved, I believe, because I used the King James as part of my therapy. Neither my therapist nor I are by any means in the KJVO camp [he uses the NIV], but he hit on a unique form of therapy that helped me.

It sounds really strange to me.

 

[Rippon]

Harsh... :tear:

There was nothing harsh in his post. But,then again,people have seen things that were not there in some of my posts also.