Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Just because some of the committee members were from churches in the Reformed tradition is not implying a church-sanctioned and driven activity. Do you see the distinction?
What is your favourite Bible Translation
- Thread starter Stephen L Smith
- Start date
- Status
josiahrussell
Puritan Board Freshman
NASB for sure. Its less clunky than the ESV. I also love the NKJV and the KJV.
Yes, as that would not be seen as the standard version to be used by the reformed church/community. like say the HCSB was by/for SBC, and Lutherans now making their own translation!
joebonni63
Puritan Board Freshman
I like the ESV like everyone else here but really like the 1599 Geneva Bible I try to use this 90% of the time
Where and who?
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
The Evangelical Heritage Version
https://wels.net/nph-to-print-lutheran-bible-translation/
http://www.wartburgproject.org/
https://wels.net/nph-to-print-lutheran-bible-translation/
http://www.wartburgproject.org/
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Thanks for your thoughts. We use the KJV for family worship (I'm there to explain things). I want my family to be exposed to where the great men of our faith have walked. I refuse to raise a child who cannot read a text dated before 1930 like many adults find themselves today. Listening to many folks speak is painful as like well you know like really painful. For learning and reading on her own, I insisted that my daughter grow up using NKJV instead of NASB that my wife uses. It just reads better. In a few years we'll get her a NKJV Ref study bible. Why NASB needs an "update" in 2018 is beyond me.
Looks like they will be adopting a mediating position on the scriptures, maybe the same way the Niv and the HCSB took in translation?
Wonder if they will try to translate into the text their own distinctives?
Doulos McKenzie
Puritan Board Freshman
I did a little digging around on the official website and it does not seem apparent that they are going out of their way to impose their theological distinctive onto the text. TBH this looks like it might end up being pretty good.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Although it does not usually show up on the copyright page, I think they had a revision ca. 1984. And they've engaged in some unofficial tinkering since then as well, although I understand that they've never released a list of changes.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I used the NKJV for years but had to abandon it when I found that my eyes couldn't tolerate red ink anymore and couldn't find an acceptable black letter NKJV. (There aren't many.) So I've been using the KJV and the NASB for a few years.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
That they have not officially updated their translation would make sense, as their textual sources used were pretty much fixed, as not not being revised at all!
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Evangelical Bible has the Schuyler and an Allan with the single column text block. The Schuyler comes with either black letter or red letter, and if I understand the description correctly the Allan is in black letter.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Updated translations have nothing to do with the textual basis, which remains essentially stable for all translations. The differences between NA 28 and NA 27 are hardly sufficient to motivate a change. Revisions are primarily driven either by a desire for greater readability, or to correct mistakes in the original translation, which were precisely the reasons behind the original NKJV.
My favorite Bible translation is the HCSB. I'm also a big fan of the KJV, and the NKJV. I use a 1984 NIV as my church bible but that is just because that's what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible uses which is my favorite study bible to take to church because it's a manageable size, top grain black leather is kinda plastic type veneer but was actually the best binding zondervan used, my church uses the ESV but I've never been a fan of how it reads. If I want to read a very church English bible I would rather use a KJV or NKJV personally.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
For some reason, that's been the case with me, as well. I don't know if its because it is more formal English, or what. I was called upon to read a passage aloud in my Synoptic Gospels class Tuesday and, reading from the ESV, I stumbled a bit in my speech. I can't exactly pinpoint what the issue is I am having with it, but I had a significantly better time reading the (H)CSB.
Yeah the HCSB was so good at being almost as literal as the NASB, according to graphs made by bible sellers. While also being almost as easy to read ad the NIV. It filled a niche and with its use of Yahweh in the OT, and the translators not being afraid to tweak well worn verses like John 3:16 to make them more accurate. The HCSB also didn't bow down to political correctness like other gender neutral translations. Making the HCSB very modern english to read but never comprising the gospel for easier to read english.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Think that the HCSB was in the same position as the 1984 Niv was, as a mediating translation, but was more formal than the Niv...
The biggest problem with the Esv is that is is neither as formal/literal as the NASB, nor as smooth reading as say Niv/HCSB, so stuck somewhere in not being good enough either way!
Christian Teegardin
Puritan Board Freshman
King James Version and the Gideons version of the ESV are my personal favorites.
Sent from my SM-G7102 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G7102 using Tapatalk
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks. I did not know that.
Josh Williamson
Puritan Board Freshman
ESV is my main reading Bible, and the translation I use for work, however, I often use the AV and NKJV.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
They do. There are a few more editions out now, but almost all of them aren't workable for me. For example, the Cambridge Clarion looks nice, but the print is too small for me. And I may be too used to double column text to ever really be comfortable with single column. To me, the print and spacing has to be a good bit larger for a single column setting to be as readable as a good double column setting.
The Schuyler Quentel NKJV looks very nice, but it's sad that I'd have to pay $214 (currently) to find out. I wonder if Schuyler will ever come out with a more "budget" cover the way that Cambridge (and even Allan) does with Morocco, Split Calf, etc.
By contrast, among KJVs, I've acquired the "Dollaro leather" RHB KJV Study Bible, a calfskin TBS Westminster Reference, several TBS Concords and a Cambridge Concord for less than $300, I think. These are all semi-premium rather than premium, but readability and durability are the big issues for me, not how buttery smooth the cover is and how nice the art gilt is. I'm not saying I wouldn't spend that much on a Bible, but I won't if that's literally the only text block that I think might work in a particular translation.
As for the single-column, I had the Schuyler several years ago, (apparently the Allan single-column is exactly the same thing) but got rid of it because:
- It is too big for my taste (it's basically the same size as a MacArthur Study Bible, or Thompson Chain Reference, albeit somewhat lighter.) The paper in my early print run MacArthur is more opaque. I think I would have liked it a lot better if it were the same size as the one that Nelson published, which was more of a common "hand size."
- It doesn't have cross references (although this is much less of an issue for me now)
- It doesn't have the full set of NKJV marginal notes. If I recall correctly it may even lack some of the textual notes.
- The paper has a lot more ghosting than I'd expect in a premium Bible, and it the text block isn't line matched.
Last edited:
Berean by Grace
Puritan Board Freshman
I use the NASB: 1) it is an updated translation; 2) it capitalizes pronouns for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) it doesn't completely cut all the verses from the KJV that other modern Bibles cut out. A second translation I use is the NA 27 & UBS 4th Edition for Textual Criticism. (I also use the Byzantine Majority, the so-called TR, Stephanus 1550, Tregelles, and Alford for Comparison)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Berean by Grace
Puritan Board Freshman
I personally think the CSB is going in the wrong direction. If I wanted a Bible like the ESV, then I would just go with the ESV. Since that is what the CSB is trying to copy. It looks no different on the inside than does the ESV, except for differing word choices, of course. Maybe they are trying to take the place of the NIV 1984, since the NIV 2011 went out on its feminist movement. I have several HCSBs and I have the CSB on Kindle, but I won't buy a CSB because it has lost its uniqueness. That's my opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Since I started this post I should give my preferences.
My favourite is the ESV. I also use the NASB and the HCSB.
My favourite is the ESV. I also use the NASB and the HCSB.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Almost what Bill said, "Because I believe the TR and the Byzantine texts to be superior, I prefer the [Geneva Bible] or the NKJV. When I want to see how a more modern translation words a particular passage, I will normally use the [1984 NIV] or ESV.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, there was a revision, but it was very minor. I have an old Thomas Nelson Imperial Reference Bible printed in 1983 that I like to preach from, and every once in a while I will notice a slight variance. For example, this week I am preaching from Judges 12:1-7. Verse 7 in the original NKJV reads "And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead." In the updated edition, the same verse reads "And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried among the cities of Gilead."
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I generally use the NKJV, though I sometimes use ESV and AV. However, the gender neutrality of the ESV concerns me since the concept of federal headship is becoming an obscure doctrine these days. The farther we get away from representative relationships, the more difficulty we have with the concept of substitution.
My favorite is the 1977 edition of the NASB, as it still uses those old thee and thous, bit seems to be a degree more literal/formal than the 1995 revision was..
Are you interested in the new update coming 2018, that will smooth out the OT readings?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
