Which translation to use?

This thread should have been posted in the Bible forum.

At any rate, since you're looking for accuracy and have been using the NIV, the TNIV, which is a great improvement of the NIV and is even more accurate, should be a good choice.

I'll also recommend the NET or the HCSB.

 

If I only had one choice...HCSB hands down.

 

Bible Translation Choices

Here are my choices

1. KJV
2. NASB

 

I agree.

Ed

 

AV.

:godisgood:

 

Pick one of 2 sides of Bible translations:

1. The KJV is a most accurate translation of superior texts.

Or

2. Modern versions are translations of inferior texts.

I highly recommend the KJV.

 

Funny, Askjo. At least I hope it was an attempt at humor.

My best advice would be to try out a few different translations online and see what you think about them. I love my New King James, but also like the NASB. The Holman Christain Standard and English Standard Version are both great, too.

Give a few a try, and let the Lord lead.

 

I always thought the 2 sides were...

1. I am right, and we should use a multitude of versions..

or

2 You are wrong, and we should use a multitude of versions.

 

Macarthur Study Bible, either translation

 

The OP has been using the NIV and is looking for accuracy. Why are some making this about a KJVO issue.

Why do we always have to head in that direction?

 

Because some people have no other horse to ride.

If you are looking for more accuracy, I would go with the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NKJV, or TNIV. I use the KJV a lot, but realize that the 17th century English is not for everybody.

 

Accuracy--an interesting notion. It implies a standard to which something can be compared in terms of plus and minus. The argument still goes back to the accuracy of the COPIES of the originals.

In spite of man's depraved best efforts, God has preserved His Word in every generation in whatever vernacular.

IMHO the KJV translators still did a better job using more accurate manuscripts than those which emerged from the Holy(?) See. All translations are subject to the theological biases of those who would translate.

We are without excuse.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

noregrets1987
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been struggling recently trying to decide which translation is the best to use....Which do you use / which should I place my time and energy into studying?

No regrets....I'm having the same issue. I posted this question in the Bible Forum. If you're like me, you'd like something mid-way between accuracy and dynamic flow. I took the suggestions made here on the Forum and did research on other websites and surveys. I really like the HCSB and love the way the NLTse flows, just for sheer reading pleasure - it's like a novel you can't put down, but I'm not sure it would be best for in-depth study. I'm not into NIV & TNIV nor the Message, nor am I keen on NASB (even the update) and ESV - still too wooden English for me. What I want is 1 accurate translation (well, as accurate as possible with translations) in today's English I can use for both personal devotional and study. My choices seem to be narrowing down to HCSB (a good compromise), NLTse and the new ISV. It too is a brand new translation like the HCSB - although only the NT is completed at the the moment; the OT is soon to be completed. I think it will rate somewhere on the scale right around HCSB/ESV.

So what to do? I took another's advice here on the Forum and bookmarked HCSB, NLTse and ISV on my computer. I am deliberately doing this for a time so I can get a feel for which version I'm favoring. Also, from reading some comments on various websites, HCSB has an update coming out in 2009 so I didn't want to go ahead and purchase the current HCSB. By sticking with the bookmarked translations for a while and getting a feel for each, I should know in a few months, which translation feels most comfortable for my needs. Hope this helps you out.

queenbee:type:

 

There are some issues to consider. You need to get on the web and research several items for each translation you are considering.

1. Textual basis. I am not going to tell which I believe is best, but encourage you to understand the difference.

2. Translational purpose. Some translations are done to cater to a particular point of view. (It might be liberal, conservative, protestant, catholic, ecumenical, or dealing with gender issues seeking gender neutral, gender sensitive, or gender traditional.)

Once you narrow the field down using those criterion, you can begin using web based Bibles to check out the versions you are considering. In a few weeks you should have an idea which ones will meet your needs. For example, personal study might need a different version than a preacher would. Some are easier to read and some are easier to memorize.

As for me, I prefer KJV and the older NASB. I have no high falutin' reasons for choosing them. I grew up with the KJV being "the Bible" and used the older NASB for many years as a young Christian. I recently returned to the KJV for three reasons: I like the KJV Study Bible by Nelson publishers. My pastor preaches from it, so it is easier to follow in Sunday service. And finally, I find that since I grew up on it, I have much of it "memorized" by osmosis. It is just easier for me.

NONE OF THOSE reasons is reason enough for you to follow my lead.

For pure dee old accuracy IF you agree with the textual basis, I recommend either the 1977 or 1995 NASB. If you disagree textually, I recommend either KJV or NKJV.

 

Wrong question 'answered'!

Hold it!!

Let's not use a tangent to derail the thread.





Let's get -



The question is about which translation, not which 'Study Bible' will best 'support' or reinforce your (or my) preferred theology.

Big difference!

Ed

 

Go with the AV and an 1828 Webster's Dictionary. That's what worked for Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, Moody (and many other non-baptists ), as well as Torrey, Spurgeon, and maybe I left out a few. Don't let anyone tell you they can't understand it. First of all, that's no excuse, study; Secondly, they can understand it, especially if they would spend as much practice at reading it as they do practicing the moves on their Nintendo Wii, etc., etc...
Anyway, there is no beating the old English.

Before you can answer this question in your own heart, however, you need to decide whether or not God did indeed preserve his word for this age. Is a varrying degree of accuracy in man's perception the best we can get, or did God preserve His word to this generation? If you settle that issue with God's help, the next question may come easily.

 

"Calling Rubato 1!
Calling Rubato 1 on 'Alternative Planet Earth'!"
Calling Rubato 1!
Come in, Rubato 1!
Come back to the real Planet Earth!"

Is it of any real significance, in your mind, that Charles G. Finney had been preaching for about 7 or 8 years before there even was an 1828 Webster's Dictionary?

Or that Charles H. Spurgeon would have been highly unlikely to use an "American" dictionary, considering the fact that he was English?

Or that neither George Whitfield nor Jonathan Edwards could have possibly used one, considering that George Whitfield died when Noah Webster was 11 years old, and Jonathan Edwards died about 8 mo. before Webster was even born?

Or that Jonathan Edwards' Bible probably was the Geneva Bible, and not the KJV, considering no one in the US had gotten around to coming up with the idea of 'stealing' one and publishing it anyway, without giving the 'English crown' anything, at that time?
I assume you do remember that the New England types (of which Jonathan Edwards was one) such as the Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Puritans weren't real big fans of giving anything to either the church of England or the King.

However, you are probably right about D. L. Moody and R. A. Torrey using the KJV and 1828 Webster's. (That'll give you a good baseball BA of .333.)

So -

Fine to personally prefer the KJV (or any other version, for that matter); not so fine to attempt to push 'revisionist history'!

Ed

 

Seemingly maverick at some points, I still will recommend the HCSB, since you're not in the NIV/TNIV camp.