The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Which Bible version(s)?

Pilgrim,

I did mention reservations to NIV in my first post to "J. Edwards" and specifically my objection to the translator's use of dynamic equivalence principle which I believe is faulted. However, I felt that it was a translation superior at least to the RSV.

Perhaps I need to stick to my guns and endorse NKJV and KJV at avoidance to all others.

This has become a very serious issue in some circles, and especially in the circles I move in.

I still preach and teach from the old KJV, even with all of its archaic language, etc. However, I have great respect for the NKJV, as well as the MKJV. Being a Particular Baptist the MKJV (Jay Green is solidly Reformed) is the better choice but it is not all that readily available.

As I prefer the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform, I also prefer English versions based on that textform, although the number of translations based on the Byzantine textform are few in number so choices are rather limited.

When I answered the poll I included the Geneva, KJV, and NKJV, as well as the "Hebrew and Greek." However, I rely primarily on the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the 1894 Scrivener TR, which I believe to be the most accurate representations of the autographs, and such hair splitting was not an option.

I too prefer bibles translated using a more formal equivalency as opposed to dynamic equivalence, recognizing that in some cases formal translation does not accurately convey the meaning of the original.

#1--ESV
#2--NASB
#3--NIV
#4--NKJV

I use one of three versions. The latter I will tell you about in a moment. For me, the NIV was the version I used as a child to memorize scripture, and it wasn't until the college years at Erskine that I was introduced to the "KJV Only" argument ( which I rejected...). I was being influenced a lot by MacArthur then, and so I sought out some of his tapes on scriptural canonization. I liked his arguments FOR NASB, and have liked it a lot since then. The NKJV reads a lot like the NASB. ( In most places, to me it does, I guess its a subjective thing)...

I like Michael Card, and have been influenced to sometimes re-read passages in the NLT which he endorses. I have to admit sometimes I like their wording.. but all of these translations pale in comparison to the internet... LOL

I use Blueletter Bible a LOT. When doing a verse or word study, you can read differenet translations of the passage ( they list almost all of the ones in this poll, as well as from the Latin texts). you can do word studies, and they have linked the strongs numbering system to it. There are commentaries and audio and visual aids as well. I was helping my Dad move bookshelves and books, and I commented that I wondered how seminaries and seminary students were reacting to being able to get all of these 'books' ( which once were deemed essential, and necessary for their class) online.

The latest version which I have been reading is simply called "The Scriptures" : http://www.isr-messianic.org/pubs/the_scriptures.shtml

I posted on another forum this information, and I guess it bears repeating: I like how they translate almost directly from the text. (e.g. John 1:14 Most translations state: "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us" ) and they will translate that phrase ('dwelt among us' or the aorist tense of the word Skenoo as 'pitched a tent' which it means literally, and it also pictures the early tabernacle in the desert and God proclaiming his Presence was among them-- which then Jesus fulfilled in the Incarnation when he 'was made flesh', 'all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily'... God was now with us).

OK so thats my example. I like a lot more about this translation, and I really hope it catches on.

OK, just my two copper coins on this subject..

I love the NKJV and have the Reformation study bible in that text along with the Spirit of the Reformation Study bible in NIV text. I love both bibles but prefer the NKJV the best.
One thing I am curious about though, what is the difference between the Modern King James bible the NKJV and the 21st Century King James Bible? Are they all based upon the same Greek and Hebrew text of the original King James bible?

Here is the url where you may find out more about the MKJV Modern King James Version

Since this particular bible society aligns itself with such people as the Sacred Names group what makes you think that this is a particularly better translation? I mean why translate the name of Jesus back into the Hebrew form when the originals were Greek? Why is this better?

Well to be quite honest I hadn't realized this group aligned itself with such a group. In fact I didn't realize this group had actually coalesced into such a movement. I have run into people from time to time who insisted on referring to Jesus as Yashua, or Yeshua ( One way is Hebrew, one way is Greek... ok)... plus some of these people I have met in chat rooms have believed you had to pronounce verbally the Hebraic pronunciation of Jesus ( Yahshua or Gk Yeshua).. I've always thought that was flaky.

From my understanding, as far as God the Father ( or the 1st person of the Godhead's) name is concerned, we really don't know how it is pronounced since the Jewish writers omitted vowels in the scrolls.

The Scriptures translation, was originally a project from a group of South African Messianic Jews. Since that time, it appears their website has merged with this other one. I checked out a couple links after you said that, and am still reading.

I can't say I agree with the Sacred Names Movement's theology... I think if I pronounce the name "jesus" in English.. the Lord looks on the heart and knows I am addressing him. As far as pronouncing the OT name YHWH, I pronounce it like we have always heard it.. but I think their translation does re-focus us on the sanctity and 'seperated-ness' of Gods name.. and on the real definition of other words which we have 'church-ized' ( Boy my English teacher would throw an Oxfords at me for making all these words up)..

I find no problem with the scriptures translation, and I asm not proposing their theology.. perhaps it is possible, that there is something good to be found in this translation, and we can accept it, without accepting their belief system.

Please forgive me if you think I was trying to push an agenda I do not have--

I just have rediscovered a new 'awe' when I read this version.. I know it sounds experiential, not providing empirical data, and smacks of existentialism.. but all I can do is respond to whatever objection you may raise against this translation in the affirmative or the negative.. I can't support this group. But I do like this bible translation.

Does that help 'flesh' out my motives any better?

Whoa Hoss I'm not accusing you of an agenda I'm just asking you if you know about the people these translators are aligning themselves with. Obviously you didn't.

I know. I just wanted to state for you that fact. Also you know tones can be mis-interpreted from time to time on these boards. I was trying to reply with a humble one, and to also be upfront with what I did and did not know.

I have been doin gsome research on these 'Sacred Names' groups. While at first, it seemed to me as if they were trying to 're-capture' the sacredness of Gods name ( something I feel we all need to do from time to time)-- it seems their intentions go way deeper. From this movement, evidently there is a spinoff of observance of 'holy days of the holy calendar' and then down at the bottom of it all-- there lies Herbert Armstrong ( who seems to be the one who initiated all of this long ago). Talk about the dead speaking from beyond the grave--And to think that some people thought he was the long awaited Son of God manifesting himself-- thankfully the real Jesus rose from his grave, and never looked back.. Herb's still rotting away as far as I know-- awaiting Gods Judgement.

End result, I like the bible. I feel creepy now knowing about all of this that is so 'entangled' up with it.

Thanks for the input and guidance there.

No charge and btw did anyone ever tell you you look an awful lot like Francis Schaeffer? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Just assure me your not wandering around in liederhosen that's all I ask.

As a new user, I was very pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the non-combative responses on this extremely volatile subject! Now for my 2 cents worth. I have recently returned to the KJV, and I am beginning to appreciate it a whole lot, which I did not in the past. One of the reasons is that I have recently completed an excellent 500-page book on this subject called, 'While Men Slept,' by Kerby Fannin. A real eye-opener. I also like very much the NKJV, and think it is very well done, except it appears that changes occur in the text without Nelson's acknowledging same. Unfortunately, there are presently 'zilch' quality editions available. I love the ESV, and would have no prob with this becoming the 'standard' Bible. Unfortunately, Crossway Bibles are crap. Almost, if not just as shoddy as Nelson.I enjoy the ASV of 1901, but I do not enjoy 'Jehovah' in the OT. I have never trusted the NIV. I have a gazillion of them at home, but I never get very far with it, cuz something just puts me off with the NIV.

I really like the ESV. I'ts great for both reading and study. I have the Reformation Study Bible ESV and love it. One of the worst ones in my opinion is The Message paraphrase. It's sooo dumbed down to the point it loses alot of the original meaning.

Anyone use or have any comments on the Amplified Bible?

I have had a copy of the "Amplified New Testament" for years but I haven't looked at it in a very long time. It can be helpful in certain circumstances, but remember it is a "loose" translation, i.e., there is far more interpretative material (dynamic equivalence) in it than the historic translations, which use a "formal equivalence" method of translation, e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, and ESV. In short, I would never rely upon it as my standard text no more than I would the NIV or any of the zillion translations that use a "Dynamic Equivalence" method of translation.... which IMHO deny divine inspiration to one degree or another.

In His grace,