Which MV is the "best"?

NASB -- literal -- though the English does not flow quite as well. Keeps most missing verses with a footnote.

Holman -- relatively literal (as opposed to dynamic) more so than NIV. Supposedly a better translation than NIV. Very easy to read. Some say biased due to Holman being owned by SBC. I have found no bias, just good translation

ESV -- Probably one of the best translations, but does tend to completely leave out verses that are questionable. Is free if you download e-sword.net program.

NIV--Okay for very dynamic translation. accurate -- I have problem since new NIV (TNIV) is too far non-gender (goes beyond translation--to political correctness) for this reason I have quit using NIV.

ASV--Excellent, literal and in the public domain. Can be found free in almost all Bible software.

NKJV--EXCELLENT, LITERAL, does follow KJV some in style, does maintain beautiful Psalms, etc. Is translated from Textus Receptus and includes missing verses, again with footnotes. Except for a few minor tense issues in an epistle or two...good translation -- probably the best if you have to pick a single translation.

This is my humble opinion

 

NASU 95 is literal and the language has been changed to make it more understandable. The Thees and thous are gone.

 

For the sake of clarity, I would like to add that the "NASU 95" is the NASB-U, that is, the Updated New American Standard Bible, sometimes cited as the "NASB, 1995". Most conservative Bible scholars agree that this translation is the most literal and accurate translation of the Bible into English that is currently available. The most common criticism of it is that it reads more like a translation of a work than it does like an original work. However, when one considers that it is, in fact, a translation of a work, should it not read like a translation? If God were to call you on the telephone and begin talking to you in Greek about the most important decisions of your life, what kind of a translation would you want of what God was saying on the telephone? If I were to receive such a telephone call, I would certainly want the kind of translation that we find in the NASB-U.

 

CBS: "If I were to receive such a telephone call, I would certainly want the kind of translation that we find in the NASB-U."

Were I to receive the same telephone call, I would want it to more closely approach the NASV 1963, for greater precision in rendering the Greek.

 

NASB 1995.

 

NASB
NKJV
ESV
ASV
HCSB

I have used these, and have not found them lacking.

I also like the Amplified, but only as a comparison tool.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Those individuals who to not have a copy of the NASB, 1995, and who would like to check it out can read the entire Bible in the NASB, 1995 Update, online at the “Blue Letter Bible” site:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.html

The NKJV (New King James Version) can also be read in its entirety at this site which includes a number of Bible study features.

 

I like the NKJV, that is what I use. But I also like the NASB and ESV, I use them when I study along with my NKJV.

I have a MacArthur study Bible in the NKJV, and I love the notes and information that it provides, since they tend to be dispensational and recognize the sovereignty of God.

 

I am not saying these are the best but the ones I seem to read the most and like .HCSB,ESV and NASB.I also like the NKJ .

 

Marine biologist---hmmmmmm----how does HE think Genisis is to be interpreted?

 

Oh, 'scuse me "marine evangelist".

Does he evangelise the little fishey's that will eventually become men?

 

Bro.Tim Lee...Marine Evangelist....Awesome preacher!!No such thing as an Ex-Marine....for those of you who don't know.He is in a wheelchair...lost both his legs to a mine in Vietnam...Strong Preacher...remarkable testimony too.I'd love to hear him preach again....SOON!

Greg Sr.