Blue Moon Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 136 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 39 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2015 I actually have three - ESV, NKJV, and NASB (95). However, my regular go-to translation is the ESV. I use the NKJV in church, because that's what my pastor uses. I used the NASB for years, and I just can't let it go. These are my favorites because I prefer the more literal translations. My personal opinion is that the more you move toward dynamic equivalence, the more subjective the translation becomes regarding interpretation. And I just place more confidence in the word-for-word translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.07 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2015 KJV for me; I guess because it's what I grew up with. The modern translations just don't do it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I actually have three - ESV, NKJV, and NASB (95). However, my regular go-to translation is the ESV. I use the NKJV in church, because that's what my pastor uses. I used the NASB for years, and I just can't let it go. These are my favorites because I prefer the more literal translations. My personal opinion is that the more you move toward dynamic equivalence, the more subjective the translation becomes regarding interpretation. And I just place more confidence in the word-for-word translation. I like the ESV myself, and use it most often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willa Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 68 Topic Count: 186 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 14,281 Content Per Day: 3.31 Reputation: 16,688 Days Won: 30 Joined: 08/14/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2015 I agree, Blue Moon. But I am content with NKJV and use Amplified, Wuest's Expanded Translation, ALT3, and NASV as references. I haven't done much with ESV. But I would rather refer to Young's literal translation than KJV. Wuest, and to some extent ALT3, try to translate Greek verb tenses that do not fully translate directly into English because we have nothing comparable. The latter is based on the Greek Byzantine text as was Textus Receptus. Wuest does not leave out verses, but is based on the ASV before the texts were corrupted by the gnostic influenced Alexandrianus found in Alexandria Egypt (and is called the "oldest and best" by modern scholars). Amp. was the first New Testament I ever read and I still love it. It also does not leave out verses. It's translations are footnoted as from Tyndale, Wycliffe, Vincent's Word Studies, etc. It and ALT3 plainly shows which words are added by translators and which were part of the literal text. WUEST: 1 John 1:10 ET If we say that we have not sinned and are now in a state where we do not sin, a liar we are making Him, and His word is not in us.---- This shows how well Wuest's ET (expanded translation) handles verb tenses. This is not meant to bash other transations as much to show why I prefer these. Since you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,996 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,693 Content Per Day: 11.68 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2015 I prefer the NKJV.I am still getting the accuracy,purity of KJV without the Archaic language in the KJV which I do not like.It is also very literal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwalker Posted January 30, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 92 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 1,753 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/09/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2015 New King James has always been my bible, for 30+ years.....its what I am used to, I like the NASB also and the Amplified for study aid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted January 31, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 733 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 3,017 Content Per Day: 0.42 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/09/1966 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I enjoy the NKJV and ESV the most. Online I use the Blue Letter Bible website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 31, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,738 Content Per Day: 2.44 Reputation: 8,550 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I like the literal translations best, the KJV and the NASB though I've taken a liking to the ESV as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted January 31, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 733 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 3,017 Content Per Day: 0.42 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/09/1966 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yup, I should have included the NASB, too. Personally, I believe that if a person is sincerely seeking God and wanting to learn the Word, that the Holy Spirit is perfectly able to protect and guide them in the truth, no matter which version they use. I'm not saying that all versions are right and good to use, just that the Holy Spirit is able to expose error and bad translations to a person and cause them to leave it. He did it with me. I like to remind the version/translation obsessed that all of them are translations and prone to errors. Even the KJV. (The "V" stands for "version" not "original.") The only perfect, infallible, inspired scriptures are the original texts in their original languages. But, if God was able to protect His words through 1,500+ years and bring it together as one, then He is able to protect us from modern translation errors as we seek and abide in Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3L13v3R Posted January 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 76 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,261 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 1,035 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2015 KJV my favorite. I came to Christ after reading “The Book” paraphrase Bible from cover to cover. Quickly found it to be very weak in many ways with anything of depth. I went on to purchase other Bibles, and and a Parallel Bible with four Bibles that it contained. Laying them across the table made it easy to do side by side comparisons. All of them contained a salvation message in Christ, but when it came to anything of depth, this KJV kept coming up with the depth I was searching for. Similar to Butero a bit, in my past, in 1986 I bought a“NIV Study Bible” 1977 edition to add to what I had. Although I knew my Salvation to be fast in Jesus Christ, because of this NIV study Bible, my faith in God's Word was nearly destroyed with their constant grinding of “in the most reliable text, these verses are not found...” I would often close it in sorrow not knowing what to believe. With it's multiple missing verses, (at least 30 verses are missing, completely gone!) footnotes that cast deep doubt on the validity of God's Word, half of many other verses missing, two distinct black lines at Mark 16:8 and John 7:52 casting doubt on many verses following, I could go on... This being my first “study Bible” I had hoped it would aide me in growing. It did not. Later I would find many other versions did the similar things, but initially were not so obvious as they were not in study Bible form. Went on to learn that same year of the Textus Receptus, verses the Alexandrian,Septuagint, LXX, etc... Most Bibles rely on on either the Textus Receptus, or the others mentioned. A few that used the Textus Receptus were; Luther's German Bible, Bishops, Geneva, Tyndale, and the KJV. The many other less reliable ones used the Alexandrian texts and others. The most unusual one I own is the NKJV, it's the only one that I have that uses text from both sides, Textus Receptus and the other Alexandrian manuscripts. In keeping up with some of the “newer versions” the worst one thus far that I have come across is the messy “Message.” Not recommended, ever. And yet many “preach” from it in our area. A computer Bible program makes comparisons much easier now. (Although they with some frequency have minor typos.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts