TR-based versions:
Geneva
KJV
Webster's
NKJV
MKJV
Eclectic Text versions:
NASB
ASV
RV
RSV
NRSV
ESV
NIV
GNB
NLT
etc., etc., etc.
There are not many options when it comes to the TR translations.
Based on how you feel about certain things, there are some versions you can dismiss before you even read them.
If you are offended by the RSV saying that Jesus would be born of a "young woman" instead of a "virgin," then the RSV is not for you (NRSV as well, I believe).
If you (like me) don't believe a version commonly accepted to be a paraphrase should be used, stay away from those, for example The Living Bible and The Message.
If you like formal equivalency (word-for-word translation as best they could) in translation versus dynamic equivalency (thought-for-thought translation as best they could), then that weeds out the NIV among others.
Here are some popular ones for the fundamentalist.
1. KJV. Among Fundamentalist circles, the KJV has always been a popular choice, if not the most popular since 1611 (in its various incarnations) and is a true and faithful literal translation and will steer no one astray from the Word of God. This is regardless of the pedo-baptist, pseudo-Catholic, Baptist-persecuting heretick that instigated it for his own political and religious gain, King James I. You would do no wrong if you read it everyday and none other. The most beautiful and fluent book written in the English language. Some consider it difficult to understand because of words that are not in the common vernacular. Many do not realize this, but the language used in the KJV was not the language in common use among the literate of the time. It was, in fact, a court language. Nobody ever talked like that. Here are two examples from the KJV and how they are translated differently in the Geneva. I have updated the spelling in the Geneva verses below.
1. Acts 12:4.
(KJV)And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
(Geneva)And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.
2. II Timothy 3:16
(KJV)All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(Geneva)For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness,
Here is a good article from a non-KJVO who defends the use of the KJV in the pulpit.
Okaaay. I can't find the link, but here's a link to the website that had it. Somebody help me out here. Lots of good articles here:
KJVONLY.ORG
2. NIV. The NIV was accepted by many evangelicals as being the translation of choice despite its decided bent toward dynamic equivalency. When I was younger I memorized most of my verses in this version which really messes me up when I try to quote a verse in KJV...even John 3:16. Some claim the doctrine of the blood is weakened in this version, especially in Hebrews (I have not found this to be true). Many evangelicals and fundamentalists would prefer to have a more literal translation. Just as a note, this was the version I was reading when I was saved.
3. ASV. This was the choice of "intellectual" fundamentalists but never replaced the KJV in common use in fundamentalist circles. Some of the most ardent fundamentalists used this version to much effect. It is the American counterpart to the Revised Version from England which Spurgeon used to correct what he percieved as deficiencies in the KJV. Still in limited use.
4. NASB. Update to the ASV. This is a very good, literal translation of the Word. I John 5:7 differs from the KJV as well as in some other areas. Some think it is so literal it is actually stilted and wooden in areas and some think it is just right in its formal equivalence to the original languages.
5. ESV. I've heard very good things about this. I've also read passages and would consider it a bridge between the KJV and the NASB. More fluid language than the NASB and written in the form of English currently in use. Looks like it might just catch on.
6. Geneva Bible. Very difficult to get a copy of this whether it be facsimile or new typeset for under $100. Very few use this as an everyday Bible, although there are some. I was talking to someone on the BaptistBoard not too long ago who used the Geneva for everyday devotions and as his bible that he brought to church. This was the choice of the early Baptists/Puritans. This was also brought to America as the first English translation over here. Its language is easier to understand but most of the time the spelling is not updated. It was the language of the common literate individual in the 1500's, so it would still seem archaic and perhaps a bit less poetic than the KJV which replaced it.
If there are other versions that are in common use by fundamentalists, I am not aware of them. This is just a brief review of the ones that are or were.
Here are the Flesch-Kincaid readability scale results on John chapter 1.
NIV 5.4
ESV 5.8
ASV 6.2
KJV 6.4
Gen 6.9
NAS 7.2
MY OPINION:
My family and I will continue to use the KJV in devotions, personal reading and church for these reasons.
1. We, as a family, are most familiar with the KJV of all the versions.
2. The verses are easily memorizable, and the poetry is unparalleled.
3. This is the anvil on which many rebel bands have worn out their hammer, has had the greatest effect on Western Christianity over the past 300 years, and preaches with the greatest power.
We feel justified in this position because the KJV as the Word of God will never fail us and will never cause us to err.
God bless,
Jason
