The King James Version onlyism mistake.

[Klein Reveche]

I watched videos of a Pastor defending the KJV and saying that MV are corrupt, and I fell into translation rabbit hole for months listening to debates and discussions of the two sides.

I concluded that while I love the KJV, it forces me to translate twice or thrice in my head, from Old English to Modern English and/or to Tagalog, and while sometimes it near instantaneous, sometimes when I want to read the Bible, I want to be able to understand what I'm reading without pulling up dictionaries every time.

I now use the NKJV primarily and NLT on the side on some verses that I have trouble understanding.

 

[37818]

I now use the NKJV primarily and NLT on the side on some verses that I have trouble understanding.

I think the NKJV is currently the best choice in a modern English translation. And I would treat the NLT as commentary.

 

[Klein Reveche]

I think the NKJV is currently the best choice in a modern English translation. And I would treat the NLT as commentary.

I agree, NKJV is the best of both tradition and modern scholarship. It uses the traditional texts and uses the wider understanding of Greek and Hebrew, and takes into account other discovered texts and manuscripts like the DSS and it also has fantastic footnotes that denote where texts differ which helps me alot when preparing a message. NLT is my go to translation for explanation which is great sometimes in difficult passages.

 

[alexander284]

NKJV is my preferred Bible translation. I appreciate the fact that it reads so much like the KJV, but updates archaic and obsolete words, along with words that no longer retain the same meaning.