I use the ESV as my main translation but I am debating what translation to complement it. I could go more the Literal direction and use the LSB. Or, I could go the Optimum Equivalent direction and use the CSB. Any thoughts?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly not! I don't regard the NRSV as evangelical.you ever given the NRSV consideration as an alternate?
That is not the Bible. That is only the NT - somewhat less than 50% of the BibleThe NIV never gets tired of winning.
Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II does not have the rights to the Geneva BibleI believe your Queen has the rights to the best English translation.
Well, of course not. But that has no bearing on my comment.Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II does not have the rights to the Geneva Bible
When you mentioned that the Queen had rights to the 'best English translation' (your words) I assumed you meant the Authorised Version, hence my tongue in cheek reply.Well, of course not. But that has no bearing on my comment.
I used the NKJV in my youth and switched to the ESV about 2004. It was more readable than the NKJV and it was promoted as an accurate and fresh translation. Hence my decision to change. I have generally liked the ESV. I did consider switching to the CSB but I like the 'KJV style' language of the ESV.It might be helpful to know why you use the ESV as your main.
The Legacy Standard Bible is a revision of the NASB. See https://lsbible.org/faqs/the NASB for "digging in."
Certainly not! I don't regard the NRSV as evangelical.
The NKJV is one of the most underrated translations, In my humble opinion.I feel like I am going back to NKJV as a preferred translation over against both the ESV and the CSB.
My church uses the ESV and therefore, I do as well, since I often give the call to worship on Sundays or teach on Wednesday nights, but in any other case, I would likely use the NKJV and supplement with the CSB.The NKJV is one of the most underrated translations, In my humble opinion.
Lane, it was great to reflect on your comments. I know you have thought deeply about this so I'll share my thoughts on the LSB vs the CSB.The ESV is already a more formal equivalence translation. If you want a supplement, then supplement it with something that has a different translation philosophy, like the CSB. I still believe that the CSB has the very best translation philosophy of any translation out there. Whether its performance in bearing out that translation philosophy is as good as the philosophy itself is debated, though I think the result is outstanding.
"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me." - American-centric church goers.Lane, I hear the KJV "I was good enough for Spurgeon". This can be updated to "I was good enough for Vos". Question of Bible translations now solved
I am reading Psalms in the LSB out loud with my wife before bed, and I admit I am finding it a bit jarring.I find the word Yahweh in the LSB somewhat distracting (a personal opinion).
This is a silly mischaracterization. I am smart enough to know Paul didn’t use the KJV; it wasn’t around then. I choose the KJV because it was good enough for Augustine."If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me." - American-centric church goers.
"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me." - American-centric church goers.
I simply prefer sticking to the ancient convention of saying "Lord" in place of the Divine name, except where context requires otherwise. If we are to say the Divine Name, I am content to follow the very ancient practice of taking the consonants of the Tetragramaton, i.e. "JHVH" (יהוה) and add to it the vowels of the Hebrew word for Lord, i.e. "Adonia" (אֲדֹנָי) to form what in English translates to "JEHOVAH."I find the word Yahweh in the LSB somewhat distracting (a personal opinion).