Top Ten Translations

[Mexdeaf]

Great topic!

I did not see where the English Standard Version (ESV) was listed, and since in my opinion it is vastly superior to the NRSV - it fixed all the problems with at translation - it should be on list.

My list in order of my preference, but each has passages superior to all others:

1995 NASB - this is the one I study and rely on for grammar.
NIV - I do not read very well, so this is the one I read as I try to "abide" in His Word.
HCSB - this one provides an excellent cross-check, if it agrees with the NASB I feel confident the rendering is sound.
ESV - Provides a different take based on different presumptions as to what is being said.
YLT - After arriving at the big idea from the more friendly versions, this one helps to understand how the translaters arrived at their more readable versions.
NKJV - vastly improved over the KJV as far as bringing the language up to date, but still based on a different Greek text mix than most other modern versions.
KJV - I still find this one provides the very best translation of some difficult passages.
NET - this one provides the apparatus, so you can see the thinking of the translators.
NLT - yet another take on what the translators think the passage is saying.
Darby (NT) - great example of one mans view of the text, as opposed to translation by committee.

Great analysis- thanks for sharing.

 

[PreacherTeacher]

Alright; I'll jump in here, too...

1. ESV (Accuracy and readability when preaching)
2. NASB (Accuracy)
3. NIV 1984 (Readability among congregation)
4. NKJV (Good for those who like the KJV, but without Elizabethan English to limit 21st Century comprehension)
5. RSV (Accuracy)
6. TNIV/NIV 2011 (Readability, especially with youth. NIV 2011 pretty close to TNIV apparently)
7. HCSB (Good, but not great. Often awkwardly worded.)
8. KJV (Poetic Elizabethan English, but that hinders comprehension for some)
9. ASV (Accurate, but not a flowing read)
10. NRSV (Readable, but I can only take so many "humankind" references in one sitting...)

 

[Speedpass]

1) NASB (the newest one)
2) HCSB
3) GNB
4) NLT
5) Amplified
6) NIV
7) NASB (earlier version with KJV translations of 2nd person pronouns)
8) NIV
9) NKJV
10) Living Bible.

 

[Rippon]

1) NASB (the newest one)
2) HCSB
3) GNB
4) NLT
5) Amplified
6) NIV
7) NASB (earlier version with KJV translations of 2nd person pronouns)
8) NIV
9) NKJV
10) Living Bible.

The NIV is both # 6 and # 8?

 

[Deacon]

HITS ON BING
TNIV 869,000,000
ESV 454,000,000
NAS 417,000,000
NKJV 290,000,000
KJV 261,000,000 (AV 84,100,000)
CEV 113,000,000
GNB 100,000,000
Message Bible 95,800,000
NET 72,400,000
NLT 71,000,000
HCSB 69,000
NRSV 61,000,000
NIV 16,000,000



I don’t think I’ve ever consulted 10 different bible versions in my personal study.

My short list:
ESV (excellent – uses a modern eclectic Greek text)
NAS95 (quite literal)
NRSV (literal with alternate text usage)
NLT (readable and understandable)
NIV (the older version never captured my interest – hopefully the newer version has some bite)

Rarely
NET (interesting alternative version with good explanatory notes)
HCSB (interesting alternative text - I like the OT translation better than the NT)

Rob

 

[Rippon]

HITS ON BING
TNIV 869,000,000

Most of those Bing hits were probably negative. So the Bing thing isn't representative of popularity.

 

[Rippon]

I did not see where the English Standard Version (ESV) was listed, and since in my opinion it is vastly superior to the NRSV - it fixed all the problems with at translation - it should be on list.

It fixed all the problems with at [sic] translation? I don't quite understand. First of all the ESV used the 1977 RSV as their base --not the NRSV. And even though the closest thiung to the ESV is the NRSV -- the NRSV is a "jolly good translation" according to D.A.Carson. I don't think it takes a backseat to the ESV at all. It's English is slightly better.

1995 NASB - this is the one I study and rely on for grammar.
HCSB - this one provides an excellent cross-check, if it agrees with the NASB I feel confident the rendering is sound.

So the NASB is your standard. What if the HCSB has a superior rendering compared to the NASB95? Do you check commentaries or other Bible aids?

ESV - Provides a different take based on different presumptions as to what is being said.

Run that past me again with different phraselogy.

NKJV - vastly improved over the KJV as far as bringing the language up to date, but still based on a different Greek text mix than most other modern versions.

It was based on the TR.

KJV - I still find this one provides the very best translation of some difficult passages.

Give some examples.

NET - this one provides the apparatus, so you can see the thinking of the translators.

Well,since the notes are much more formal than the text,I don't necessarily see the connection.

Darby (NT) - great example of one man's view of the text, as opposed to translation by committee.

Was that meant positively,or negatively? Remember,William Tyndale's work was a one-man operation.

 

[Van]

Hi Rippon, I think you can Google the topic ESV fixed problem translations in NRSV and find several articles with example.

Yes I have several commentaries and Bible aids which I use when studying a passage.

A different, more liberal group, provided the translation of the ESV than the group for the NASB. But they did a better job, in my opinion capturing what the author was saying, i.e. they put it in a less confusing way, in a good many passages.

Gee the KJV and NKJV are from the TR. Thanks, who knew.

More than once I have come across a passage that does not make sense to me, but when I checked out my old KJV, why it brought to light what I had been missing. Look at 2 Corinthians 2:17, where most modern translations say the many were "peddling" the word of God, but the KJV says corrupting the word. I think the modern translations miss the idea that the peddlers were adulterating their products for gain. Think of a pastor who believes like a Calvinist but preaches like an Arminian.

When I am trying to figure out why the translators went this way instead of that way, some of the time I find sound reasoning in the NET notes.

I did not mean to disparage any of the heart-felt efforts by actual scholars to bring God's word in a language their flock can understand. Many missionaries spend their whole life putting God's word into the local language.

Van

 

[Rippon]

Hi Rippon, I think you can Google the topic ESV fixed problem translations in NRSV and find several articles with example.

You made the claim Give some examples. Again,the ESV was not based on the NRSV.

A different, more liberal group, provided the translation of the ESV than the group for the NASB. But they did a better job, in my opinion capturing what the author was saying, i.e. they put it in a less confusing way, in a good many passages.

I'm not a fan of ther ESV,but you are going to have to prove that the ESV team was/is of a more liberal cast of mind. On the contrary,they were/are quite theologically conservative.

It is a matter of opinion. However, you'll have to show me how the ESV is any plainer than the NASB95. I have a thread or two showing the opposite conclusion.

Gee the KJV and NKJV are from the TR. Thanks, who knew.

From your post it seemed as if you didn't know. You could have said that both the KJV and NKJV were based on the same underlying Greek text.

More than once I have come across a passage that does not make sense to me, but when I checked out my old KJV, why it brought to light what I had been missing. Look at 2 Corinthians 2:17, where most modern translations say the many were "peddling" the word of God, but the KJV says corrupting the word. I think the modern translations miss the idea that the peddlers were adulterating their products for gain.

Actually the TR,WH and NU all have "peddle the word of God." Some preachers are out to "hawk" the Word of God for profit.

You have even admitted that these preachers are,in fact,peddling the word of God for profit which the KJV does not have in the text.

Think of a pastor who believes like a Calvinist but preaches like an Arminian.

Here is wherer your Arminianism clouds your vision. Did Spurgeon preach like an Arminian? No,he preached fervently with a buden for souls as all God-called pastors should whether they are Arminians or Calvinists.

I find sound reasoning in the NET notes.

Ditto.

 

[Van]

Hi Rippon, I provided the basis for my views with an effort at clarification. I do not think making assumptions about the workings of the minds of others is useful to the topic.

I said the KJV shed light on the passage (2 Cor. 2:17) not because the word is not best translated peddle, but because that misses the idea of adulterating the Word of God based on greed. So because of the KJV being different, I studied that particular word. Thus it acted like a signpost.

 

[jaigner]

A different, more liberal group, provided the translation of the ESV than the group for the NASB. But they did a better job, in my opinion capturing what the author was saying, i.e. they put it in a less confusing way, in a good many passages.

Whoa...more liberal? Not much. None of them could be considered liberal at all.

 

[Van]

I have no idea why I am getting all this "help" with my characterization of the translations.
The ESV is a conservative translation, but not quite as literal as the NASB. So, from my side of the street it is "more liberal" than the NASB. But there is nothing theologically wrong with it based on my feeble understanding, I like it and I like it a whole lot.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have no idea why I am getting all this "help" with my characterization of the translations.
The ESV is a conservative translation, but not quite as literal as the NASB. So, from my side of the street it is "more liberal" than the NASB. But there is nothing theologically wrong with it based on my feeble understanding, I like it and I like it a whole lot.

The problem is your characterization using the word "liberal". Liberal implies an unbelief in the veracity of the Scriptures, or that the translation was done with that in mind.

 

[Van]

Yes, words can mean what the author intended, or can be understood to mean what the hearer assigns to it. Labels actually undermine the unity of the body. There is nothing wrong with liberalism or conservatism. If liberals are tearing down what is wrong, picture Martin Luther King changing the heart of America, that is great. If liberals are tearing down something good, like our freedom to make our own risk assessments, which is the essence of liberty, then it is bad to the bone.

On the other hand, when Conservatives are conserving something good, like school choice, it is good, and when Conservatives are conserving something bad like overcrowded prisons, it is bad. Christians are called to be both, not neglecting the important things such as justice mercy and love.

 

[Rippon]

Labels actually undermine the unity of the body.

You were the one calling the ESV team more liberal than the NASBU team. We took it in a theological sense since it deals with a Bible translation. It has nothing to do with politics.

If you now want to rephrase your unfortunate word choice-- go ahead.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yes, words can mean what the author intended, or can be understood to mean what the hearer assigns to it. Labels actually undermine the unity of the body.

1. The meanings of words are determined by context. We aren't discussing MLK here.

2. Labels are meant to provide clarity, and not necessarily unity.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. Kjv
2. Nkjv

 

[Speedpass]

The NIV is both # 6 and # 8?

8) NKJV
9) Living Bible
10) KJV

 

[Van]

The ESV is more liberal than the NASB because it is less literal. Only PC word censors would take issue with the obvious. No need to revise my excellent choice of words, God help me, here I stand - to borrow a phrase!

 

[Mexdeaf]

The ESV is more liberal than the NASB because it is less literal. Only PC word censors would take issue with the obvious. No need to revise my excellent choice of words, God help me, here I stand - to borrow a phrase!

LOL- you say one thing then contradict it with another! In your opinion being literal is only important when it comes to the Bible.