Recommendations of Translations

ESV seems to not be discussed very much, but it also seems to be fairly high in the rankings. Interesting.

 

I do know that.

The RSV is an important translation to study because it deliberately avoids Christianizing Old Testament passages. This is especially important in studying prophetic passages in the Old Testament because translating these passages with hindsight distorts the passages as they were read by the Jews without the advantage of hindsight. More broadly speaking, the ESV is strongly slanted toward highly conservative theology and thinking, and therefore does not present the reader with an objective view of either testament.

The NASB and the NASB Update were prepared by conservative scholars with a conservative bias, but they are so literal that much of their theological bias is superceded by their literal renderings (but not enough in the eyes of many liberals). Some others would argue that the RSV is strongly biased toward the liberal theology of the translators, but I would argue that that their liberal views led them to give an objective translation.

Many people today read the Old Testament in translations that reflect a strong Christian bias and they wonder how the Jews could have been so blind. The answer, in part, is that the Masoretic text does not have a Christian bias.

Additionally, the RSV is very widely quoted by scholars whose writings are very important, and when studying their writings one can more readily grasp what they are writing if one has in hand a copy of the RSV rather than the ESV.

Needless to say, some very strong arguments could be made for the superiority of the ESV over the RSV for those individuals who read the Bible but do not seriously study it. For that point of view, see the article at http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

Personally, I am a Conservative Baptist who appreciates objectivity rather than bias, either conservative or liberal. Therefore, as I posted above:

NASB (both the older editions and the 1995 update)
ASV
NKJV
KJV (1769 or similar revision)
RSV, with 1971 N.T.
NRSV
ESV
NIV
NAB, with 1986 N.T.



[ December 18, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

KJV (Use a Cambridge but do not argue whether Cambridge or Oxford, etc.)

NKJV
Geneva

 

Recommended Versions In Order:

KJV
ESV
NASB

 

Excellent choice.

 

I recommend the KJB only

I own

NASB (do not know what year)
NKJV
NIV
CEV (it was a gift, and I do not like it)

For some reason, my comfort zone is always with the KJB (I have no idea what version it is); however, I do occasionally read (not study) from the NASB and NKJV.

 

If it is a standard, "off-the-shelf" KJ that is NOT Catholic or Mormon it is most likely the Oxford 1769 version.

Maybe my mind is blank today, but, remind me what the CEV is? That is the trouble with all of these version acronyms. Yuk!

 

NIV (Flows easily) Great for new church start.
NASB (Literal but wooden)
ESV (Double Check the above two)
Holman (Another Double check)

Except for a few places, I really like the readability of the NIV. Not real familiar with the Holman yet.

 

KJV
NKJV
NASB

 

NASB
Amplified
HCSB
NKJV
NIV

 

NKJV
Amplified
HCSB
NASB
ESV
NIV

 

Yep, Phillip, rsr is correct. I never read Good News for Modern Man, but personally feel the CEV is awful. My problem is that I cannot bring myself to throw it away, and I am hesitant to give it away, so it just gathers dust on my book shelf.

 

Yep, Phillip, rsr is correct. I never read Good News for Modern Man, but personally feel the CEV is awful. My problem is that I cannot bring myself to throw it away, and I am hesitant to give it away, so it just gathers dust on my book shelf. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks to both of you for explaining it to me. I am only familiar with GN for Modern Man, in the white paper-back edition. We had them all over the small church I attended when I was young. I did read it a lot because it read like a story. Too bad it is such a weak gospel. As a kid, I read it while the preacher droned on and on.

 

Phillip

Sounds familiar. The GNMM was the first "Bible" I actually read. I was very impressesd because I actually understood it (as well a teenager could). Since then, I have "put away childish things" and have read the Bible many times in FE versions.

I was in the bookstore the other day and saw one. I opened it to some familiar passages and was totally unimpressed with the reading. What a one point seemed to be quite revelatory, now seemed sorta silly and, well, childish.

It still had those same cool illustrations though.

 

HCSB
NRSV
NASB
NLT

 

Just like we were told in seminary. One of the professors told us that the word of God has life but some can bring it to the people with death.