Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

[RipponRedeaux]

Meh. I am sure you think so and I doubt you would change your mind so believe whatever you wish.

It's interesting that you use non-standard English while favoring the English Standard version.

In the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation by a number of authors, the first chapter is by Moises Silva. It's called Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections.

Silva cites the ESV rendering of Hebrews 7:20-22. "The ESV successfully clarifies the statement to modern readers and makes its meaning clear to them. But to call such a rendering literal (let alone word-for-word) is a fantasy." (p.40)

"...to represent the text by means of one-to-one English correspondences whenever possible, creates a conception of the workings of the Greek language that is derived from an alien structure... intensive training translating clauses and sentences that cannot be rendered word-for-word and thus require restructuring would give students an entree into the genius (i.e. the authentic character) of the foreign tongue. It would also help them see much more clearly that such restructuring could be the preferable method of rendering even when it may not appear 'necessary.' The point here is that a nonliteral translation, precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language (in this case English), can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek)." (p.43)

 

[Conan]

by Moises Silva

What translation is he for? NRSV?

 

[Alcott]

Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

Because I read no Hebrew and very little Greek.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

What translation is he for? NRSV?

Which translation does he use primarily? Probably the NVI, to which he contributed.

Since he knows Greek rather well, he might dispense with a translation for the New Testament. I don't know about his ability in Hebrew. But if he needs a translation of the O.T. he would probably use the NVI.

 

[robycop3]

Why do I use the versions I do? Because they're pretty accurate, far as I know. The ones I use are:
NKJV
NASV
ESV

I study the older ones, back to Wycliffe's. And read other newer versions, to see different translators' perspectives, as a great many words/phrases in the "original" languages have multiple meanings in English. As GOD is fully aware of this, as He created all languages, I believe He's caused multiple translators in multiple languages to make multiple translations.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

As you probably know, there is no such Bible translation as the NASV. There isn't an NIT or NLV either.

So what translations do you physically own?

 

[George Antonios]

The King James Bible.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The King James Bible.

Why do you use it?

 

[George Antonios]

Why do you use it?

Why would I not?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Why would I not?

It uses antiquated English. It was antiquated even in 1611. It could have used the ordinary English of that time.
It's inaccurate.
It was put into an elevated tone that wasn't faithful to market place Greek.
It doesn't speak as directly as Tyndale did, with the common language of W.T's time.(I know that the KJV used a lot of W.T's phraseology.)
If you are a life-long user of the KJV, you may have become numb to the actual meaning of many passages.
You need to consult other translations, preferably those of the last 25 or so years to aid you in your understanding.

 

[George Antonios]

It uses antiquated English. It was antiquated even in 1611. It could have used the ordinary English of that time.
It's inaccurate.
It was put into an elevated tone that wasn't faithful to market place Greek.
It doesn't speak as directly as Tyndale did, with the common language of W.T's time.(I know that the KJV used a lot of W.T's phraseology.)
If you are a life-long user of the KJV, you may have become numb to the actual meaning of many passages.
You need to consult other translations, preferably those of the last 25 or so years to aid you in your understanding.

As a native Middle Easterner whose English is only his 3rd language, as a non life-long KJB user, I'm too weary for now to go through this again. Ok, I'm missing out. Glad you're not. All the best.

 

[Two Wings]

If you are a life-long user of the KJV, you may have become numb to the actual meaning of many passages.

This ...

as an advocate of “young earth” my father n law (Exxon) took exception to Creation being complete in 6 x 24 hour periods. I know some here do too. That’s not the point ...

Point is, I read Gen 1 ... “... and evening came and morning came”

I submitted, respectfully, this indicates one earth day.

He asked me the translation from which I was reading on my mobile device. “NASB”

He gives me a giant thumbs down gesture.

uh oh.

“Well, do I take that to mean the KJV is the only correct translation?”

”yes”

OK ... and I sincerely didn’t know what KJV said specifically in Gen 1.

...

“... and evening came and morning came the (x) day.”

“Well, that’s on that electronic version”
OK ... may I borrow your hard copy KJV from 1954?

“... and evening came and morning came, the (x) day.”


This phenomena isn’t particular to the KJV, of course, but it is a perfect demonstration of we get set in our translation-ways.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I'm too weary for now to go through this again.

Funny, you entered a thread that asked for a reason for your preference and you opt out.

 

[JesusFan]

That is pretty much what it is. Its goal was to be more literal, yet more readable than the 77. I think it is indeed both.

Do you have one of the editions of it now then?

 

[JesusFan]

I have the NT … is the full Bible translation ready?

Yes, but very expensive, as are premium bibles, so 150-200 dollars

 

[JesusFan]

What translation is he for? NRSV?

Or perhaps the Niv 2011?

 

[JesusFan]

It uses antiquated English. It was antiquated even in 1611. It could have used the ordinary English of that time.
It's inaccurate.
It was put into an elevated tone that wasn't faithful to market place Greek.
It doesn't speak as directly as Tyndale did, with the common language of W.T's time.(I know that the KJV used a lot of W.T's phraseology.)
If you are a life-long user of the KJV, you may have become numb to the actual meaning of many passages.
You need to consult other translations, preferably those of the last 25 or so years to aid you in your understanding.

Do not elevate the Kjv as Kjvo do, but still a decent translation, as long as one recognizes its faults

 

[Two Wings]

Yes, but very expensive, as are premium bibles, so 150-200 dollars

Perhaps a limitation of my iOS, but 316 publishing’s website isn’t “playing well” on my browser.

... $150-$250 ... if I could at least SEE it.

As I mentioned, I already have the NT/Ps/Pv. It’s “handy size” is actually a bit small for my liking. If the full Bible is this but only thicker ... well ...

I’d like an LSB translation equivalent to my ‘77 NASB Ryrie Study Bible. But ... perhaps this is me being stuck in my ways, too?

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps a limitation of my iOS, but 316 publishing’s website isn’t “playing well” on my browser.

... $150-$250 ... if I could at least SEE it.

As I mentioned, I already have the NT/Ps/Pv. It’s “handy size” is actually a bit small for my liking. If the full Bible is this but only thicker ... well ...

I’d like an LSB translation equivalent to my ‘77 NASB Ryrie Study Bible. But ... perhaps this is me being stuck in my ways, too?

I hope that they will be able to offer the John MacArthur bible in Lsb eventually

 

[George Antonios]

Funny, you entered a thread that asked for a reason for your preference and you opt out.

Ok that's a fair point.

It uses antiquated English. It was antiquated even in 1611. It could have used the ordinary English of that time.

1Sa 9:9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
1Sa 9:10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
1Sa 9:11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?

After pointing out that seer was antiquated to the then contemporaneous reader of the text, the Holy Ghost sticks with seer (v.11) - the antiquated reading. So, evidently, God isn't half as worried about that as we are. After all, we are dust, and it's fine if we make a little effort to understand "archaic" words when we spend sleepless nights and untold sums to learn a new tongue so we can make a better salary as an immigrant.

It's inaccurate.

Maybe lay out a case before charging the words of the living God with error.

It was put into an elevated tone that wasn't faithful to market place Greek.

Which is why I love it. And who says that God wants that tone for all generations? That's an assumption.

It doesn't speak as directly as Tyndale did, with the common language of W.T's time.(I know that the KJV used a lot of W.T's phraseology.)

See above.

You need to consult other translations, preferably those of the last 25 or so years to aid you in your understanding.

Who says I don't? I check out many versions in many tongues (about 5) not counting my current accredited course in Greek.

I haven't found a single issue with the words of the KJB yet.