Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

[Just_Ahead]

Now to answer the OP. I do not recommend the ESV or NLT, simply because I do not read/consult them myself. I realize there are many who find these two translations to be among their favorites. For that, I am glad for them.

 

[alexander284]

I appreciate any chance to evaluate my favorite Bible shelf.
Here are my currently read/consulted translations.
All are text only editions, or text with few references, except the GNT.
All are large or giant print (12- to 17-point font).

Literal
NKJV (red letter edition)
KJV (black letter edition)
NASB (red letter edition)

Dynamic
CSB (red letter edition)
NIV (black letter edition)

Others
Message (black letter edition)
CEB (black letter edition)
GNT (black letter edition -- Annie Vallatton drawings)

Any interest in obtaining the ESV or the NLT?

 

[1689Dave]

Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

Which do you tend to advise people (in general) they ought to avoid utilizing (if any):

KJV

NKJV

ESV

NASB

CSB

NET

NIV

NLT

As always, my intentions are simply to get your feedback, comments, opinions, etc.

In other words, I'm just "opening a dialogue," in a manner of speaking.

Thank you for your assistance!

I use them all and thank God for them.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Any interest in obtaining the ESV or the NLT?

I think it comes down to what can I manage on my shelf of Bible favorites. I have a tendency to "select" a limited number of translations; and then "embrace" those translations, but avoid the others. Part of my bracing action involves purchasing my favorites in different editions and sizes. Like I said, my shelf of Bible favorites will only hold so much.

At this time, I probably will settle on what I have embraced.

And, as I have said in another thread on this forum, I do find myself getting closer and closer to the KJV.

 

[StefanM]

I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid any of them.

I wouldn't recommend the KJV as a first option, though, because of the dated language already mentioned in this file. I like the NLT, especially for reading multiple chapters at a time, because the language is very "down to earth" and smooth, but I wouldn't recommend it as a person's primary translation unless the person is younger or doesn't read much.

IMO, the best version for a person is the version that will make a person more likely to read it.

For in depth Bible study, I'd recommend the NASB, ESV, and CSB for a balance of formal and dynamic equivalence. I'd add NKJV for the extensive textual notes.

For a general purpose Bible, I'd recommend the ESV, CSB, or NKJV.

For an aggressive reading plan, I'd recommend the NLT or CSB.

 

[Reynolds]

Yes and no. In one sense this is a good thing because the translation doesn't change. On the other hand, language changes quickly and things can become outdated.

I agree, but am also mixed on my feelings. There is a point something becomes so antiquated that reading it is akin to reading a foreign language. I dont think minor changes in language that occur over 20 to 50 years justify retranslation or update. People do have a responsibility to be literate. In middle school, I had to read Moby Dick. Has our culture really become hopelessly dumb in a generation? No. They are smarter than we are, but poorly educated. Continual dumbing everything down contributes to, not cures, the problem.

 

[Just_Ahead]

... I like the NLT, especially for reading multiple chapters at a time, because the language is very "down to earth" and smooth ...

StefanM do have any favorite renderings from the NLT text?

 

[StefanM]

StefanM do have any favorite renderings from the NLT text?

I don't have anything in particular, but in general, I've appreciated the translation for reading through OT narratives.

 

[Just_Ahead]

I had a friend in the Appalachian Mountains who preached from The Living Bible.

When I asked him, the reason he gave was he could easily match his voice to the cadences of the LB. I never thought about it in that way. However, he played in a blue grass band and whenever I heard him read and preach the LB, I could tell he really got into the rhythm. He could make music out of the LB.

He said others in his region felt the same way.

 

[robycop3]

I honestly don't know much about the NKJV.

The NASB is very literal which is both it's greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness. It is great for personal, serious study, but not great for sharing with others who may not be used to biblical study. That is why I do not recommend it as primary.

The ESV is my preferred translation and has been for about 10 years. It is faithful to the text, though some disagree without cause or evidence, and it is easy enough to read without sacrificing the beauty of language in the tradition of the KJV. In fact, its preface talks about its heritage found in the KJV. It is a superb translation and would do anyone well. It is literal, but not to the point of sacrificing readability and understandability. It strikes a very fine balance by using literal wherever it makes sense in English. When they can't be 100% literal, they are very careful to make it as literal as possible.

Hope this helps.

The NKJV is a revision of the KJV, using the same mss the KJV used, while considering the mss. discovered since then, and correcting such KJV goofs as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 , "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. It's quite-literal, in modern language. It's our primary church version, with the NASV & ESV occasionally cited.

I don't know much about the NLT, but I don;'t recommend the old "Living Bible" at all, after I saw the scatology in it at 1 Sam. 20:30, I immediately ceased reading it. For those who never saw it, where most translations read "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman", the LB reads "S.O. B." spelled out ! Unbelievable to find that phrase, one of the most-vulgar ones in US English, in a BIBLE!

That aside, I prefer literal versions, as I feel they're closer to the Scriptural authors' intent in their writings, so I don't use the NIV or any other "dynamic equivalent" or "paraphrase" versions. (While remembering that EVERRY English translation has at least a little paraphrasing in it outta necessity for making a few passages understandable in English.)

 

[robycop3]

I had a friend in the Appalachian Mountains who preached from The Living Bible.

When I asked him, the reason he gave was he could easily match his voice to the cadences of the LB. I never thought about it in that way. However, he played in a blue grass band and whenever I heard him read and preach the LB, I could tell he really got into the rhythm. He could make music out of the LB.

He said others in his region felt the same way.

Imagine that!

I live close to the Apps myself, & about all the rural preachers use the KJV, while the city folk use MVs. But the KJVO myth isn't too-prevalent. Most rural preachers use the KJV cuz that's what their congregations were raised on.

 

[robycop3]

I recommend that anyone interested in using the KJV, especially for Bible-study, to obtain a copy of the AV 1611, the ORIGINAL KJV, complete with its preface & all its extratextual material, including the Apocrypha. I have a Hendrickson repro AV that has all the title pages with illustrations, & all the extratextual materials. the only differences between it & a genuine original is the physical size & the repro uses Roman font insteada the Gothic font of the genuine item. It cost $30 at Wal-Mart seven years ago.

For a "modern" KJV, I have a genuine Cambridge Edition. It was $139 in US dollars several years back, but worth every penny if you like the KJV.

 

[alexander284]

I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid any of them.

I wouldn't recommend the KJV as a first option, though, because of the dated language already mentioned in this file. I like the NLT, especially for reading multiple chapters at a time, because the language is very "down to earth" and smooth, but I wouldn't recommend it as a person's primary translation unless the person is younger or doesn't read much.

IMO, the best version for a person is the version that will make a person more likely to read it.

For in depth Bible study, I'd recommend the NASB, ESV, and CSB for a balance of formal and dynamic equivalence. I'd add NKJV for the extensive textual notes.

For a general purpose Bible, I'd recommend the ESV, CSB, or NKJV.

For an aggressive reading plan, I'd recommend the NLT or CSB.

Any thoughts regarding the NIV?

 

[alexander284]

I agree, but am also mixed on my feelings. There is a point something becomes so antiquated that reading it is akin to reading a foreign language. I dont think minor changes in language that occur over 20 to 50 years justify retranslation or update. People do have a responsibility to be literate. In middle school, I had to read Moby Dick. Has our culture really become hopelessly dumb in a generation? No. They are smarter than we are, but poorly educated. Continual dumbing everything down contributes to, not cures, the problem.

This brings to mind Harry Truman, and the fact that he "only" obtained a high school diploma!

 

[StefanM]

Any thoughts regarding the NIV?

I don't really use it, so I don't have an opinion one way or another.

 

[alexander284]

I don't really use it, so I don't have an opinion one way or another.

Any particular reason why you don't use the NIV?

 

[Yeshua1]

Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

Which do you tend to advise people (in general) they ought to avoid utilizing (if any):

KJV

NKJV

ESV

NASB

CSB

NET

NIV

NLT

As always, my intentions are simply to get your feedback, comments, opinions, etc.

In other words, I'm just "opening a dialogue," in a manner of speaking.

Thank you for your assistance!

Cannot recommend the 2011 Niv, but 1984 still fine, and the Net bible should be used mainly for its textual notes!

 

[37818]

It is matter of degree.

Generally in modern English, translations, all of Critical Text versions would not be recommended.

The translation I would have recommend least was tbe NLT.

But since the 2011 NIV, it is now the translation I would recommend least.

 

[37818]

Any particular reason why you don't use the NIV?

An example, 1 Corithians 6:19.

NIV, Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, . . .

NLT, Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, . . .

NASB, Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit . . .

 

[alexander284]

An example, 1 Corithians 6:19.

NIV, Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, . . .

NLT, Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, . . .

NASB, Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit . . .

Which Bible translations on the list of eight do you use?

Only the KJV and the NKJV?