Most underrated Bible translation?

Now if that doesn't stir the pot...

If I may be so bold, which versions do you think are overrated?

 

Do I need to repeat for a third time?
Ed

 

I have to agree with you. With the publishing of the ESV and then the Holman (preferred mostly by SBCers due to the publisher); it seems the NKJV has sort of dropped by the wayside.

Our pastor uses it because we have a lot of older folks who, while not KJVO, tend to gravitate towards the Bible they grew up with. THey seem to have no problems with the NKJV.

I STILL predict that the NKJV is going to become the NEXT version of accepted "KJV" line as soon as our generation passes and the new one takes charge. (I'm NOT a prophet so I may be wrong---I certainly don't want to be called a false prophet in THIS forum..... )

 

Now if that doesn't stir the pot...

If I may be so bold, which versions do you think are overrated? </font>[/QUOTE]I think the loose dynamic equivalency translations are overrated. While they can be good for children or those that need an easy to read version, I think people that can read a good formal translation should. Dynamic tranlations can be way too interpretive.

 

Now if that doesn't stir the pot...

If I may be so bold, which versions do you think are overrated? </font>[/QUOTE]I think the loose dynamic equivalency translations are overrated. While they can be good for children or those that need an easy to read version, I think people that can read a good formal translation should. Dynamic tranlations can be way too interpretive. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, TC! I also think that all of the paraphrase versions are overrated, but that's just my two cents.

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I would venture to suggest that the HCSB,ASV,WEB, are three versions that are excellent and probably deserved more use. Although the ASV is very hard to read.

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I know this post is heading in other directions, but as to the most under-rated translation. For me it has been the NIV - I have used the NKJV for the past 23 years as my main translation. I also used the KJV during the same time, but not nearly as regularly. Last year I read the HCSB and the NLT, keeping the HCSB and giving the NLT away. This year I decided to read the NIV at my brother in laws recommendation and I have found that I like it very much - I didn't know what I had been missing. Next year I plan to read the ESV, maybe I will find the same thing. Bruce

 

With the help of Ed Edwards, I realized Third Millenium Bible might be the most underrated Bible.
I have not read thru it, but found it is word-to-word and agrees with KJV in many doctrinal issues, based on TR and Ben Chayyim Masorah. If any one has read it enough to comment, please let me know.

 

As Linda already pointed out, I found no version to vote for on the polls. It looks like searching for the best among the worst !

 

By far it has to be the TNIV .

 

[off topic post]

[ February 10, 2006, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Hate to disagree but I would say the TNIV is overrated. It uses gender neutral language far to much. I'm not against using gender inclusive words sometimes and in some cases for instance when Paul wrote to a certain church and addressed the "brethren" because here we know it was meant for all those in the church. But the TNIV takes things Jesus said and changes them to be gender inclusive there is no need for this.

 

DeclareHim, I'm in favor of using gender neutral verbage when the original source texts use such, wither directly or contextually (such as when "anthropos", which generally means "all people", is typically translated "men").

I'm honestly not familiar with the TNIV to determine whether it does this, or goes beyond this. Perhaps someone who has studied the TNIV (and not just cut and pasted stuff from a wen site) can comment.

 

This thread concerns the most underrated translations . The TNIV qualifies in this regard because it has been vilified mainly by people who do not own it themselves . So when they take their potshots at it they negate any sense of fairness or rationality . They are content to keep the rumor-ball rolling . The way folks have condemned this version has now become a knee-jerk reaction . It is rare to find one who has actually examined it on their own without mimicking the caustic rhetoric of others .

One aspect of being underrated has to be not ranking anywhere near the top 10 selling English Bible lists . So the HCS and others can't be considered underrated because they are in-fact selling well .

The TNIV is a good translation ( with flaws as in all translations ) but you wouldn't know it is good because of the banwagon denunciations that have been heaped upon it . We can start another thread regarding what many think are bad things concerning this translation . However , it is not relevant to this particular thread . I will say one thing though . There is a glaring amount of inconsistency going on with anyone who appreciates the texts of the NET , NLT and NRSV and yet castigates the TNIV .

 

Thanks for the info, Rippon. I'm wondering of there was any such furor when the NIV came out. The NIV is the #1 bible today. In fact, after comparison of many translations in my college days, it's the translation of choice for me and the Mrs, though I also heavily use the KJV.