Thread: A new Bible......... The Poll

Help me out....those who feel I need to move "beyond" my NIV.....

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 06:30:43 EST-----

To make things easier on one and all I MEANT to put a poll with the first Thread...woops....sorry...anyway...RECAP: I use the NIV, most of you think it a bad choice, I have considered a new Bible as it were, you, my new PB friends may help me. Advise away.............................................. ....

A new bible is really your own personal choice. Some like the NASB, some the ESV whilst others KJ or NKJ. There is no perfect translation. If the majority of PB members recommended say the NASB that does not mean that you would prefer it to the ESV. When a new bible comes out I would compare certain passages. This can be done on line which means you can check them out before moving onto a new translation. However just to check a few passages is not sufficient as you really need to use a version for a while. If you are thinking of changing translations, buy a cheap edition first and use it for a few months before deciding whether you want to make that your favoured translation or not.

Originally Posted by jambo

A new bible is really your own personal choice. Some like the NASB, some the ESV whilst others KJ or NKJ. There is no perfect translation. If the majority of PB members recommended say the NASB that does not mean that you would prefer it to the ESV. When a new bible comes out I would compare certain passages. This can be done on line which means you can check them out before moving onto a new translation. However just to check a few passages is not sufficient as you really need to use a version for a while. If you are thinking of changing translations, buy a cheap edition first and use it for a few months before deciding whether you want to make that your favoured translation or not.

Actually I agree....I just want a "feel" from the members I was going to use Bible Gateway for comparing.

1599 Geneva Bible.

And, barring that, the New King James.

Originally Posted by sastark

1599 Geneva Bible.

And, barring that, the New King James.

I did not put the NKJV in he list, have not hd much experience with it.

My first choice would be the KJV, second choice NKJV, and third choice would be ESV.

Kjv

Originally Posted by sastark

1599 Geneva Bible.

And, barring that, the New King James.

I concur. 1599 Geneva bible has over 30,000 study notes to help you along...and I would even go a little farther and say, "Get BOTH"!

Originally Posted by TheFleshProfitethNothing

Originally Posted by sastark

1599 Geneva Bible.

And, barring that, the New King James.

I concur. 1599 Geneva bible has over 30,000 study notes to help you along...and I would even go a little farther and say, "Get BOTH"!

The "oldest" I would go would be the King James Version (sorry)

First choice, KJV; no second choice.

The Word on the Street, by Rob Lacey.

Not really.

(I just love when you type it in to amazon.com, it actually say, "by Rob Lacey." Not, you know, "by God" or something like that. Even Amazon knows it's not the bible...)

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 07:22:39 EST-----

But seriously: does anyone here use the Holman? I'm curious.

I voted ESV.
It's becoming the standard version for many Reformed folk. The OPC and PCA use it as their "default" version.

It will be an easier move from the NIV to the ESV than it would be to the NASB.

Instead of the linear paradigm that many use for translations...


I prefer to use this paradigm...


Which is from the book...

King Jimmy!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Grymir

King Jimmy!!!!!!!!

I'm glad there is someone else out there who says that.

dude I say the ESV study Bible all the way... it's the coolest thing since sliced bread... maybe even cooler but I really like sandwiches though

Were most of the people who worked on the ESV Reformed? I ask since it is seems to be THE Bible among the reformed people. For those shouting King James, I use the King James lot in my devotional reading given the cadence and beauty. What I am looking into are modern translations.

I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.

Sometimes when i am doing studies I'll have more than one bible out. At my church the ESV is the main text. From my personal use the ESV is my main text.

Although i also have a NKJV (at work), KJV (home), HCSB (in my truck), NASB (Home)

Originally Posted by Quickened

I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.

Sometimes when i am doing studies I'll have more than one bible out. At my church the ESV is the main text. From my personal use the ESV is my main text.

Although i also have a NKJV (at work), KJV (home), HCSB (in my truck), NASB (Home)

I never hear much about the HCSB anymore....even Baptist (in the SBC) seem to like the ESV in general.

Depends on what you're using it for. Your walking around Bible -- whatever is a faithful translation that you like. (Not what others say you should like). Some claim NASB is hard to read out loud, so if that will be a primary use, you might consider.

ESV. That way you're using a Bible that is both readable and based on good scholarship.

I think George Grant gave one of the best summaries of the ESV when he said that it, "combines the accuracy of the NASB with the readability of the NIV to make one of the best translations on the market."

Originally Posted by Hamalas

I think George Grant gave one of the best summaries of the ESV when he said that it, "combines the accuracy of the NASB with the readability of the NIV to make one of the best translations on the market."

If that is the case, it is a big draw for the ESV! The reason I have used the NIV for so long is that it flows well and is easy to rad both aloud and privately.

Originally Posted by Jon Lake

Originally Posted by Quickened

I think with a modern bible with readability I would choose the ESV. I have both the wide margin ESV journaling bible and the reformation study bible (ESV). It reads with great ease and works as a good partner when compairing to the KJV or NASB.

Sometimes when i am doing studies I'll have more than one bible out. At my church the ESV is the main text. From my personal use the ESV is my main text.

Although i also have a NKJV (at work), KJV (home), HCSB (in my truck), NASB (Home)

I never hear much about the HCSB anymore....even Baptist (in the SBC) seem to like the ESV in general.

I hadnt heard of it until i received it as a gift on the day i was baptized.

Get a nicely bound AV or Geneva.

Originally Posted by larryjf

It will be an easier move from the NIV to the ESV than it would be to the NASB.

I can sure vouch for that!

This is the first time I've heard that the RV (Revised Version?) is the most literal - I'll have to check it out.

I would recommend reading the recent paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society by Dr. Mark Strauss, "Why the English Standard Version Should Not Be The Standard English Version".

I use a text-only parallel NASB/LBLA.

Why John Piper recommends the ESV:

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Here are a few more links worth reading

PB: 10-31-07 The ESV and The Reformed
PB: 04-02-08 About NASB vs. ESV

and my favourite:

NASB Onlyism Gaining New Momentum

Another vote for the 1599 Geneva.

And right now, Tolle Lege has it on sale (2 for $69.95).

Let's see - the 'fugitive' Puritan's Bible, notes from Calvin, Knox, Coverdale, and Beza throughout, and the whole thing on CD ROM as well, all for the price of dinner for two at a not-so-flash restaurant. Are you picking up the phone yet? Good.

My work here is done then.

The NIV played no small part in my own coming to Christ, so I do have a fondness of it- but presently I only use it for comparative purposes. My primary translation is a NKJ Geneva, with an NASB close at hand.

I have not studied much Greek, so I can't say which is 'better' from that stand point. I have studied Hebrew to some length, but again, I'm not the one to say which translation is more 'faithful' to the intent of the original text.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, and not the translation, that does the job of interpreting the Word of God. The best tool you have to approach scripture- regardless of the translation- is prayer.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

The NIV played no small part in my own coming to Christ, so I do have a fondness of it- but presently I only use it for comparative purposes. My primary translation is a NKJ Geneva, with an NASB close at hand.

I have not studied much Greek, so I can't say which is 'better' from that stand point. I have studied Hebrew to some length, but again, I'm not the one to say which translation is more 'faithful' to the intent of the original text.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, and not the translation, that does the job of interpreting the Word of God. The best tool you have to approach scripture- regardless of the translation- is prayer.

Theognome

Well stated.

I use the ESV as my study Bible (I use the Reformation Study Bible in the ESV). It's not always the easiest reading translation; however, I appreciate that someone went through and cleaned up the problems that are in the prior NRSV--which is full of inaccurate translations created solely to satisfy non-Biblical political correctness prejudices.

This was the first time the NRSV jumped out at me as being a basic mistranslation:

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.

Matthew 2:16 (NRSV)

If you weren't aware of the actual story, you would think Herod killed both male and female children, which not only makes no sense in the context of what Herod was doing (trying to kill the Messiah), but also intentionally mis-translates the Greek, which is clearly masculine. (I went back and checked my Englishman's Greek New Testament.)

So what was the agenda? Simple de-gendering, even if it made the passage nonsensical? Or was there a thought that we today should think that the ancients would have thought the Messiah could be a woman? I don't know, it's a puzzlement.

But once you notice this sort of thing in the NRSV, you see it all over the place and realize it is a fundamentally unreliable translation.

Originally Posted by eqdj

Here are a few more links worth reading

PB: 10-31-07 The ESV and The Reformed
PB: 04-02-08 About NASB vs. ESV

and my favourite:

NASB Onlyism Gaining New Momentum

NASB ONLYISM......

I've never understood why the NASB isn't as readable as the ESV. I find the NASB very readable, I guess it might have something to do with "thinking Greek" and the NASB following that better. I can make clearer distinctions, while viewing English only, of hina and gar clauses, which to me, at the least, is important to being able to follow the train of thought - and therefore making the translation readable. I also use the ESV a lot and have recently gotten the Study Bible version, which I really like. Its a little big and heavy, so I find myself using it for home study more and carrying my thineline to church.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 10:52:37 EST-----

"We believe that the New American Standard Bible is the absolute perfect and preserved Bible. There's no need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to understand some kind of 'deeper meaning' of the text. It's all right there in English, in the New American Standard...

We lift up the NASB above all. If you want to be saved you better get one. If you don't know English you better get to learning."

Tominthebox News Network - Religious Humor/Satire: NASB Onlyism Gaining New Momentum

I thought this was a joke at first, but apparently not...I will laugh anyway

Originally Posted by Hilasmos

I've never understood why the NASB isn't as readable as the ESV. I find the NASB very readable, I guess it might have something to do with "thinking Greek" and the NASB following that better. I can make clearer distinctions, while viewing English only, of hina and gar clauses, which to me, at the least, is important to being able to follow the train of thought - and therefore making the translation readable. I also use the ESV a lot and have recently gotten the Study Bible version, which I really like. Its a little big and heavy, so I find myself using it for home study more and carrying my thineline to church.

In fairness to the NASB, in my limited experience I have not found it a hard "read", I just have stuck with the NIV given that I have more material that uses the NIV as the primary text, I guess it is just familiar to me. Changing Bibles is like getting away from an old pair of comfy jeans, no matter how grotty they are you are comfortable.

The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.

That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or nasb (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).

All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.

Originally Posted by bened

The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.

That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or nasb (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).

All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.

I HAVE thought about the NKJV, Sproul used to use it in his books pretty often....

Originally Posted by Jon Lake

Originally Posted by bened

The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.

That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or nasb (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).

All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.

I HAVE thought about the NKJV, Sproul used to use it in his books pretty often....

Interesting you mention that. Visited his church in Fl about a month ago when on vacation. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized RC was indeed preaching from the NKJV.

You might check some past threads on this.

NKJV v. ESV
Why have NKJV sales been so strong?
And if you really want to dig on the KJV KJV ONLY

Here are some of my comments sort of blended together. It was a quick edit, so might have some overlap/repeating.

The ESV is excellent, except that they didn't really cue the reader on to translation decisions. Italics are not used to show inserted words and there are very few margin notes revealing decisions and textual variants. This gives the read the idea that the translation is absolutely correct, when it is not. Although I'm a MT guy, I prefer the NKJV because it's close, uses italics to reveal decisions (added words) and has variants in the margins to cue the reader/student to dig further when necessary. While being literal, it is not nearly as presumptuous as many other versions. Translation decisions are noted by using italics and margin notes, and variances from both the NU and MT are noted as well. This gives the reader the opportunity to investigate and make decisions in accordance to their own textual preferences/convictions. I've encouraged members of our church to do likewise for the same reasons. From what I can tell, and what I've read from others, the NKJV is possibly the best OT translation available. In the NT, with all the textual variances, it's more difficult to tell. I prefer the NKJV method of translation and like the way it reads. Of all the translations it seems to carry much of the elegance of the AV, yet in a manner that is easier on today's readers. It's adherence to the TR causes some challenges. But their careful notes showing where they made translation decisions and letting the reader know where there are MT and NU (CT) variances helps us to understand their thinking. This along with italics where they've added words for clarity make it a very responsible translation. As far as I know no other translation provides this much clarity and transparency in their translation decisions.

Just in case you didn't catch it, I prefer the NKJV. I'd take the NASB before the '95 update second. I love the ESV translation, but because the reader is not warned of translation decisions, only use it for personal study - though never primarily. And I love my new ESV Study Bible too, though I have the old Reformation Bible, which is basically the same thing in NKJV.

Originally Posted by bened

Originally Posted by Jon Lake

Originally Posted by bened

The ESV is continuing to rise in popularity. I wouldn't argue with it being the best blend of readability and accuracy.

That said, NKJV attempts to keep the flow of the KJV whenever possible. It's an excellent translation, though from a different greek text than the esv or nasb (upon which I cut my teeth and still hold an affinity).

All that said, I agree that in moving from the NIV, the ESV is probably your best option; but you won't go wrong with either NKJV, NASB, or ESV.

I HAVE thought about the NKJV, Sproul used to use it in his books pretty often....

Interesting you mention that. Visited his church in Fl about a month ago when on vacation. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized RC was indeed preaching from the NKJV.

Yes! I went to a lecture....about a year ago, he was using the NKJV then as well. I guess a lot of his notes are still from that text...

AV (KJV) first, ASV second.

Haven't heard of the ASV? It's the granddaddy of CT translations and still among the best.