Preaching Bible

[Petros]

Okay, brothers (and a few sisters :laugh here's the deal:

I have always preached from the KJV of the Scriptures. I believe that the high English elevates Scripture to a place of grandeur and majesty that it rightly deserves. But I am contemplating changing and just want your thoughts/opinions, and especially anyone here's experience with doing the same. So let me share a few (hopefully brief) thoughts-

1. One of the primary reasons I am considering a switch is because of the outdated language. It gets very monotonous having to say "now it says this...but means this". For example, Matt. 6:22- a "single" eye is not the same thing as a "clear" or "good" eye, at least in the year 2012. There are countless examples of this that I come across as I preach through the Scriptures.

2. It is very difficult to read aloud clearly. Now, before anyone jumps on my case about the reading level I graduated #2 in a class of 510 students and am carrying a 4.0 in my Bachelor's program. But much of my congregation didn't go to college, or even finish high school and following along is a strenuous task, much less understanding what is being said.

3. I considered 3 different versions to replace the KJV- NKJV, NASB, ESV.
I decided against the ESV because none of my congregation have/use it. I am very fond, however, of the NASB and appreciate its literal style.

4. Ultimately, I think the best option may be the NKJV, because of the familiarity that it has with the KJV. I think that everyone, regardless of whether using a KJ or modern translation, will be able to follow along well.

So let me know what your thoughts/opinions/experiences are with the NKJV and whether (in your opinion) it is well suited to use from the pulpit. Thank you! :wavey:

 

[mont974x4]

I do not think the NKJ is a bad choice at all. I preach using the NASB, but also enjoy the ESV. Just because the people don't use the translation does not mean we cannot use it from the pulpit. This is especially true in most churches where sermon notes and Scriptures are put on a screen using PowerPoint or EZWorship type of programs. Most people don't open there Bibles these days.

 

[preacher4truth]

Petros,

I went through the same change a year or so back and I chose to use the NASB.

I considered the ESV but did not due to its rather quick process of translation and publication. The ESV also had a recent update which you can see here:

http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

I also considered the NKJV but opted for the NASB which is considered a more literal translation above and beyond the KJV and NKJV which is one major reason I chose it. I have enjoyed this translation and it has shed more light on the text, especially after using the KJV for 25 years. I was already somewhat familiar with the NKJV so it didn't draw me to it as much.

Considering your congregation it looks like the NKJV would be a good choice going by what you have said, and perhaps they would be more comfortable with that version. I also think they would enjoy the NASB as it gives a whole new feel to Scripture since the NKJV seems rather close to the KJV. Some call the NASB 'wooden' but I haven't found that to be the case when using this version of Scripture.

 

[Petros]

I do not think the NKJ is a bad choice at all. I preach using the NASB, but also enjoy the ESV. Just because the people don't use the translation does not mean we cannot use it from the pulpit. This is especially true in most churches where sermon notes and Scriptures are put on a screen using PowerPoint or EZWorship type of programs. Most people don't open there Bibles these days.

That's an excellent point, but I don't use any type of projection screen/powerpoint, etc. I also insist that everyone in the congregation have their Bible with them and open to the passage that we are observing. I can honestly say that I strongly doubt anyone there has an ESV/NASB and most are either KJV or NIV with a few NKJV interspersed, as that is the Bible that we issue to the ones who join the Church by Baptism.

 

[Petros]

Petros,

I went through the same change a year or so back and I chose to use the NASB.

I considered the ESV but did not due to its rather quick process of translation and publication. The ESV also had a recent update which you can see here:

http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

I also considered the NKJV but opted for the NASB which is considered a more literal translation above and beyond the KJV and NKJV which is one major reason I chose it. I have enjoyed this translation and it has shed more light on the text, especially after using the KJV for 25 years. I was already somewhat familiar with the NKJV so it didn't draw me to it as much.

Considering your congregation it looks like the NKJV would be a good choice going by what you have said, and perhaps they would be more comfortable with that version. I also think they would enjoy the NASB as it gives a whole new feel to Scripture since the NKJV seems rather close to the KJV. Some call the NASB 'wooden' but I haven't found that to be the case when using this version of Scripture.

I, too, enjoy the ESV but I agree about the rather speedy translation/publication process. At times, it also feels as though it has somewhat of a theological bend towards Reformed Theology.

As for the NASB, I LOVE IT! I have a hardback Key Word NASB, and that serves as my primary Bible in preparation for messages. There are as many highlights/margin notes/cross references written in that thing as the text itself, but I use it in my study for preaching as well as in the classroom. Very solid translation, as you said- above the KJV or NKJV in accuracy of translation.

 

[Rippon]

As for the NASB, I LOVE IT! ... Very solid translation, as you said- above the KJV or NKJV in accuracy of translation.

How do you define accuracy as it pertains to Bible translations?

 

[Rippon]

At times, it also feels as though it has somewhat of a theological bend towards Reformed Theology.

Any sound Bible translation would be considered to be Reformed in flavor!

 

[Greektim]

Okay, brothers (and a few sisters :laugh here's the deal:

I have always preached from the KJV of the Scriptures. I believe that the high English elevates Scripture to a place of grandeur and majesty that it rightly deserves. But I am contemplating changing and just want your thoughts/opinions, and especially anyone here's experience with doing the same. So let me share a few (hopefully brief) thoughts-

1. One of the primary reasons I am considering a switch is because of the outdated language. It gets very monotonous having to say "now it says this...but means this". For example, Matt. 6:22- a "single" eye is not the same thing as a "clear" or "good" eye, at least in the year 2012. There are countless examples of this that I come across as I preach through the Scriptures.

2. It is very difficult to read aloud clearly. Now, before anyone jumps on my case about the reading level I graduated #2 in a class of 510 students and am carrying a 4.0 in my Bachelor's program. But much of my congregation didn't go to college, or even finish high school and following along is a strenuous task, much less understanding what is being said.

3. I considered 3 different versions to replace the KJV- NKJV, NASB, ESV.
I decided against the ESV because none of my congregation have/use it. I am very fond, however, of the NASB and appreciate its literal style.

4. Ultimately, I think the best option may be the NKJV, because of the familiarity that it has with the KJV. I think that everyone, regardless of whether using a KJ or modern translation, will be able to follow along well.

So let me know what your thoughts/opinions/experiences are with the NKJV and whether (in your opinion) it is well suited to use from the pulpit. Thank you! :wavey:

I like your thinking for your situation... go with the NKJV, I say.

 

[glazer1972]

New King James Version.

 

[Yeshua1]

Petros,

I went through the same change a year or so back and I chose to use the NASB.

I considered the ESV but did not due to its rather quick process of translation and publication. The ESV also had a recent update which you can see here:

http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

I also considered the NKJV but opted for the NASB which is considered a more literal translation above and beyond the KJV and NKJV which is one major reason I chose it. I have enjoyed this translation and it has shed more light on the text, especially after using the KJV for 25 years. I was already somewhat familiar with the NKJV so it didn't draw me to it as much.

Considering your congregation it looks like the NKJV would be a good choice going by what you have said, and perhaps they would be more comfortable with that version. I also think they would enjoy the NASB as it gives a whole new feel to Scripture since the NKJV seems rather close to the KJV. Some call the NASB 'wooden' but I haven't found that to be the case when using this version of Scripture.

I have been using the NASB as primary version ever since the Lord saved me while in College!

I still use the 1977 version, have not updated to 1995 one yet, and would suggest that one use the earlier one IF used to the KJV, as that one still used the ole "KJV" thee and thous and phrasing!

 

[Yeshua1]

I like your thinking for your situation... go with the NKJV, I say.

Would agree with this, as his group would probably not take to going to a NIV/HCSB abruptly!

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you define accuracy as it pertains to Bible translations?

being as accurate as possible in translating what they wrote and meant, not trying to reinterprete based upon how we would understand it today, as we should strive to translate the Bible and keep as close to possible to what they meant!

 

[Rippon]

being as accurate as possible in translating what they wrote and meant, not trying to reinterprete [sic]based upon how we would understand it today, as we should strive to translate the Bible and keep as close to possible to what they meant!

The above is hard to decipher. What you said about reinterpreting has to be fleshed-out. If translators of a given Bible version strive to keep as close as possible to what the original authors meant then they would translate in the manner of how we would understand it today.

 

[go2church]

You'd be better off staying with the KJV then going to the NKJV in my opinion. You think the KJV is hard to read at times, just wait until you get some of the clunky parts of the NKJV.

If you want to go modern go modern, there are lots of good choices. People will adapt.

 

[Yeshua1]

The above is hard to decipher. What you said about reinterpreting has to be fleshed-out. If translators of a given Bible version strive to keep as close as possible to what the original authors meant then they would translate in the manner of how we would understand it today.

just was saying that at times modern versions, in order to make it 'read' clearer for modern readers would not be actually stating it same way as author originally intended!

Areas would be say where NASB wording reads 'wooden", but other versions make a commenary call in order to have it 'smoothed out!"

 

[jaigner]

3. I considered 3 different versions to replace the KJV- NKJV, NASB, ESV.
I decided against the ESV because none of my congregation have/use it. I am very fond, however, of the NASB and appreciate its literal style.

4. Ultimately, I think the best option may be the NKJV, because of the familiarity that it has with the KJV. I think that everyone, regardless of whether using a KJ or modern translation, will be able to follow along well.

You're making a good decision. It's time to move away from the KJV, not because of the outdated language, but also because it was written without the benefit of some of the best and oldest manuscripts. It has served the church well, but it's no longer one of the most accurate English translations.

I wouldn't however go with the NKJV, which I think to be inferior even to the KJV. The translation gives you all the same translation errors and problems without the beautiful and ornate English, which is, in my opinion, the best thing the KJV offers us now.

I like the NASB, but it is at times too wooden to be of great use. It is great, however, for people like me who have not formally studied the biblical languages. I would keep that one handy, and add to it one of the more dynamic translations, because without having one of those translations to mediate the idiomatic language, readers will inevitably miss out. For this, I would recommend the TNIV, which I believe is the best available dynamic translation, the NIV, or the NLT.

 

[Rippon]

I like the NASB, but it is at times too wooden to be of great use.

Can we call a moritorium with respect to that old line?

I would recommend the TNIV, which I believe is the best available dynamic translation, the NIV, or the NLT.

The NIV,whether the 84,2011 or TNIV form are not dynamic but are mediating translations just as the NET bible,ISV,HCSB and NAB are. The NLTse is indeed uses a more dynamic equivalency method.

 

[saturneptune]

Can we call a moritorium with respect to that old line?



The NIV,whether the 84,2011 or TNIV form are not dynamic but are mediating translations just as the NET bible,ISV,HCSB and NAB are. The NLTse is indeed uses a more dynamic equivalency method.

What is the version that you think, another opinion, that is the most accurate of the original manuscripts?

 

[Van]

Okay, brothers (and a few sisters :laugh here's the deal:

I have always preached from the KJV of the Scriptures. I believe that the high English elevates Scripture to a place of grandeur and majesty that it rightly deserves. But I am contemplating changing and just want your thoughts/opinions, and especially anyone here's experience with doing the same. So let me share a few (hopefully brief) thoughts-

1. One of the primary reasons I am considering a switch is because of the outdated language. It gets very monotonous having to say "now it says this...but means this". For example, Matt. 6:22- a "single" eye is not the same thing as a "clear" or "good" eye, at least in the year 2012. There are countless examples of this that I come across as I preach through the Scriptures.

2. It is very difficult to read aloud clearly. Now, before anyone jumps on my case about the reading level I graduated #2 in a class of 510 students and am carrying a 4.0 in my Bachelor's program. But much of my congregation didn't go to college, or even finish high school and following along is a strenuous task, much less understanding what is being said.

3. I considered 3 different versions to replace the KJV- NKJV, NASB, ESV.
I decided against the ESV because none of my congregation have/use it. I am very fond, however, of the NASB and appreciate its literal style.

4. Ultimately, I think the best option may be the NKJV, because of the familiarity that it has with the KJV. I think that everyone, regardless of whether using a KJ or modern translation, will be able to follow along well.

So let me know what your thoughts/opinions/experiences are with the NKJV and whether (in your opinion) it is well suited to use from the pulpit. Thank you! :wavey:

I use the NASB95 for study. But if making the transition from KJV to a more modern version, I would strongly recommend the NKJV. If you preach through books, the NKJV would be great, with the possible exception of Revelation and 1 John, where modern scholars hold that these two books have significant corruptions. But if you were ok with the KJV of these two books, you will be fine with the NKJV.

 

[TCGreek]

The new NIV has been growing on me, despite some of my qualms in certain gender decisions. I've been preaching from it of late.