With so many versions to choose from, I am curious, which is your favorite translation and why?
-
Defcon Comments
Kfilla on How to think like a Roman… fleebabylon on Seeing the handwriting on the… DavidW on Seeing the handwriting on the… Bruce on An attendee reports on the Cor… michael henry on How to think like a Roman… dale mcalpine on How to think like a Roman… Jgehret on Seeing the handwriting on the… lyn on How to think like a Roman… kfilla on How to think like a Roman… sueliz1 on How to think like a Roman… Kfilla on How to think like a Roman… fleebabylon on Pagan Christianity? fourpointer on How to think like a Roman… Glenn E. Chatfield on Ten (very) quick questions for… CD-Host on Ten (very) quick questions for… -
Posts by DefCon Contributors
-
Contributors
-
Pilgrim
thejunglemissionary
Bill
Manfred
abidingthroughgrace
Chris Hohnholz
NIV-Easy to read and understand and not a paraphrase.
KING JAMES ONLY!! IF YOU DO NOT USE IT, YOU ARE ALREADY CONDEMNED!!
Just kidding.
Seriously, though, when I’m trying to memorize a verse, I do like the KJV. For some reason, I just remember better using it. However, when preparing a sermon, I usually use the NKJV and/or the ESV. They are accurate and easy to communicate from.
I also prefer the NIV, for the sake of comprehending what I’m reading in the Scriptures (I never quite got the hang of understanding the Old English-which was reflected in my high school Shakespeare unit). However, certain passages such as the Lord’s Prayer & the 10 Commandments, I’m more used to hearing from the KJV.
What is your preferred translation?
KJV.
Why?
First, would be the manuscript evidence from which a translation is derived. There is greater manuscript evidence in the Byzantine/Majority Text (5,200+ manuscripts), upon which the KJV is based. This, and other factors, equate to greater accuracy, in my view. By contrast, the Alexandrian/Minority Text is comprised of ~45 manuscripts and there were questionable practices in their collection and translation. Some of the significant differences in the new translations also give me reason for concern.
Second, I enjoy the majestic and poetic nature of the KJV language. It’s not that difficult to understand if one studies it. When quoting the KJV, those hearing are also reminded that the Bible is a historical work.
Third, when I was saved at the age of eighteen (18), the knowledge I received of the Gospel message was taken from the KJV translation. It’s like the first time you understand your parents sacrifice for you because they love you, or the first love letter you receive from your spouse, or the first time your child wrote a letter to you with the words “I love you” — It’s special.
Latin Vulgate for me. (The Latin is a translation of Hebrew & Greek originals; I read Latin) The best English Translation is the Douay-Rhiems. The Vulgate was done by St Jerome with texts now unavailible to us. Jerome was a scholar whose expertise in ancient language and idiom was acknowleged by the Rabbis of his era, who used to consult him on grammatical points.
The Kings James is not as accurate a translation of the original languages although it is very lovely English.
KJV is a beautiful ceremonial translation, but the average modern reader is unable to explain back what they read. With few people really working toward a classical education, it is fast becoming an archaic translation. There are also some translation errors (like those famous passages where the KJV refers to God the Holy Spirit as “it” instead of “He”.) There is also an issue of unintentional bias within the KJV… which was translated exclusively by a comittee of Anglicans and often shares their theological view. When one has knoweldge of these issues and developes a keen mind capable of reading the older form of English with comprehension, the KJV is a wonderful thing to read.
The Latin Vulgate is wonderful, but I read it about as well as most people read the KJV (I started to pick up Latin just to read the Biblia Sacra Vulgata). To call me a novice would be kind. The wonderful thing about the Vulgate is that Latin grammar and word usage is closer to Greek than English is. The problem is that you have to learn a dead language to enjoy it.
The ESV is my preferred translation to read to people. This is the translation that I quote here and elsewhere. It is easy to understand but is more complete than the NIV translation. The ESV is just as easy to read as the NIV, but it is more faithful to the text. It is the “official” translation used in my synod, so that translation is what is publically read.
…but pound for pound, I like the NASB. It is a very solid and dignified translation of the original Greek. I don’t care if people call it “wooden” or “dry”. This is the Bible that I study with because of its superior grammar and syntax. The NASB has a few rendering issues where the occasional Greek word had a better translation choice, but that number is far less than most English translations. Of the popular English translations, I have found it to be the most clear and true to the original Greek text.
All of these that I mentioned are faithful renderings of God’s Word. My favorite translation is the one that I can get a person to read and study every day.
The important thing is that no English translation of the Bible is divinely inspired in itself. God’s word was revealed in Hebrew and Greek. Elevating any one human translation to the point where it alone is authoritative and holding to that translation as a required dogma is a violation of the first commandment. We serve the Word–not any single translation or commentary. No translation team goes into a project unbaised. Such a thing is impossible. It is important to know that when reading translations. We should always refer back to the Greek texts.