Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

Can't even think of the last time I opened a KJV at least 5 or 6 years, but probably more.

 

I said that what we now know as your previous stance was wrong because you based your belief back then on KJV wording. and that hampered your understanding of the doctrine. At that time you did not want to acknowledge the majority of translations which did not use the word "evil" but disaster of calamity in Isaiah 45:7. But you later admitted the error of your ways so this issue is really water over the dam.

 

I skipped a few pages but I am just going to answer the OP.

I made the switch from the KJV to mostly the NASB and the ESV.
I also use the NIV some at church because one of the pastors does so I follow along with the NIV when he is preaching but he even says that the ESV is better.

I like the literal method of the NASB but I also really like the formatting of the ESV.
In many ways I think the ESV is the true "NKJV" in that regard.
The NKJ I find to be very awkward to read. It is an updated version of the TR and of course the ESV does not use the TR but I think the type of translation of the ESV seems to be more in line with the type of translation the KJV was originally.

 

If that pastor who preaches from the NIV thinks the ESV is better, why doesn't he switch?

It is, yet you think that the ESV is not awkward?! I don't understand the logic of that. Both have some clumsy English. The ESV may even have more clunky aspects than the NKJ overall.

A young officer in the Korean army told me he thought that the NIV uses old-fashioned English! So I gave him a NLTse which he say he enjoys.

 

He has been using the NIV for years.
His son which is now and elder at the church as well does use the ESV.

Also by better he says that the ESV is more accurate. The reason he started using the NIV rather than the NAS back in the 70s was due to it being more easy to read.

If I understood him correctly, he still thinks the NIV is easier to read but he will occasionally mention places where the translation is not the best.

Yes, I do think the ESV is one of the easiest literal translations to read.

To some degree "easy to read" is subjective.

Some people love the old king james.
I find it very awkward.
As long as a translation is accurate in it's representation of the original, I believe there is room for preference in these other areas.

 

If I'm reading, I perfer to read the NIV.

If I'm arguing with some of ya'll here on the BB, I generally use the KJV. Why? Because I was raised KJVO and all my memorization was done using that version. I'm to old to be rememorizing. lol

So finally I broke down and bought myself a parallel Bible that has both, plus the NASB and the NLT (which I don't particularly like) and solved my problem. If I doubt that what I'm reading is what I remember from the KJV all I have to do is run my finger across the page to compare.

Yep, best of both worlds.

Then again, There are several other translations in the house and I'm just as likely to pick up what is handy so I guess you call me an Equal Opportunity Tranlation Employer.

 

Try Today's New International Version -- it's better.

Perhaps the NLT in your parallel Bible is the 1996 version. The NLTse of 2004 is a complete revamp, and thus much better.The translation team even made some slight adjustments to that one in 2007 (which I don't own yet).

 

There is no such thing as a literal translation from one language to another, not even from American English to English as spoken in England.

I was KJvP now I use NKJV and HCSB primarily and some NIV( the archeology edition).

 

........Why?

 

'Cause he likes it!

Ed

 

Dale, have you been living under a rock or sumpin'? Take a gander at a couple of my threads over the years comparing the TNIV with the ESV,NKJ,NASBU,HCSB etc. There are even threads (some of which I started, some not) in which the subject is Today's New International Version. I have stated my reasons quite freely and repeatedly as to why I like it so much. Some, like EdSutton, might think I play just one tune on my harp because I've mentioned the topic so much.

 

Well you made me go look, Rippon.

The NIV is the NIV, but the NLT is actually The Amplified Bible. (I do have an NLT but its been relegated to non usage and is residing in a bookcase)

But, I seem not have a even a single copy of the TNIV or the HCSB. I can't imagine how that happened.

 

That's good.

What in the world does that mean? The NLT is the NLT -- not the Amplified Bible. You are confusing.

It's probably the 1996 edition. Get the 2004 or 2007 updated version.

Well, go out and secure some inexpensive copies of each. To really save some money get the NT version of each.

 

Not really, but a personal preference is still only a personal preference, be it that of Dale-c, Rippon, EdSutton, menageriekeeper, anyone else on the thread, or merely some Joe Blow.

And as there is no objective standard written in stone anywhere, that is all it is, and as such is no better or no worse than mine, or that of some other.

Ed

 

Actually, there is. Written by the finger of God, it will be found in an ancient Hebrew arc! :laugh:

 

Cute.

Ed

 

Of course, this has nothing to do with versions or translations, however,


>

>

>

which you well know.

Ed

 

I'm with you Rippon and the officer! Really enjoying my NLTse.

KJV to NASB to LB to NIV to NLTse (whew! - think I've finally found my comfort level!)

 

[Corrections of my poor English]

A young officer in the Korean army told me that the NIV uses old-fashioned English! So I gave him a NLTse which he now enjoys.

 

I'm glad you appreciate it.

It has been quite the journey for you. But now you're home.