A funny thing about editions that italicize words not directly from the original language. Quite a useful feature for the informed. But I knew a clique in school who collectively decided to completely disregard the italicized bits, to the great horror of the faculty.
Then perhaps you need to add ESV, NASB, and Other together as well.Sure. But if you count the KJV and NKJV together (which I tend to do in this kind of poll), it's 52 [N]KJV v. 36 ESV. Not as close.
As for the other reasons stated above being convinced of a TR position on textual methodology, and the reasons Tyler gave; True fact: no one will ever know half as much in regards to the biblical languages, as the men of renown who did the translational work. They spoke these languages in that timeframe as it were their mother tongues, and we think we understand biblical languages better than they, because we have BlueLetterBible and Strong's concordance. We live in the age of chronological snobbery, where we have the most access to information, but are the most ignorant.
Um... actually, that is blatantly false. There have certainly been great linguists in the past - Calvin, for example. But we know a great deal more about cognate languages than they did, which means that in some places we understand the Hebrew text better than they did. And Bible translators are not generally dependent on Strong's concordance and other such English language based resources. Love the KJV by all means because you respect its text critical basis, or love its beautiful use of English, but please don't idolize it as if it were a translation that couldn't possibly ever be wrong, or improved upon.
I appreciate your input but simply disagree. I don't idolize the KJV in and of itself, but I do believe the Authorized is the best and most accurate translational work we have in the English language. It is a perfectly accurate translation, and have yet to stumble across any errors in it yet. I see you are a professor at Westminster, and as you can see yourself in both our confessions, my authority isn't the KJV, but the texts it was derived from. See: Chapter i. para. viii
I appreciate your response. As to your comments on the supposed errors in the KJV, I could not answer to that or even give your beliefs are fair examination, seeing I do not have the adequate skills in the biblical languages. I could address these to my local pastor for his opinions however, thank you.
Your grand sweeping pronouncements come across as someone who is merely taking someone else’s word for it.
Thank you.As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I adopted it shortly after release. I can't say I made the change for the deepest of reasons, given that I was roughly 20 at the time.
At the time, I was reading NASB for classes at my college and had heavily used NIV at church and my own reading in high school. I mainly opted for the ESV because I thought the style was a bit cleaner and smoother to read than NASB, while still not being as "dynamic equivalence" as the NIV. (For classes, I frequently had to read a whole book of the Bible in one go, so smoothness of style made a noticeable difference for me.) I admit to still largely using it because I like that middle ground approach and because nothing much has motivated me to change. That said, I am using NKJV a lot more in the past year, on account of that being what the pastor of our new church preaches from.
That sounds very reasonable. What’s your everyday use Bible right now? I mean the actual physical Bible. Publisher, edition, etc.
You're operating under some misconceptions, brother. The average pastor in the 1600s certainly would have known more Greek than the average pastor now, due to the emphasis on classical languages in education in general back then. However, that doesn't mean that today's Greek experts know less about Greek than Greek experts then. Also, understanding of Hebrew has definitely advanced. It was very rare in the 1600s for a Christian to be competent to teach Hebrew--most hired a Jewish Rabbi to tutor them.
Two main ones: NKJV Single-Column Reference Bible, Thomas Nelson, 2018. As the name implies, single column of text per page instead of two, but has all the standard cross-reference notes.
Basically it comes down to "take my brain as little effort as possible to find and follow the text." Double column means the eye has to move around a lot more, and one-verse-per-line is in my opinion only useful if doing close analysis and not trying to read a larger passage. Single column, especially if it has decent line spacing and reasonable margins, is very comfortable to read.
I tried the ESV shortly thereafter and found it readable, poetic, and still easy enough to use in family devotions with my children.
I just looked these passages up out of curiosity. Interestingly, the KJV translators offer alternate translations in the margins in both instances. For Ps 122:1, the marginal note reads, "Or, Shall I lift up mine eyes to the hills? Whence should my help come?"
To be sure they were, but it's also entirely possible that they were divided in their opinions at times and put both forward because of a lack of clarity. I think that's especially true when they put variant readings of the Greek or Hebrew in the margins.
NASB, as that was the primary translation first used when the Lord saved me.
The notes are very interesting. I've been studying them very closely over the last few months. I think I can say the following with some confidence:
