Most used Bible version

Page 6 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last »
This post has 185 Replies | 6 Followers

Posts 19333
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 2:45 PM

fgh:
Somehow, I suspect Jesus spoke in prose...

I wonder whether he knew that? Wink

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: By my faith! For more than forty years I have been speaking prose without knowing anything about it, and I am much obliged to you for having taught me that.

(from Molière's play Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme [The Middle Class Gentleman])

Posts 236
Michael March | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 3:26 PM

ESV - love it and we use it in worship

RSV - grew up with it and most of my memory verses are here, I also think it is the most beautiful.

NASB - not so much anymore with the original language help in Logos, it was my "literal" translation

MSG - I consider this a commentary more than anything else, but I greatly appreciate it.

NLT - just to get another point of view

KJV - still use for funerals in Psalms

Windows PC - Android Phone - Surface Pro 4

Posts 2541
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 5:51 PM

I came very close to canceling  "The First Bible of the Church" prepub simply because of the amount of prepubs I have recently purchased.  Thankfully, I reconsidered my decision Monday morning and kept it.  I have not read it yet, but will be shortly.

Posts 2875
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 6:41 PM

Ted Hans:

David Ames:
  There have been attempts to update the language of the KJV but they always try to "improve" or "correct" instead of just updating the words (RV  ASV   NKJV   RSV etc)

I was rather surprise to see that you included the NKJV in your list of attempting to "improve" or "correct" the KJV. What I have seen so far is that the NKJV attempts to update the language of the KJV. It seems you differ. Would you be kind a enough to point me to a source for your assertion? I may have missed something - when I did a text comparison (KJV & NKJV) in Logos I came to the conclusion that the NKJV was essentially the KJV but with updated language. That said I have not checked all the verses OT and NT so I may have concluded wrongly

Any book recommendation or internet site would be welcomed to check this out? One finds out something new every day.

Blessings

Ted

I teach a church class for 10 to 13 year olds and my wife teaches the 7 to 10 year olds.  We personally supplied the 7 to 10 class with about a dozen copies of the NKJV (can not get the older ones to bring their bibles to class how do we expect the younger ones to? Bought our grandsons KJV.).  It is a good translation but it has made changes to the KJV text not just updated the wording.

Matthew 7:14   possibly a different meaning of the word – but why change?

Matthew 18:26 missing a phrase

Matthew 20:20 same phrase still missing 

Mark 16:9  - see foot note  (left in the text but taken away by the footnote - How do I explain that to a 9 year old?)

["was essentially the KJV" - "essentially" but not the same - within 95% the KJV and the NIV "essentially" are the same - I have personally reviewed Matthew verse by verse to get that count]  [and We get all hot and bothered by that 5%]  [as for a web site - most anti- KJV and anti-NKJV sites turn me off - they go way too far and backup half of what they say] 

 

Posts 2875
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 6:45 PM

Ronald Quick:

I came very close to canceling  "The First Bible of the Church" prepub simply because of the amount of prepubs I have recently purchased.  Thankfully, I reconsidered my decision Monday morning and kept it.  I have not read it yet, but will be shortly.

I did cancel it - I have already accepted the LXX as the first Bible of the Church (and have read Brenton's translation) 

Posts 2875
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 6:59 PM

Shawn Drewett:

I have absolutely no authority on this forum, but it would grieve me if this thread led to a heated debate on the the relevancy/non-relevancy of the KJV today. I come from a people who are destroying themselves with this issue. 

One of the reasons that I like Logos is that it gives me access to many versions.   My personal thoughts is that when we get into the 5% of the text where they differ we are in trouble.  Stick with the other 95% and there is the Word of God. [that is if the versions disagree then don't use that section of the text - find the same topic elsewhere where they all agree [and some of the tools show me exactly where they differ and in color!]]  [Yes, this topic has split Churches]

[I hope that I have not ignored any one that replied to me and I hope that I have replied as our Master has taught us]

 

Posts 7
Mike Priest | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 7:58 PM

1. NIV
2. ESV
3. LEB
4. Message

Posts 483
Gary Butner, Th.D. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 7 2010 8:04 PM

ESV, NASB`995, HCB, NKJV, and KJV

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 8:02 AM

 

David Ames:

Matthew 18:26 missing a phrase

Matthew 20:20 same phrase still missing 

Thanks David for the response. I found the two verses above in support for your contention.

David Ames:
Matthew 7:14   possibly a different meaning of the word – but why change?

Not a change just an update in Language.

David Ames:
Mark 16:9  - see foot note  (left in the text but taken away by the footnote - How do I explain that to a 9 year old?)

I did not find this in my print or Logos edition, meaning It was not left in the text. All that was present is just a number next to Mark 16:9 pointing to a footnote.

 

Blessings and I appreciate you taking the time to point this out to me.

Ted

 

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 455
David Buckham | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 8:48 AM

1 - NET - I preach from it (Very readable although I find it quirky but faithful and I love the various notes)

2 - NASBu (1995) - I teach from it (I find it faithful but wooden and I love my Key Word Study Bible)

3 - NIV - I read it when no one is looking (mine is way marked up w/ personal notes from my "early" ministry years but I find it theologically bi-polar)

4 - KJV - My go to for memorization as a child...and still connects with me

all about Christ,

David Buckham

http://thinkspurlove.blogspot.com

 

 

Posts 1523
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 9:38 AM

David Royer:
Archaic language? I prefer to say our language has changed from that of 1611, but this language of seventeenth century England is simply beautiful.

I agree that some parts of the KJV have a certain elegance not found with modern translations, but I am not reading the Bible because it looks or sounds pretty. I want to understand it.

Ambassage, anon, bishopric, broided, bruit, collops, concupiscence, murrain, rereward, scrip, wot, etc. are not words I'd want to run in to while doing a devotional or casual reading.

To each their own.

Posts 5631
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 9:54 AM

Ted Hans:

David Ames:
Matthew 7:14   possibly a different meaning of the word – but why change?

Not a change just an update in Language.

That's a good example of why updates are necessary.  "Strait" does not mean "straight".  "Strait" means narrow.  A reader might catch the difference, but a listener would assume they heard "straight".

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 2875
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 10:30 AM

Todd Phillips:

Ted Hans:

David Ames:
Matthew 7:14   possibly a different meaning of the word – but why change?

Not a change just an update in Language.

That's a good example of why updates are necessary.  "Strait" does not mean "straight".  "Strait" means narrow.  A reader might catch the difference, but a listener would assume they heard "straight".

Not the word I was thinking of.  Try moving 5 words ahead.  [i.e. I have no problem with "Strait" means narrow] But as I said, this too could be ' just an update in Language'

Posts 2855
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 8 2010 11:35 AM

David Ames:
Not the word I was thinking of.  Try moving 5 words ahead.  [i.e. I have no problem with "Strait" means narrow] But as I said, this too could be ' just an update in Language'
Point taken,I do take it as an update. Many thanks & regards. Ted

3Because narrow is the gate and 4difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. [1]



3 NU, M How narrow ...!

4 confined

[1] The New King James Version. 1982 (Mt 7:14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 15
David Royer | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 10 2010 3:59 AM

 

Joshua Garcia:
I agree that some parts of the KJV have a certain elegance not found with modern translations, but I am not reading the Bible because it looks or sounds pretty. I want to understand it.

Is it really that hard? In my early days in the KJV, Strongs was a big help, but once you learn these "new" words, they really stick with you. For the fear of the difficulty of reading the KJV, once a person has spent time in it, a person should have no problem.

While I was new with the KJV, I did read it slowly to make sure I understood it which gave me a nice benefit. These passages that I read slowly in the KJV stuck with me like glue, whereas what I "sped read" in the NIV weren't understood or retained as well. Although, today, I find no problem going quickly through the KJV, I have learned the importance of slow reads.

Yes, you are right. To each his own. While I would always encourage someone to read the King James, it certainly is a person's choice.

Posts 263
Steve Clevenger | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 10 2010 4:24 AM

NKJV>NASB>ESV>KJV>NIV>NET

Posts 1680
Jerry M | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 10 2010 5:09 AM

David Royer:
the King James, it certainly is a person's choice

Generally children aren't given a choice.  Adult preferences are chosen for them.

"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"      Wiki Table of Contents

Posts 3917
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 10 2010 5:27 AM

David Buckham:
1 - NET - I preach from it (Very readable although I find it quirky but faithful and I love the various notes)

 

That's interesting.  I find your description kind of funny, incidentally, but exactly how I look at it.  :)  But the interesting part is your preaching from it.  How does that work for you, with most of your congregation probably not having it, and what led you to feel you needed to preach from it, not just use it as a base for study?

 

Personally, I have Multiple Translation Disorder.  While I do a lot with the NIV because it is the pew Bible.  Here are some of my translation thoughts and usages:

NIV--an old friend going back to when my college switched to it from the RSV study Bible.  Helpful to read, not always helpful to study

KJV--yes, beautiful, yes, well-known, historical.  But you don't need the extra layer of difficulty to make study meaningful  Serious study is difficult enough as it is.  But I do like its more literal translations, I pick up on things that I don't get in dynamic equivalency, such as "to walk" in Ephesians, used both for the evil ways of our former life and our new purpose of walking in good works.  NIV just has "way we used to live" etc.  More generic.

ISV--only NT, which stinks, but there are times when their translation choice is spot on and different than the rest.  Only use it for comparison.

ESV--great Bible.  Love it.  Sometimes they really could have picked words that weren't so archaic, or translation that flowed a bit better, but overall, very good and pretty faithful.

TNIV--gender stuff aside, I like the improvements it makes over the NIV, better/accurate translation.  No interlinear.  Dang.

LEB--like it.  Keep forgetting to add it to my favs.


NET.  See Buckham, above, except for the preaching part.

NASB.  Good standby.  Don't use it much unless I really want to compare literalness.


NAB--quite a surprise, like it frequently.  Sometimes weird translation choices.

NIrV--use it when I want people to understand a text better during sermons.

Message--quite faithful to the original languages and good one-to-one correspondence.  

 

So, who's having a heart attack on that last one?  Just kidding on my assessment.  But I do like how he phrases things and I never go to war over it.  It is what it is.  Relax.

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 455
David Buckham | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 10 2010 2:13 PM

The decision to preach from the NET was a hard decision. It was not one made over night. I live in an area where their are several (well over half) KJV only churches. There is one church so strong on this position they have had a Bible burning for non-KJV Bibles.

I was raised on the KJV and then I started using the NIV as I became a student of the Bible. When I went off to Bible College (I'm from the Restoration Movement) they relied and insisted on the NASB/NASBu. I enjoyed the NASBu very much but it didn't flow well.

Well, I went into the ministry and found most people using the NIV...but I didn't like it anymore. It felt theologically bipolar. It was and is a very readable text...but still not what I felt comfortable using.

About a year and a half ago I started studying with the NET. I found some real oddities with it...but I understood where it was going and where it was coming from. It is, in my opinion, the most transparent translation out there. I know who, what, when, where and why for the vast majority of the text...which is something I can't say with other translations. The NET was also very readable.

While not a single person at the church I serve uses a NET on a regular basis (some use it through YouVersion at church now) they have proven to be a group that enjoy following along.

This week I begin preaching a series from Isaiah 9:6 which is again, faithful but quirky. Wonderful Counselor is translated as Extraordinary Strategist. The NET has given me a great opportunity to push the congregation to look at the text. For what it's worth, my wife still uses her NASBu...which I still feel to be a superior translation, but not the most readable (easy to comprehend).

If you ever want to talk more about this, I LOVE two way translation conversations and chatting with other ministers about ministry. I'm young and still growing and love being challenged and if God so uses, challenging others. My email is a google mail address and the username is dbuckham...I am sure you can figure out the electronic postal address from that.

all about Christ,

David Buckham

http://thinkspurlove.blogspot.com

 

 

Posts 2900
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 12 2010 7:43 PM

The English Bibles I use are

1. NIV

2. KJV

3.  NASV

4.  NLT

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Page 6 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last » | RSS