1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Top Ten Translations

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by jaigner, Mar 15, 2011.

  1. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Great analysis- thanks for sharing.
     
  2. PreacherTeacher

    PreacherTeacher New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright; I'll jump in here, too...

    1. ESV (Accuracy and readability when preaching)
    2. NASB (Accuracy)
    3. NIV 1984 (Readability among congregation)
    4. NKJV (Good for those who like the KJV, but without Elizabethan English to limit 21st Century comprehension)
    5. RSV (Accuracy)
    6. TNIV/NIV 2011 (Readability, especially with youth. NIV 2011 pretty close to TNIV apparently)
    7. HCSB (Good, but not great. Often awkwardly worded.)
    8. KJV (Poetic Elizabethan English, but that hinders comprehension for some)
    9. ASV (Accurate, but not a flowing read)
    10. NRSV (Readable, but I can only take so many "humankind" references in one sitting...)
     
  3. Speedpass

    Speedpass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1) NASB (the newest one)
    2) HCSB
    3) GNB
    4) NLT
    5) Amplified
    6) NIV
    7) NASB (earlier version with KJV translations of 2nd person pronouns)
    8) NIV
    9) NKJV
    10) Living Bible.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NIV is both # 6 and # 8?
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    HITS ON BING
    TNIV 869,000,000
    ESV 454,000,000
    NAS 417,000,000
    NKJV 290,000,000
    KJV 261,000,000 (AV 84,100,000)
    CEV 113,000,000
    GNB 100,000,000
    Message Bible 95,800,000
    NET 72,400,000
    NLT 71,000,000
    HCSB 69,000
    NRSV 61,000,000
    NIV 16,000,000



    I don’t think I’ve ever consulted 10 different bible versions in my personal study.

    My short list:
    ESV (excellent – uses a modern eclectic Greek text)
    NAS95 (quite literal)
    NRSV (literal with alternate text usage)
    NLT (readable and understandable)
    NIV (the older version never captured my interest – hopefully the newer version has some bite)

    Rarely
    NET (interesting alternative version with good explanatory notes)
    HCSB (interesting alternative text - I like the OT translation better than the NT)

    Rob
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Most of those Bing hits were probably negative. So the Bing thing isn't representative of popularity.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It fixed all the problems with at [sic] translation? I don't quite understand. First of all the ESV used the 1977 RSV as their base --not the NRSV. And even though the closest thiung to the ESV is the NRSV -- the NRSV is a "jolly good translation" according to D.A.Carson. I don't think it takes a backseat to the ESV at all. It's English is slightly better.


    So the NASB is your standard. What if the HCSB has a superior rendering compared to the NASB95? Do you check commentaries or other Bible aids?

    Run that past me again with different phraselogy.

    It was based on the TR.

    Give some examples.

    Well,since the notes are much more formal than the text,I don't necessarily see the connection.

    Was that meant positively,or negatively? Remember,William Tyndale's work was a one-man operation.
     
  8. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Rippon, I think you can Google the topic ESV fixed problem translations in NRSV and find several articles with example.

    Yes I have several commentaries and Bible aids which I use when studying a passage.

    A different, more liberal group, provided the translation of the ESV than the group for the NASB. But they did a better job, in my opinion capturing what the author was saying, i.e. they put it in a less confusing way, in a good many passages.

    Gee the KJV and NKJV are from the TR. Thanks, who knew. :)

    More than once I have come across a passage that does not make sense to me, but when I checked out my old KJV, why it brought to light what I had been missing. Look at 2 Corinthians 2:17, where most modern translations say the many were "peddling" the word of God, but the KJV says corrupting the word. I think the modern translations miss the idea that the peddlers were adulterating their products for gain. Think of a pastor who believes like a Calvinist but preaches like an Arminian. :)

    When I am trying to figure out why the translators went this way instead of that way, some of the time I find sound reasoning in the NET notes.

    I did not mean to disparage any of the heart-felt efforts by actual scholars to bring God's word in a language their flock can understand. Many missionaries spend their whole life putting God's word into the local language.

    Van
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You made the claim Give some examples. Again,the ESV was not based on the NRSV.


    I'm not a fan of ther ESV,but you are going to have to prove that the ESV team was/is of a more liberal cast of mind. On the contrary,they were/are quite theologically conservative.

    It is a matter of opinion. However, you'll have to show me how the ESV is any plainer than the NASB95. I have a thread or two showing the opposite conclusion.

    From your post it seemed as if you didn't know. You could have said that both the KJV and NKJV were based on the same underlying Greek text.

    Actually the TR,WH and NU all have "peddle the word of God." Some preachers are out to "hawk" the Word of God for profit.

    You have even admitted that these preachers are,in fact,peddling the word of God for profit which the KJV does not have in the text.

    Here is wherer your Arminianism clouds your vision. Did Spurgeon preach like an Arminian? No,he preached fervently with a buden for souls as all God-called pastors should whether they are Arminians or Calvinists.

    Ditto.
     
  10. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Rippon, I provided the basis for my views with an effort at clarification. I do not think making assumptions about the workings of the minds of others is useful to the topic.

    I said the KJV shed light on the passage (2 Cor. 2:17) not because the word is not best translated peddle, but because that misses the idea of adulterating the Word of God based on greed. So because of the KJV being different, I studied that particular word. Thus it acted like a signpost.
     
    #50 Van, Mar 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2011
  11. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa...more liberal? Not much. None of them could be considered liberal at all.
     
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have no idea why I am getting all this "help" with my characterization of the translations.
    The ESV is a conservative translation, but not quite as literal as the NASB. So, from my side of the street it is "more liberal" than the NASB. But there is nothing theologically wrong with it based on my feeble understanding, I like it and I like it a whole lot.
     
  13. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    The problem is your characterization using the word "liberal". Liberal implies an unbelief in the veracity of the Scriptures, or that the translation was done with that in mind.
     
  14. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, words can mean what the author intended, or can be understood to mean what the hearer assigns to it. Labels actually undermine the unity of the body. There is nothing wrong with liberalism or conservatism. If liberals are tearing down what is wrong, picture Martin Luther King changing the heart of America, that is great. If liberals are tearing down something good, like our freedom to make our own risk assessments, which is the essence of liberty, then it is bad to the bone.

    On the other hand, when Conservatives are conserving something good, like school choice, it is good, and when Conservatives are conserving something bad like overcrowded prisons, it is bad. Christians are called to be both, not neglecting the important things such as justice mercy and love.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You were the one calling the ESV team more liberal than the NASBU team. We took it in a theological sense since it deals with a Bible translation. It has nothing to do with politics.

    If you now want to rephrase your unfortunate word choice-- go ahead.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    1. The meanings of words are determined by context. We aren't discussing MLK here.

    2. Labels are meant to provide clarity, and not necessarily unity.
     
  17. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    28
  18. Speedpass

    Speedpass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    8) NKJV
    9) Living Bible
    10) KJV
     
  19. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The ESV is more liberal than the NASB because it is less literal. Only PC word censors would take issue with the obvious. No need to revise my excellent choice of words, God help me, here I stand - to borrow a phrase! :)
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    LOL- you say one thing then contradict it with another! In your opinion being literal is only important when it comes to the Bible.
     
Loading...