• 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!

Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jesus Saves!

Active Member
We can spend a lot of time arguing over the best version. I choose the KJV because I believe it’s God’s word written in English. The main thing is that each of us have The Word (Jesus) abiding in our hearts. He is the only true Word. He speaks to our inward man and reveals what otherwise would be hidden truth without him speaking The eunuch was reading Isaiah, but couldn’t understand it until God sent a preacher (Phillip) to preach Jesus from the book of Isaiah.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
Just_Ahead said:
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)
Click to expand...

Regarding the GNT: do you recall when those paperback copies of the New Testament "Good News for Modern Man, Today's English Version" (with the drawings you mentioned) were just about anywhere a person turned?

The American Bible Society certainly new how to market their new Bible translation! :)
 
Just_Ahead

Just_Ahead

Active Member
alexander284 said:
Regarding the GNT: do you recall when those paperback copies of the New Testament "Good News for Modern Man, Today's English Version" (with the drawings you mentioned) were just about anywhere a person turned?
:)
Click to expand...

Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today's English Version was published by American Bible Society on January 1, 1966.

By 1969, 17.5 million copies sold.
By 1971, 30 million copies sold.
By 2010, 100 million copies sold.

Over the years 4 editions have been published: 1966, 1967, 1971, and 1976. A later revision in 1992 added inclusive language.

Here are a few illustrations of various Good News publications.

The original translator was Robert Bratcher (1920-2010), staff member of the American Bible Society. In his later years Bratcher became controversial, primarily due to some public comments he made at a Southern Baptist Convention seminar in Dallas, Texas (1981); for replacing the "blood" of Jesus in several New Testament passages (e.g., Romans 5:9); and translating "young woman," instead of "virgin" as used in the King James Version (Isaiah 7:14). Due to financial losses from reduced donations from conservative baptists, there was a parting between the American Bible Society and Robert Bratcher. Here is an Associated Baptist Press (SBC) article at his passing.

*****

And here is a short article about the artist Annie Vallatton (1915-2014) who made the line drawings that appeared in more than 100 million copies of the Good News Bibles.

Although I no longer use the GNT as a favorite Bible translation, I continue to receive inspiration from the 500 drawings of Annie Vallaton's stick figure theology in old copies of the Good News Bible.

:)
 
Last edited:
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
I now actually prefer to use the NLT over the NIV! And why is that? Because at least they're honest and forthright about what their translation sets out to do.

The NIV translators, on the other hand, seem to claim their approach is somehow the best "balance" between the two. This is, in my opinion, at least somewhat misleading.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
I wouldn't say I advise to avoid utilization, but below are ones I would not use as primary.


NET - People can get lost in the translation notes.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can get lost in the notes, but the vast percentage of its audience finds it perfectly satisfactory. A fine text is provided
and additional helps are given. I see no problem with that arrangement.
CSB - Too new, and I haven't been able to fully check it out. If I recall, I've seen some funny translations in this version.
Click to expand...
Because its new is a valid reason to dismiss it? The "funny" translational choices that you think are in the CSB are in the HCSB. Don't confuse the two versions.
NLT - Too dynamic, much closer to a paraphrase.
Click to expand...
It has both formal elements in it (more than you would expect if you haven't examined it) and dynamic renderings. It has more of the latter than the former. But its a solid translation. You need to see the listing of its translators.
NIV - I don't like some PC decisions they have made with this version.
Click to expand...
Calling the translational choices "PC" says more about you than the NIV. Again, take a look at the quality of the translators.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
Reynolds said:
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.
Click to expand...
To call the current crop of Bible translations a "dumbing-down" suggests that you are uninformed.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
I now actually prefer to use the NLT over the NIV! And why is that? Because at least they're honest and forthright about what their translation sets out to do.

The NIV translators, on the other hand, seem to claim their approach is somehow the best "balance" between the two. This is, in my opinion, at least somewhat misleading.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that? It's a mediating translation. From the 1984 edition to the present incarnation the NIV has always been regarded as occupying the middle ground --a balanced approach. It's in the group of the NET, CSB and NAB. And I think the old MLB be in the center position as well.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
The quality of the translators has nothing to do with translation choices that are more "politically correct."
Click to expand...
Would those translators, (if indeed you know anything about them) be willing to compromise their principles? I'm beginning
to think that the charge of being P.C. is akin to being called a racist for any and all belief in the political world. In other words, it is completely baseless. The accusation is meant to mute conversation.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Rippon2 said:
Would those translators, (if indeed you know anything about them) be willing to compromise their principles? I'm beginning
to think that the charge of being P.C. is akin to being called a racist for any and all belief in the political world. In other words, it is completely baseless. The accusation is meant to mute conversation.
Click to expand...
So you are ok with gender neutral language and gender inclusive language?
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
So you are ok with gender neutral language and gender inclusive language?
Click to expand...
You are confused. Even your favorite Bible translations include gender inclusive language. "Yeah, but..." Yeah but what? You maintain that your favs use it less my favs. Oh, so now you acknowledge that inclusive language is used in your pet translations, but you move the goalposts now to the degree with which it is used in versions that you do not like.
To call the issue "gender neutrality" is absurd. None of the top 12 or even 20 or more evidence any such thing as gender-neutral renderings. That is a mythological non-entity. In today's parlance, it's a big fat nothing burger.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
Why do you say that? It's a mediating translation. From the 1984 edition to the present incarnation the NIV has always been regarded as occupying the middle ground --a balanced approach. It's in the group of the NET, CSB and NAB. And I think the old MLB be in the center position as well.
Click to expand...
They all chose readability over accuracy!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
You are confused. Even your favorite Bible translations include gender inclusive language. "Yeah, but..." Yeah but what? You maintain that your favs use it less my favs. Oh, so now you acknowledge that inclusive language is used in your pet translations, but you move the goalposts now to the degree with which it is used in versions that you do not like.
To call the issue "gender neutrality" is absurd. None of the top 12 or even 20 or more evidence any such thing as gender-neutral renderings. That is a mythological non-entity. In today's parlance, it's a big fat nothing burger.
Click to expand...
Even when the driving purpose behind some modern versions is to get male headship/authority watered down, to get rid of they claim is excessive "masculine bias" in the English translation?
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
It called the rise of :Evangelical feminism"
To get the distinctions in spiritual leadership/authority of males watered down now!
Click to expand...
As I have asked you repeatedly over the last dozen years or more ---demonstrate that your contentions are true by citing passages in the New Testament text of the NIV wherein all of your charges are evidenced. Don't merely accuse -- but prove.
 
R

Rippon2

Well-Known Member
Hey boy. Do your own homework. Don't rely on others. You make charges up out of thin air. Now is the day of reckoning. Cite passages in the New Testament text of the NIV that are indeed complicit of mud-slinging charges all these years. If you can't do it confess and repent. It will do your soul some good. More than likely you will evade and continue your mendacious campaign.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
Hey boy. Do your own homework. Don't rely on others. You make charges up out of thin air. Now is the day of reckoning. Cite passages in the New Testament text of the NIV that are indeed complicit of mud-slinging charges all these years. If you can't do it confess and repent. It will do your soul some good. More than likely you will evade and continue your mendacious campaign.
Click to expand...
Have those who wrote the guidelines on how to translate gender issues from Boulder Co ever 'repented" yet that the Niv 2011 and Csb are bad versions due to excessive gender rendering issues?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top