Featured Have Any Of You Switched?

Have any of you switched over to another translation as your primary Bible version in the last year or so?

Obviously, those who regard the KJV as the only trustworthy translation are not likely to move on until there's an awakening. However, I would say that the second most resistant group to change over would be the ESVers.

I think that I use more of a variety of translations than the average Joe. I have a bunch of physical copies and I go to BibleGateway as well. No one version does the job for me. I plan on getting the 2020 NASB in a while. I have the 1977 and the 1995 editions. The latter one was a gift from someone. It's a study Bible version. I would not willingly go out an purchase a study Bible. Oops, I have the NET Bible. Does that count as a Study Bible? That's hard to determine. It doesn't conform to the layout of a typical Study Bible.

Do any of you own physical copies of any Roman Catholic Bibles? I have the NJB. I was paging through the updated version of the NJB --- the RNJB recently at a bookstore. It didn't appeal to me. There wasn't much of a change to warrant buying it. Some might consider the REB to be a Roman Catholic translation, but of the 15 churches and Christian groups that were represented by the translators only three were RC's.

I don't expect any to have switched from the NKJV to the CEB. That would be a major shakeup. But perhaps some have gone from the NLT to the CSB for example. I had the MLB which was the updated Berkeley version for years until a South Korean pastor gifted me with the NIV in 1998. I had never owned an NIV before. I spend the better part of a year transferring my notes to the NIV. That's a practice I have dropped with successive Bible translations. I insert my new observations/insights into new Bible purchases.

So, getting back to my main point, who has switched over? Present your story.

 

Are you planning to get the 2020 NASB?

Regarding the NJB, there is nothing distinctively RC in the text or the notes. Footnotes are rare, and usually are biblical references. The Forward, written by a Roman Catholic, now 86 year old Henry Wansbrough, surprisingly makes no mention of anything RC. The only RC aspect to this translation is the inclusion of seven apocrypha books. Well, the dust cover is more overt about its RC connection.

I can assure you that this is a faithful, trustworthy Bible translation. You should, time permitting, go to your local library and check it out. Or, if need be, get an interlibrary loan.

 

I'm sure you can do it on Amazon, a company that I will no longer deal with because of their evil ways.

But you are able to buy the RNJB from bookstores.

 

Your sentence can be interpreted as when you were saved you were reading from the LB and then switched to the NASB.
But I suppose you thought that you were expressing the idea that when you were unsaved you were reading the LB, and upon being saved you opted for the NASB.

 

You went backwards from a modern revision to an antiquated one. Interesting.

 

What was the version? Because there is no translation called "The Big RC Family Bible."

 

Do you ever compare the KJV with other translations? Do you have other versions in your 'abode' Glen?

 

You guys! There is no translation called the "RCC Bible." (What does the extra "C" stand for, anyway?) Just tell us the name of the translation.

 

The CT is closer to the original than the TR. But, it's a matter of about 5-10% difference, from what I have read.

The style, for the reading public should be in the language of the people --their vernacular. That was William Tyndale's aim. But it wasn't the aim and intention of the KJV revisers. The common people in 1611 did not speak or write in the high Anglican style.

The text should be dignified, but in the common language of the people. And by that I do not mean "street talk."