Posted on 01/13/2020 7:29:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Well Jesus spoke King James english,,shouldnt we only follow the actual words he spoke?
One of the reasons I’m partial to the New King James Version is that it uses the TR greek as the bases of the NT. Where the TR disagrees with the more modern greek NT, it mentions that in the reference notes. So the NKJV gives you the KJV feel and manuscript foundation in an easier to read Bible.
But just so you know, outside of the American Standard 1903 and possibly the Revised Standard (and the Jehovah Witness Bible NWT), Westcott and Hort is not used anymore. The most common greek is UBS i think revision 4 and NA revision 28. There is another method that uses a mix of manuscripts such as that used by the NIV.
“I have no patience for the KJV only crowd”
It’s like a cult.
While I have several different translations, the ones I have settled on are the KJV, and the NASB bible for some of the more (dark) obscure passages. I also use a Catholic NAB Bible for some reading.
Ones I stay away from are the so-called New World translation of the JWs, and the “Inspired” version of Joseph Smith. Even the Mormons don’t use that but the Reorganized mormons do. Smith simply fabricated several sections out of his own mind.
Then there are other “non-standard” ones to stay away form such as the “Queen James” homo bible.
Thank you!
Thanks for asking. You came to the right place!
The short answer is ALL versions can be useful.
1. NIV
(all “New International Version” bibles are not the same! “NIV” ONLY from these folks)
2. NKJV
New King James Version. NIV is my first go to with NKJV as my first parallel.
3.KJV
King James Version. For comparison only, who can actually READ the KJV.
4.
Many various versions, The Message, The 1599 Geneva Bible, Amplified Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, The Voice, ALL versions can be useful.
For newbies (everyone)
I did not see mentioned in the article The Codex Sinaiticus
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ ( the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity )
It’s not complete and is still being translated. To save you the trouble, I have determined that it translates to a mixture of the KJV and the NKJV.
A concordance is helpful, I have “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible”.
I also have an English literal translation from the Greek New Testament. It’s not for reading per se, but for understanding what was meant in the Greek through literal translation vs prose or other means of making it flow/readable.
See my tagline.
Holman’s seems pretty good. But having side by side comparison Bibles, some of these modern versions seem to change context and manipulate meaning.
And what was your point?
One question that the article doesn’t even discuss is:
#4 Which commentaries and other study helps will help you most?
If the author had it would tell us a lot about his personal theology.
If I am going to read multiple chapters at a time, I like the New Living Translation. Yeah, it is a loose translation but I find it good for reading, say, the book of Romans.
I use the New American Standard or New King James as more literal translations for short readings and study.
I like the ESV and Good News translations. I have the Bible Gateway app on my phone, so during a sermon, I may compare more versions - such as the Geneva Bible, or the New Matthew (essentially Tyndale’s translation with updated English)or the Young’s Literal Translation.
We are blessed to have many options, but really? A person could use the ESV, or NASB, or NKJV for the rest of their life and not have a problem.
yes, but because it strives to be so literal the language can be a bit clunky. The ESV is essentially just as literal but is more “readable”.
The 1984 NIV is very readable and OK on accuracy.
The 2011 NIV is best deposited in the nearest round receptacle. It is a politically driven, gender neutral translation that is torture to read where it has been mangled.
My point is that many who think it wise to advise others on the fine points of theology have little to no actual understanding of what the Bible teaches. Sorry if that offends.
Maybe that's why a lot of today's kids have problems reading and understanding Shakespeare's work. Interesting idea for a correlation vice causation analysis...
I thought it was a revision of the original RSV. The RSV is a good translation. The NRSV is not in my opinion - it takes too many liberties with the text.
I read of a more modern translation that reads, "Don't diss the cat upstairs. It ain't cool and payback's a monster."
I agree 100% and the reader should beware that the NIV being sold new today is the horrible 2011 version. To get the 1984 edition you have to buy it used.
Luke 9:44
KJV Let these sayings sink down into your ears...
ESV Let these words sink into your ears...
NASB Let these words sink down into your ears...
NIV 84 Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you...
Acts 26:28
KJV Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
NIV 84 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"
Here the NIV and KJ versions differ sharply; King James has Agrippa making a quip. I can imagine Festus and Bernice standing nearby snickering.
In the NIV account he asks a question, which I interpret as a scornful demand, as if he we raising his voice.
Correct circlecity, the Revised Std version, you are correct.
The problem with the RSV is more political than anything
because the rights are owned by the National Council of Churches and Conservative Evangelical’s don’t want to pay them royalties. That is the theory behind the reasoning for the Holman Christian Standard Bible (CSB). The Southern Baptist Convention wanted to get away from paying Zondervan royalties for using the NIV. That is also the reason for the ESV, reformed Church groups wanted to have their own translation that wasn’t the NIV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.