Modern Bible Versions

[a lutheran]

:BangHead:
I understand and appreciate the arguements concerning the text that is used for translations of the KJV and the Westcott/Hort/UBS text etc.
I have read the discussions about the KJV not being understandable while I've read articles saying just the opposite and I also can agree with this.

However, for me, when reading and metitating on the Lord's Word I still have to say that something like the NASB is easier to read and get a lot out of it.

Althoguh I have a theological background and I find the KJV is just too difficult to plow through and I do hunger for understanding what the Lord is saying to me in the Scriptures.
I am not criticizing those who read and love the KJV, but I am expressing my frustration of wanting to read a reliable translation, which I think the KJV is, but at the same time get the most out of my reading. I think a lot folks are caught up in this dilemma.
:BangHead:

 

[Rippon]

The NASB ( pre1995 and the update ) is certainly better than the KJV. It has to be considered a more reliable translation because of its greater accuracy and readability. So between those two there's not much of a contest.

However, the TNIV, HCSB, NET Bible, NRSV and the soon-to-be-released complete ISV are decidedly better than the NASB.There are places where even the NLTse exceeds it in various ways.

 

[Rippon]

You might want to look at the 'old' Modern Language Bible. It's rather faithful, though with certain defects. All translations have defects however. I have the Roman Catholic New American Bible. It's more formally-equivalent than the TNIV , but it reads awkwardly. I also have the R.C. New Jerusalem Bible. I enjoy it. I'd say it's at the midpoint between the TNIV and the NLTse. Then there is the Revised English Bible which is a more conservative redo of the New English Bible ( I don't have the latter). It is a treat to read. The REB has a classic British style which I find to be top-notch. Though its English is stately, this version is more functionally-equivalent than the TNIV. It occupies a spot near the NJB.

 

[Rippon]

Hey Mods

This thread should be moved to the Bible Versions Forum , don'tcha' think?

 

[Darren]

I think most versions are fine, in fact in my study I cross reference all the time. I get tired of hearing all the conspiracy theories of the KJV crowd though (none stated here yet). NIV was made by good Christians, whom don't deserve to have their names dragged through the mud or be called witches and heritics. (Thankyou Kent Hovind, you're a creep!)

Check out this site for a great cross reference site:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

 

[billwald]

>However, for me, when reading and metitating on the Lord's Word I still have to say that something like the NASB is easier to read and get a lot out of it

You must have gone to school back when reading was taught. Some Christian Reformed Church leadership thinks the NIV pew bibles are to difficult for modern readers. <G>

 

[Samuel Owen]

The bigger difference between the KJV, and the other versions mentioned. Are the basic manuscripts.

While all of the KJV manuscript are in the 95% range agreement of one another. The Codex vanaticus, and Codex Sanaticus, neither one agree, and both show definite signs of tampering.

More than just two groups of text were used for the KJV, and only the majority that did agree were used, which were also checked against the Latin Vulgate Bible for accuracy. There are no such checks available for the later version translations, only the two manuscripts.

I have many different versions, and for our Bible studies we use the NASB, as a reference, but use the KJV for our primary Bible. Believe me there are differences, some in the Major category.

 

[Darren]

Believe me there are differences, some in the Major category.

Please don't tell me you like Hovind.

Anyway, examples?

 

[EdSutton]

:BangHead:
I understand and appreciate the arguements concerning the text that is used for translations of the KJV and the Westcott/Hort/UBS text etc.
I have read the discussions about the KJV not being understandable while I've read articles saying just the opposite and I also can agree with this.

However, for me, when reading and metitating on the Lord's Word I still have to say that something like the NASB is easier to read and get a lot out of it.

Althoguh I have a theological background and I find the KJV is just too difficult to plow through and I do hunger for understanding what the Lord is saying to me in the Scriptures.
I am not criticizing those who read and love the KJV, but I am expressing my frustration of wanting to read a reliable translation, which I think the KJV is, but at the same time get the most out of my reading. I think a lot folks are caught up in this dilemma.
:BangHead:

Welcome to the BB.

If one is very partial to the basic textual tradition that underlies the KJV, one might consider the NKJV as an alternative.

There are unfortunately no translations that do not have some legitimate criticisms, somewhere along the way.

I personally use the NKJV, and recommend it as a fairly good translation.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

This thread should be moved to the Bible Versions Forum , don'tcha' think?

Um, no.

Since the OP is not a Baptist (the name a lutheran was a small clue), and the 'Bible Versions Forum' is "Baptist Only", this would effectively prevent the OP from posting and/or adding comments to the position.

Uh - "don'tcha' think?"

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Please don't tell me you like Hovind.

Anyway, examples?

"Ah 'on't get it!" as my nephew would say.

The only individual to mention the name "Kent Hovind" in this thread is - guess who - Darren.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Please don't tell me you like Hovind.

Anyway, examples?

In fact, a quick check shows the only person to mention the name of Kent Hovind on the BB in the last two months has been you, two times in this thread, before I replied to your posts.

And actually, the name had appeared, in all contexts, a grand total of 5 times in the 5 mos. of 2008 (3 times of which were on a thread about Sen. Barack Obama, - go figure.), before this thread.

Ed

 

[peterotto]

I read a Bible version thru, then a get a different one are read it thru.
Right now I am on the ESV. I kind of like it. What version will be next? I don't know, I'll decide when I am ready to cross that bridge.

 

[annsni]

I read a Bible version thru, then a get a different one are read it thru.
Right now I am on the ESV. I kind of like it. What version will be next? I don't know, I'll decide when I am ready to cross that bridge.

I'm also reading through the ESV this year and am enjoying it. I know a number of people who read the Bible through each year in different versions - I think that's a great idea! This year I'm reading it chronologically and it's been really cool.