| Author | Message | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 689 Registered: 3-2009 |
This probably has been discussed somewhere else. If there is a thread that does it please guide me to it. I couldn't find it in the search. I have several Bible versions and would like to used one for studying and marking. (I have one all marked, but it's with the SDA theology and would like to start a new one with the Christian theology.) Could someone, or many, tell me, what would be the best version to do that and why? Thanks, Hec | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 621 Registered: 8-2008 |
I hear NASB is most accurate. I prefer HCSB because it is both accurate and very easy to read. I think that, within the most widely accepted translations (NKJV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, HCSB...) it really becomes a matter of preference. (Message edited by bskillet on October 26, 2009) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3070 Registered: 10-2004  |
Overall, the NASB is probably the most accurate and most literal, but of course no version is perfect. Sometimes more dynamic, or thought-for-thought, translations, such as the NIV or even the NLT (which is more of a paraphrase), have the best translation (most true to the original) for a specific verse. The HCSB and ESV are usually pretty accurate translations, I believe. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10554 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, Jeremy, that is my understanding as well. The ESV (and I don't know as much about the HCSB, but from what I've heard, that, too) is more nearly word-for-word than the NIV, but it is a little more dynamic and follows our spoken speech patterns a little more closely than does the NASB. The NIV really is great to read; I used an NIV during the years I studied myself out of Adventism, and I grew extremely attached to it! Over the past three or four years, however, I've moved more and more toward the NASB because I want to memorize in as accurate a translation as possible. Because I memorize in NASB, I've increasingly found that I'm more familiar with the NASB's wording, and I use it almost all the time now. When I write commentary for BibleStudiesForAdventists. com, however, I use ESV. Also, we're starting the book of Acts in our weekly FAF group, and I'm using ESV for that as well. One of the things I love about the ESV study Bible is that it has a code to use to access its online study helps. There's a huge wealth of charts, maps, articles, etc etc. that can be reproduced. I've found it wonderful for doing the Acts studies. Our women's Bible studies at church are written using ESV as well. Colleen | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 496 Registered: 2-2006 |
I want to add something about dynamic translations vs. literal. Now I'm no Biblical Scholar, but I do speak 2 languages. Let me give you an example of literal and dynamic translation in French and English. In French we have a saying: "A toute a l'heure." Literally it means, "Until all hours." Imagine a smitten American fellow who is taking leave of his lovely new French girl and she says this to him. He hears it (literally) as an expression of her undying devotion. What this phrase is really used to mean in French, and what she has just said, is no more and no less than "See you later." My point is that I hear many folks speaking in passionate and exalted tones about the desirability of using a literal translation. (Not talking about you guys. Just expanding on Colleen's point.  ) I think these folks frequently fail to understand that for translation to in any way convey meaning accurately from one language to another it MUST be dynamic. Literal translation will absolutely fail to alert the reader/hearer to linguistic idioms, thus frequently missing the "literal intended meaning" of the text. I say use both, but depend heavily on a translator who is respectful of the speaker's intent. Pegg  | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5677 Registered: 9-2006  |
Huhh? You mean I got to git me one of them trans-ili-ators afore I kin understan that thang? I ain't no Bible scholar neither, but I fell offen' a horse once and come up sayin' some awfully strange words. I now watch for low hanging limbs. River | ||
| Lrcrabtree Registered user Username: Lrcrabtree Post Number: 89 Registered: 1-2007  |
River, you didn't fall off, you got knocked off - by a horse smarter than you............ | ||
| Lrcrabtree Registered user Username: Lrcrabtree Post Number: 90 Registered: 1-2007 |
Oh, and on topic: I use the NIV, but then I was really a huge fan of the King James version, so I didn't want to get to far from that. Sue (my wife) uses the New American Standard Bible and loves it. In my humble opinion (I'm no biblical scholar) I think the most important thing is to get a bible that has a good, non denominational set of study notes or study guides right on the same pages as the verses for simplicity. Then it's critical to refer to the study notes just as frequently as you do the verses themselves..... Larry | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5678 Registered: 9-2006 |
Come to think of it...that horse WAS pretty well educated.He was out standing in his field. I think he done it a purpose. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5679 Registered: 9-2006 |
On topic, I use NKJV mainly and quote out of the KJV because it aggravates everybody on the forum! Well...not quite, I think the KJV is very poetic and it was what I cut my teeth on, so I remember scripture from it better, makes it easier to look up verses. Then when I find them, I'm too lazy to switch. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5680 Registered: 9-2006 |
Plus I know it aggravates everybody. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1880 Registered: 5-2007  |
River, It doesn't aggravate me. Even though I now mostly use the ESV I still keep my KJV and NKJV at my side. P.S. Nobody "owns" Hooch least of all me. Besides, he is Jan's dog and only tolerates me because I know how to break up the dog bones just the way he likes them. Fearless Phil | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10558 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, to tell the truth, I learned all my memory verses for years out of the KJV. I was in my 20s when I started reading the NIV, and sometimes I'd go to look up a verse in the concordance, and I couldn't find it because the only key words I knew were from the KJV! Moreover, when I taught English, I realized that kids who had no background with the KJV had a REALLY hard time, at first, being able to read Shakespeare. It was almost like a foreign language...so yes, I understand the soft spot for the KJV. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5681 Registered: 9-2006 |
Aww Phil, that is so sweet of you to prechew his food! I had a chart around here somewhere in my theology notes, the NKJV wasn't at the top of the list on accuracy, but it was right near the top, I forget which one was the most accurate. Actually, I really like the Zondervan Amplified Bible. My older brother is KJV only, he looked at my Zondervan Bible and said, "I don't like that!" So when I go to see him, I take only that one just to aggravate him. My wife says I am easily amused. It does amuse me when people think the KJV was written in the original language. I guess they think Adam spoke KJV! Maybe it'll work on the girls, "Thou art the fairest my love." River | ||
| Believer247 Registered user Username: Believer247 Post Number: 66 Registered: 3-2009 |
I use the NKJV now and like it the best, but only had the KJV up until about 10 or 12 years ago. Grew up on the KJV. I also use NASB, NIV, and RSV. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7653 Registered: 3-2004  |
I use the NIV, NKJV, RSV, and a Bible called the Berkeley - it is a modern English version. I like my NKJV because it is a study Bible with all the helps in it. Diana L | ||
| Believer247 Registered user Username: Believer247 Post Number: 67 Registered: 3-2009 |
I should have added I like my NKJV best because it has the best study helps. My NASB has some study helps also but not as complete as the Nelson NKJV. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1820 Registered: 4-2000  |
The English Standard Version (ESV) closely aligns with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Likewise, the HCSB and the NASB are excellent English translations. The NIV makes a few unforgivable mistranslations (i.e., translating the Hebrew word Sheol as "grave"). Obviously, this is one reason why the Adventist Book Centers now feature NIV Bibles. All in all, the ESV and the NASB continue to be my favorites of the 38 Bibles in my library. Dennis Fischer Snackbar for the Soul: If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we are going? | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 36 Registered: 3-2008 |
Well here's my $0.02 opinion, since that's what we're looking at here. The first thing I note is that the New Testament was written in Koine greek, which was the language of the marketplace, for the street, it was the language of the common people, presumeable so that they could understand what was written. So for me, I have to find a version that I can understand. What I have been using the past few years is the New Living Translation. Love it. My Bible growing up was the KJV and just couldn't make any sense out of it. Also had trouble with Shakespeare so maybe that's why! Probably had a lot to do with my becoming an Adventist because of those darn proof texts that seemed so clear in the KJV. Like Daniel 8:14 "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Cause then they showed me a text that they say proves that a prophetic day equals a year and voila you have 2300 years. And then they took the word "cleansed" and somehow showed it had something to do with the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement. Before I knew it I had bought into the Adventist teaching on 1844 and the investigative judgment all going back to Dan 8:14 in the KJV. But when you read it in a modern translation, such as the NLT, it translates Dan 8:14 "The other replied, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the Temple will be made right again.” So now you can see its not referring to prophetic days but to the evening & morning sacrifices referenced in Dan 8:13; and that it has no reference at all to the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement, but simply that after a period of time the temple would be made right again by the resumption of the daily sacrifices. That's why conservative Adventists and Adventist evangelists use the KJV or the NKJV, since they find they can't "proove" their pet doctrinces from the modern translations. And why they get so defensive when you suggest that they should replace their KJV with a newer translation. And probably why they came up with the Clear Word Bible since they wanted a newer easier to read translation that speaks Adventist lingo. But I digress. So the first thing I look at is to find a translation that speaks in my language. The second thing I look at is I check out the introduction to any version, and try to find out which Hebrew & Greek manuscripts were used when translating. I look for versions that utilize the latest scholarship and recent discoveries of the earliest manuscripts. Which again is why I steer clear of the KJV or NKJV. Just trying to get as close as possible to the original autographs. Anyways, I wish you well Hec in finding the right version for you. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5683 Registered: 9-2006 |
Is there a version that speaks in Possum Jaw Arky? "He tuk his fanger and writ on the ground, when he looked up, they had tuc off." River |
