Of the following eight Bible translations listed below...

[alexander284]

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!

 

[Rob_BW]

Oh boy. Ruffles feathers ahead

I spoke with two young men yesterday, who were inquiring about how to read the Bible in its entirety. We talked about different versions ,and different reading plans. I advised against going with the KJV for their first time.

 

[alexander284]

Oh boy. Ruffles feathers ahead

I spoke with two young men yesterday, who were inquiring about how to read the Bible in its entirety. We talked about different versions ,and different reading plans. I advised against going with the KJV for their first time.

Thank you. I believe that approach is quite logical, rational, intellectually sound, and displays a sense of good, sound judgment (and shows "common sense," if you will).

However, having said that, I certainly don't expect anyone else to share my opinion, to agree with me, or think/believe as I do.

I see this as another "disputable matter" that Bible believing Christians can certainly disagree on.

 

[McCree79]

The only two listed I would recommend against using as their primary translation for reading is the KJV and NLT.

The KJV is so old the language is a barrier to understanding. I have people in my church who have used the KJV their whole life. When you call on them to read during Bible study they struggle to read the words outloud. Maybe they are just nervous or poor readers.....but I believe it is due to the awkward language. (If you are a poor reader, you definitely don't need the KJV).

The NLT is to "loose" and paraphrases way too often. It is a great secondary/comparison translation, but should *not* be the primary one used.

The rest you have listed are quality translations.
I am ignoring any textual issues between the translations in this post. [TR vs. NA].

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[alexander284]

The only two listed I would recommend against using as their primary translation for reading is the KJV and NLT.

The KJV is so old the language is a barrier to understanding. I have people in my church who have used the KJV their whole life. When you call on them to read during Bible study they struggle to read the words outloud. Maybe they are just nervous or poor readers.....but I believe it is due to the awkward language. (If you are a poor reader, you definitely don't need the KJV).

The NLT is to "loose" and paraphrases way too often. It is a great secondary/comparison translation, but should be the primary one used.

The rest you have listed are quality translations.
I am ignoring any textual issues between the translations in this post. [TR vs. NA].

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We're in agreement on this. I occasionally use the NLT for comparison purposes (especially when reading or studying certain difficult passages, typically found in the Old Testament).

 

[rlvaughn]

The only one I would recommend is the KJV. I usually go positive rather than on negative campaigns against other Bibles. However, if the NLT is an heir of the old Living Bible paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor, I would recommend avoiding it.

 

[MartyF]

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!

Whichever one they will actually read.

There are innumerable "Christians" who haven't read the Bible and one of the primary reasons they haven't read the Bible is because they were given the Bible somebody thought was the "best" translation as oppose to the most readable translation.

I don't agree with the NLT translation choices on many matters. However, I know that it is the most readable version both aloud and silently. The translators made sure they made word choices to make it easier to read.

Usually when I want to go more in depth, I use an interlinear Bible. If you really want to know, go to the original Greek.

I'm currently doing read-through using the CSB which is ok.

 

[Reformed1689]

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 wouldn't say I advise to avoid utilization, but below are ones I would not use as primary.

KJV - not because it is a bad translation, but because it is outdated, uses dead words, and uses words that no longer mean the same thing today as they did in 1611.
NET - People can get lost in the translation notes.
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.
NLT - Too dynamic, much closer to a paraphrase.
NIV - I don't like some PC decisions they have made with this version.

 

[Reformed1689]

The only one I would recommend is the KJV. I usually go positive rather than on negative campaigns against other Bibles. However, if the NLT is an heir of the old Living Bible paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor, I would recommend avoiding it.

It's not really an heir of the old LB. It's actually a translation from the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. The translation title was a poor choice because it causes confusion.

 

[alexander284]

Id

It's not really an heir of the old LB. It's actually a translation from the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. The translation title was a poor choice because it causes confusion.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV, please. Thank you!

 

[Reformed1689]

Id

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV, please. Thank you!

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.

 

[alexander284]

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.

Indeed it does. And it explains you're fondness for the ESV! Thank you.

 

[alexander284]

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.

You know, it's taken awhile (i.e. it's been a "process") but I have to admit that the ESV Bible translation is "starting to grow on me."

Your obvious passion (and interesting comments and observations) prompted me to listen to the ESV translation in several different audio Bible editions: both dramatized and non-dramatized.

And hearing the ESV being read aloud has helped me understand and appreciate your comments regarding the literary beauty of its style (reminiscent of the lyrical quality so beloved by those who still have a preference for the King James Version of the Bible).

In any case, I just thought I'd share my thoughts with you. Thank you!

 

[Reynolds]

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 dont avoid any on that list.

 

[Reynolds]

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.

NKJV, though technically a new translation and not merely an update, is mainly the KJV with modern adjectives, articles, and adverbs. It maintains the KJV sentence structure and style.

 

[alexander284]

NKJV, though technically a new translation and not merely an update, is mainly the KJV with modern adjectives, articles, and adverbs. It maintains the KJV sentence structure and style.

To it's credit, I personally find it much easier to read (and read aloud to others) than the KJV.

I assume that was their goal or intention right from the start. Therefore, I would say they accomplished what they set out to do.

 

[alexander284]

Another thing I like, respect, and admire about the New King James Version of the Bible is the fact that they published it back in 1982, and have not felt compelled (as of now, anyway) to update the NKJV, like so many other Bible translations of our time.

In other words, one might say they took the view "mission accomplished," and have since decided that "it is finished." I'd venture to say that there is definitely something positive to say about that approach.

 

[Reformed1689]

Another thing I like, respect, and admire about the New King James Version of the Bible is the fact that they published it back in 1982, and have not felt compelled (as of now, anyway) to update the NKJV, like so many other Bible translations of our time.

In other words, one might say they took the view "mission accomplished," and have since decided that "it is finished." I'd venture to say that there is definitely something positive to say about that approach.

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.

 

[alexander284]

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.

Which is why I like it when the ESV is updated, and am looking forward to the updated NASB.

 

[Just_Ahead]

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)