The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum POLL: Bible Versions

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.the-highway.com/cgi-bin/forum/dopoll.pl"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1050378554sbc_and_reformed"><br>Which Bible version do you use most often?<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="1" class="checkboxes"> KJV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="2" class="checkboxes"> NKJV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="3" class="checkboxes"> NIV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="4" class="checkboxes"> NASB<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="5" class="checkboxes"> ESV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="6" class="checkboxes"> RV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="7" class="checkboxes"> ASV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="8" class="checkboxes"> Geneva<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="9" class="checkboxes"> CEV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="10" class="checkboxes"> NLT<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="11" class="checkboxes"> Good News<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="12" class="checkboxes"> RSV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="13" class="checkboxes"> NRSV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="14" class="checkboxes"> The Message<br><br><br><br><INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT NAME="PollSubmit" VALUE="$lang{'SUB_VOTE'}" CLASS="buttons"></FORM> <br><br>Here's an excellent analysis of the 40 current versions...<br><br>http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

It doesn't make much difference, but I thought I would be more specific and say that I use the 1995 update of the NASB, most often. It just took out the "thee's" and "thy's." I'm sure there are some out there that prefer the old version of the NASB. Occasionally I like the old American Standard Version, also.

That's kinda hard actually. My Church uses the KJV exclusively for worship, but mostly for uniformity therein. In personal practice and study, we are free to read, and recomended as well, many other versions. I use the NASB mostly, but also use the KJV often as well. I've read the NIV but feel it is a bit liberal. I was an RSV kinda fellar for a good while, until I became reformed. I don't do paraphrases much, though I have read most of the Living Bible paraphrase. Just toooooo liberal. I have recently been poking around in the NKJV and I like it real well also. But my carry is an NASB. That's my nickel's worth.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

The NIV liberal?<br><br>What makes you say that? I have heard that it is considered one of the more conservative ones.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The NIV liberal?<br><br>What makes you say that?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Perhaps I shouldn't be answering for someone else, but from what was written in the post you are replying to, it appeared to me that he was using the word "liberal" in a different sense than perhaps you are understanding it to mean? The use was not intended to convey a theological reference but possibly one that referred to the method of translation. I too consider "dynamic equivalency" to be something negative and unacceptable when it comes to translating the inspired Word of God. That is why I refuse to use the NIV and have tried to convince people to avoid it and use one of the more "conservative" translations for years. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

Short condensed sentences dominate the NIV. It has also removed many of the connective words (such as 'and', 'so that' and 'for') that linked the thoughts of a passage together. One illustration (among many) is the excluding of 'for' at the beginning of Romans 1:18, thus not allowing the reader to see the association with verses 16-17.<br><br>The NIV often translates the same Greek or Hebrew word into a number of different English words. For example, in Romans 1:3, Paul says that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh". 'Flesh' is an important word in the rest of Romans, and its appearance in the opening verses is very significant. However, the NIV translates it 'human nature' in 1:4, and 'sinful nature' elsewhere in the book. The NIV removes the connection between ideas. They don't allow the reader to build up an idea of what Paul means by 'flesh'.<br><br>The Never Intended Version (NIV) is not IMHO the best of versions, but I would rank it somewhat in another category—a commentary, and not a very good one at that.<br>

I use the NASB and sometimes the NKJV; mostly because I was told early on in my faith that the NASB was the most accurate version. The church that we were members of until we moved used the NIV as well as did the majority of the members. <br><br>There's my 2 cents [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/broke.gif" alt="broke" title="broke[/img]

I don't list it with the NWT or the Josepf Smith KJV, but the NIV just doesn't seem as direct as the NASB or the NKJV. It seems to be translated into a more post-modern jargon and marketed for the masses. Maybe like the dumbed-down version for public education. Also, as I look at old and dead theologians for their understanding, I look at current ones also, and the NIV isn't getting many reformed nods. Just my opinion.<br><br>Lately, I've been reading from the Holman Christian Standard a friend sent me. I'm reading through the NRSV version this year for my daily readings. Sometimes when I visit my mother, I read from her amplified. The NKJV and NASB are the best ones to me.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>

NASB for Bible study.<br>NIV for reading.<br><br>I didn't know, until I read it on this forum, that the thees and thous had been removed from the newer NASB. I'm glad they are gone.<br><br>The NASB, although accurate, is choppy and awkward to read. I notice this again and again. Still, if I could have only one Bible, that is the one I would choose.<br><br>I don't use my NKJV. I will have to do some research on this translation, since it is recommended on this forum. Evidently John MacArthur has a high opinion of it.

Ok! I understand now...<br><br>I have several copies of the NIV, and I will get a copy of the NASB. One copy of the NIV is a study Bible, which lately I have not used because I have realized that I end up reading the "study" parts interspersed with the text. It gets rather choppy, and since I have used a version that has no interspersed commentary I have found my ability to study much easier.

sbc_reformed,<br><br>Here's a link that will show you a chart which compares the different versions/translations of the Bible. The more conservative translations are "word for word" translations, the more liberal are the "thought for thought" versions, and the most liberal are the paraphrase versions.<br><br>Once you get away from the "word for word" translations it depends a lot on the opinion of the translators. In my opinion it becomes a commentary rather than a translation. The positive side of that can be it may be easier to read and understand for some. However it may also be misleading because it's being interpreted by translators who are trying to put it in their own words. Contemporary words and phrases rather than the original words.<br><br>Wes

I am sure we could provide dozens of examples of where the translators of the NIV has taken, let's say liberties? But one that has always impressed me as being blatantly corrupted is Luke 9:62. Compare what any of the "word for word" translations have, e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB with the NIV. My advice would be that you do this sitting down. <br><br>In His Grace,

This is all news to me. I didn't know there were problems in the NIV; except I like to see God captilized and they don't do that. That is just a personal preference of mine.<br><br>This is changing the subject just a little, but does anyone on this forum use a Ryrie Study Bible. <br>I consider mine worth it's weight in gold!<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Once you get away from the "word for word" translations it depends a lot on the opinion of the translators</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, and if you check the backgrounds of some of the translators of the NIV bible, you will have questions about whether or not some of them are even true Christians.

I tried to compare the NIV translation of Luke 9:62 with NKJV and NASB and, guess what?. NIV was not an option on the drop down list. Wonder why.<br><br>Parallel Bible Search = <br><br>