How do you view the esv/Nas?I prefer the NKJV, but that does not mean that I think it is beyond improvement.
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!
How do you view the esv/Nas?I prefer the NKJV, but that does not mean that I think it is beyond improvement.
The Preface to the NKJV states, 'In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the NKJV draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts of the Dead Sea caves.. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the NKJV follows the Hebrew text. It may be these cases that I'm thinking of.
Well said! (As Jerome often remarks regarding your posts.)Those chooses of theirs though were supported...
I like what I've read from the MEV but am a bit hesitant since it is published by the publishers of Charisma magazine and all or most of the people who endorse it are Charismatic/Word of Faith.As a big fan of the Byzantine textform I prefer any of the three (Geneva, KJV, NKJV). I use the NKJV for personal study and devotional, but I do use the KJV regularly as well. Also, I just accepted my first pastorate (Youth Pastor) at a church in my community and we use the NKJV from the pulpit. Has anyone read through the MEV? It released in 2014 I believe but seems to read similar to the NKJV. It too is a TR translation.
A quick review and it is not better than the KJV or the NKJV.As a big fan of the Byzantine textform I prefer any of the three (Geneva, KJV, NKJV). I use the NKJV for personal study and devotional, but I do use the KJV regularly as well. Also, I just accepted my first pastorate (Youth Pastor) at a church in my community and we use the NKJV from the pulpit. Has anyone read through the MEV? It released in 2014 I believe but seems to read similar to the NKJV. It too is a TR translation.
The very best translation for one holding to the TR would be the Nkjv itself!I like what I've read from the MEV but am a bit hesitant since it is published by the publishers of Charisma magazine and all or most of the people who endorse it are Charismatic/Word of Faith.
I do not think that it includes all of the main notes and footnotes the Nkjv does...A quick review and it is not better than the KJV or the NKJV.
I didn't check for that. And what I saw suggests it would not.I do not think that it includes all of the main notes and footnotes the Nkjv does...
To me the best approach would be to have and use the Nas and the Nkjv, as both are excellent formal translations, and complement each other....I didn't check for that. And what I saw suggests it would not.
I updated my post above. And the NASB is generally a better formal translation. The NKJV followed the dynamic equivalence approach in Colossians 1:15.To me the best approach would be to have and use the Nas and the Nkjv, as both are excellent formal translations, and complement each other....
My point was when one looks at the whole Bible, those 2 would be the best ones to use for serious studying!I updated my post above. And the NASB is generally a better formal translation. The NKJV followed the dynamic equivalence approach in Collossians 1:15.
Those two are a good choice. I use the KJV as my standard study Bible. What it has that modern versions do not are the singular , thee, thy, thou and thine, and plural pronouns, ye, you and your. See John 3:7 and check the NIV foot note.My point was when one looks at the whole Bible, those 2 would be the best ones to use for serious studying!
I didn't check for that. And what I saw suggests it would not.
I just checked, the MEV has foot notes. 1 John 5:8
a 1 John 5:8 The earliest Greek manuscripts lack in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. There are three that testify on earth.
The NKJV has fare more foot notes:
b 1 John 5:7 NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
I prefer the more accurate Geneva 1560 for many reasons over the NKJV and the KJV, not for a single reason.
But one reason is clear in Acts 4:27, and 4:30.
Where our Lord is equated with David calling Jesus our Savior a servant (NKJV) and child (KJV).
Not the Holy Son, like the 1560.
Hmm.
That is a nice feature of the Kjv, as does help one to better understand certain passages in the scriptures. I also have stated that the Kjv is a good translation, but so are Nas/Nkjv/Esv etc!Those two are a good choice. I use the KJV as my standard study Bible. What it has that modern versions do not are the singular , thee, thy, thou and thine, and plural pronouns, ye, you and your. See John 3:7 and check the NIV foot note.
The Nkjv and its notes are a good supplement to using the Nas for serious bible studies!One of the main reasons I prefer the NKJV is the excellent textual notes! The MEV does not have but a few.
Is a textual variant issue, between the differing Greek texts?Thank you, Genevan Baptist. I do enjoy the Geneva Bible as well (as it is translated out of the Byzantine textual tradition).Of course, I have no problem with any of the three readings you listed from Acts 4:27, 4:30. I believe the MEV reads “holy Son” also. The New Testament refers to Jesus as child, Son, and servant in numerous places so any of those readings are acceptable. The NKJV, WEB, and Pickering’s translation say “holy Servant Jesus”.
Interestingly, Young’s Literal Translation sides with the KJV reading, “holy child Jesus”.
Perhaps our Greek experts can weigh in, but I believe the typical Greek word for “Son” is not used in these two verses in Acts 4.