If you could have only one translation...

[Martin Marprelate]

NKJV for me. I prefer the text and find it accurate and easy to read. I also prefer it to the ESV because it puts words added to the text in italics. Very important if you don't know the original languages.

I could not possibly use the NIV 2011. My inner pedant rebels against it

John 3:3. Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

That is such atrocious English, I just couldn't bring myself to read it out loud.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

NKJV for me. I prefer the text and find it accurate and easy to read. I also prefer it to the ESV because it puts words added to the text in italics. Very important if you don't know the original languages.

I don't think the ESV uses italics Steve. But that's okay. A consistent use of italics would be a visual nightmare!

I could not possibly use the NIV 2011. My inner pedant rebels against it

John 3:3. Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

That is such atrocious English, I just couldn't bring myself to read it out loud.

It's very commonly used English. even Dobson and Piper who railed against the TNIV (for this and other reasons) have been caught using those kind of constructions. Maybe you have done the same in your weaker moments!

 

[rsr]

I might occasionally say such things; I would never, ever write such things.

It really is jarring to run across such blatant subject-verb disagreements.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't think the ESV uses italics Steve. But that's okay. A consistent use of italics would be a visual nightmare!

I think italics are very important in Bible study if one doesn't have the original languages to hand. eg. 1John 2:2, ESV. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world. Unless you have acess to the original you would never know that the words that I've put in brackets are not in any ancient manuscript. The same thing applies in 1Cor 14:29, where 'What is said' does not appear in the original.

It's very commonly used English. even Dobson and Piper who railed against the TNIV (for this and other reasons) have been caught using those kind of constructions. Maybe you have done the same in your weaker moments!

I have plenty of weaker moments at my time of life, and I may have said something like this at one tim or another, but I would never, ever write it!

I'd like to give an example of the problem that can arise if one uses the 'gender-inclusive plural.'

Psalm 24:3-4, NKJV. 'Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully.'

Whom is this speaking of? Which one of us can say, my heart is absolutely pure, my hands completely clean. I have never told a lie and never made an idol out of anything? On the basis of John 5:39, might not these verses be referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in the light of vs 7-10? I don't insist upon it, but it is at least a possible interpretation.

Now consider the same verses in the NRSV. 'Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who may stand in his holy place? Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up thier souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully.'

By putting the verse in the plural, the possibility of connecting it to the Lord Jesus is taken away and we are pushed back onto our own righteousness.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

I think italics are very important in Bible study if one doesn't have the original languages to hand. eg. 1John 2:2, ESV. 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for [the sins of] the whole world. Unless you have acess to the original you would never know that the words that I've put in brackets are not in any ancient manuscript. The same thing applies in 1Cor 14:29, where 'What is said' does not appear in the original.

Again,the ESV doesn't use italics.I don't think they are necessary.As I said,to consistently use italics in English Bible texts would be a visual nightmare. It is impractical and unnecessary. Folks can use study aids such as commentaries to get more information. Sometimes footnotes are available in translations.

I have plenty of weaker moments at my time of life, and I may have said something like this at one tim or another, but I would never, ever write it!

Never say never. Listen Steve: Chaucer,Shakespeare,C.S.Lewis and a host of other Brits have used it. The KJV,Tyndale and Bishop's Bible uses it.

It's used in common speech. Common speech becomes common written language.


I don't have time to address Psalm 24 at the moment. But the 2011 NIV doesn't use the plural in verses 3 and 4.

 

[glfredrick]

Priscilla Ann had asked for examples of the "utter clarity" you claim that the ESV has. Could you demonstrate that utter clarity by comparing some passages in the ESV with the NASBU?

I'm sure you can look up these verses and compare them yourself.

Here is a nice site that does just that:

http://bible.cc/luke/10-27.htm

 

[glfredrick]

Due to your knowledge of the original languages --how does that have anything to do with an English translation that works well in group settings?

It's often related that one conversant in Greek would like to read a more dynamic version in devotional times.

I STUDY in the original languages. I USE the English version in group settings.

I READ multiple versions, including The Message, and I try to read through another translation every year or two years, depending on my current reading schedule (I vary it some).

So far, Ive read through the entire Bible in KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, Amplified Bible, ESV, NLB, NEB, NRSV, and what was available in The Message. I highly recommend the practice. It tends to cause one to see with more clarity. Things that might stay hidden from familiarity become exposed when confronted with another way of saying something, at least that is what I have found. If I find something that makes me raise my eyebrows and go, huh?, I check it further in the original language to see if there is an issue with the translation, or if I have misunderstood something all along. I have discovered both to be true at one time or another.

 

[David Lamb]

NKJV for me. I prefer the text and find it accurate and easy to read. I also prefer it to the ESV because it puts words added to the text in italics. Very important if you don't know the original languages.

I could not possibly use the NIV 2011. My inner pedant rebels against it

John 3:3. Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

That is such atrocious English, I just couldn't bring myself to read it out loud.

Steve

I agree, Steve.

By the way, I wonder if Rippon misunderstood you? When you wrote (emphasis mine):

"I also prefer it to the ESV because it puts words added to the text in italics,"
​

I assumed that by "it" you meant the NKJV, but Rippon's reply:

"I don't think the ESV uses italics Steve."
​

sounds as though he thought you said that the ESV used italics. (Sorry if I have misrepresented you there, Rippon).

 

[Priscilla Ann]

I'm sure you can look up these verses and compare them yourself.

Here is a nice site that does just that:

http://bible.cc/luke/10-27.htm

Thanks for the site; I have compared a number of verses and I honestly don't see that the ESV is any clearer than the NASBU in the verses I have read. Perhaps I am missing something...

 

[glfredrick]

Thanks for the site; I have compared a number of verses and I honestly don't see that the ESV is any clearer than the NASBU in the verses I have read. Perhaps I am missing something...

Maybe you are...

Of course we need to define what is, is... :laugh:

Try reading each aloud to a group.

And, BTW, I am in no way dissing the NASB95 (haven't seen the newest yet). It is a very good translation and I've spent as much time with it as with any translation. I did 12 years of multiple degree seminary work with that version in my hand.

 

[PeterM]

Were I forced to select only one... it would have to be the ESV.

 

[Rippon]

By the way, I wonder if Rippon misunderstood you? When you wrote (emphasis mine):

"I also prefer it to the ESV because it puts words added to the text in italics,"
​

I assumed that by "it" you meant the NKJV, but Rippon's reply:

"I don't think the ESV uses italics Steve."
​

sounds as though he thought you said that the ESV used italics. (Sorry if I have misrepresented you there, Rippon).

Yes,I did misunderstand. Thanks David.

 

[Rippon]

And, BTW, I am in no way dissing the NASB95 (haven't seen the newest yet). It is a very good translation and I've spent as much time with it as with any translation. I did 12 years of multiple degree seminary work with that version in my hand.

They haven't come out with a revision of the NASB95.

 

[alexander284]

New King James Version (NKJV)

If I could only use just one, it would be the NKJV.

Second choice? NASB Third choice? ESV

Those are the Big Three to me. I really like the more literal versions.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Not really "wooden" but not "comfortable". It's like the KJV - sometimes it takes reading the sentence again to get it.

I think that sometimes having a translation that "reads slower" is a good thing. At other times perhaps not, it depends on why you are reading it.

Anyway, if I could only have one copy of the Bible I would pick my vintage Cambridge Cameo KJV that I have had rebound in brown Deerskin leather

 

[glfredrick]

They haven't come out with a revision of the NASB95.

Thought it was in the works... Perhaps I mis-heard.

In any case, to the OP, if it came down to it, ANY version I had in my hand when the excrement hits the rotary air-moving device would be sufficient. I have preferences, but the Bible I (we) read is far better than not reading one at all.

 

[Andy_S]

New International Version.

 

[JTornado1]

I agree that the NKJV is understandable as well as literal. Next to my NIV 1984, it is the translation I read most often.

I've really tried to like the ESV, but it just doesn't read smoothly to me. I have a copy, but rarely pick it up anymore...

I've noticed that, too. My church used to use the NIV, but several years ago, we switched to the ESV. The Scripture readers have more trouble reading the passages from the ESV. The NIV has a smoother flow of English.

 

[Bob Alkire]

If only one, it would be the KJV.

 

[Andy_S]

NIV for me -the version I grew up with.