What is your primary English translation?
Comments
-
Bob Deacon said:
having the HCSB as a Reverse Interlinear.
I do not want to offer false hope but I do believe that it was stated if not being worked on was something seriously being considered.
-Dan
0 -
Bob Deacon said:
having the HCSB as a Reverse Interlinear.
I do not want to offer false hope but I do believe that it was stated if not being worked on was something seriously being considered.
-Dan
0 -
Diego Lara said:
(edited)
How else does the MEV differ from the KJV or KJV updates?
Since by leaving certain terms untranslated in this update, it may appear that a Greek text other than the Textus Receptus was used. Such is not the case. A different English rendering is being used to retranslate the Textus Receptus while updating the King James Version manuscript.
When using the Textus Receptus as the base text for a contemporary English translation, the translators cannot use archaic, non-standard, purely literalistic English, nor fail to use what is known today about linguistics and ancient literary and cultural understandings in contemporary English translations.
Why was the MEV dedicated to Queen Elizabeth II?
The MEV was dedicated to Her Majesty Elizabeth II because it is an update of the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version, which was dedicated to His Royal Highness James I.
KJV to MEV and I thought that they were only updating the language!!!
Isaiah 9:3
KJV 1900 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy: They joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, And as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
MEV You have multiplied the nation and increased the joy; they rejoice before You according to the joy of harvest and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Genesis 2:7
KJV 1900 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a LIVING SOUL.
MEV Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a LIVING BEING.
Matthew 16:26
KJV 1900 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his SOUL?
MEV For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his SOUL?
Genesis 32:28
KJV 1900 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for AS A PRINCE HAST THOU POWER with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
MEV Then the man said, “Your name will no more be called Jacob, but Israel. For YOU HAVE FOUGHT WITH God and with men, and have prevailed.”
0 -
reluctantly, the 2011 NIV
0 -
The NASB for a couple of reasons. It is the most literal English translation available, and on top of that, when the translators chose a freer option for the sake of clarity, they usually (though not always, unfortunately) include a note that tells what the original language actually says. This is extremely valuable. In the Greek scriptures, the NASB is one of the only translations to identify the so-called "historical present"; it is ignored and rendered as past tense by nearly all other translations...a serious oversight.
Also, by happy coincidence, the NASB (with the exception of one of the KJV options) is the only translation (due to its literalness) in Libronix that provides an instantaneous pop-up of the Strong's citation. This is one of the many reasons that L3 far surpasses L> in usability advantages.
I also occasionally reference the NKJV & KJV in order to factor in the Byzantine text form.
All this said, I prefer the NASB not because I think it is so great, but because it is the best platform from which to dive into the Hebrew and Greek.
Regarding the NET, I whole-heartedly agree that it has fabulous notes, but anyone who carefully reads those notes ought to recognize that the Bible itself is practically garbage. I say this because of the translators' predilection for altering the text at the drop of a hat. The NET folks, riffing on Will Rogers, seem to never have met an emendation they didn't like. They do it so often, I am almost ashamed to quote from it. I have occasionally found a place where they reject a proposed emendation made by other scholars, but its relatively rare. For this reason, I highly advise caution in using the NET as a Bible. As a textual commentary--yes. As a Bible--NO.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
All this said, I prefer the NASB not because I think it is so great, but because it is the best platform from which to dive into the Hebrew and Greek.
The Lexham English Bible (LEB) preface includes "the LEB achieves an unparalleled level of transparency with the original language text ..."
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I still come back to the KJV. I'm most comfortable with it, but I do use multiple translations during study.
0 -
NASB, NASBU, NET-core reading and study; anything else is a comparison version
0 -
I've been using the LEB as my primary translation for the last 10 months or so with the ESV as my default fall-back choice. I've been reading a fairly eclectic range recently, though - I'm reading a chapter a day from Everett Fox's translation of the 5 books of Moses at the mo, and planning to read James Jordan's translation of the Psalms for my second cycle through them later this year. Just nabbed Doug Wilson's verse translation of the Song of Songs too - the latter two are for other formats, though, which makes it less likely that I'll get through them (I really lean heavily on Logos' ability to create reading plans - that alone has made more difference to me than any other feature in Logos).
0 -
1. NASB
2. NKJV
3. NIV ('84)
4. LEB
5. NLT
I feel like that grouping gives me a diverse enough set to work with. Literal translations from both the CR and TR, along with a solid dynamic equivalent and updated semi-paraphrase without going off the reservation entirely (i.e. Message).
0 -
In Logos, I normally use EOB:NT, RSV2CE, KJV + Apocrypha, and NABRE. For the LXX versions of the Old Testament, I normally use Brenton or Lexham English Septuagint. I hope that Faithlife produces the Orthodox Study Bible soon, despite its lousy 'Gathering Interest' status (and it had better be more than just the Notes, as the title implies!)
0 -
I primarily use the NRSV because I'm in seminary and that's what my professors require for in-class reading and for the papers that we write. I have come to actually prefer it over other translations because it's a good all-purpose translation (devotional reading, study/exegesis, teaching/preaching, congregational reading, etc). I mostly used the NIV before I started school since that's what my previous church used and that is the bible that I used as a young adult beginning to study the bible for myself.
Here are my top bibles:
1. NRSV - Balance b/t Formal/Dynamic, easy to read, transparency in footnotes to textual issues, has the Apocrypha, scholarly, incorporates DSS
2. LEB - I've been using this a lot more lately to check my translations from the Greek
3. ESV - Similar to the NRSV in structure but evangelical theological perspective, great comparison text for the NSRV
4. NABRE - Detailed helpful footnotes, different (catholic) theological perspective
5. JPS Tanakh - Great comparison text for OT study (I wish Logos would make a reverse interlinear for it), Jewish perspective, MT textual basis
6. CEB - Uses non-traditional language for theological terms, fresh translation, easy to read, has the Apocrypha
0 -
NKJV, NASB 1977 & 95, NIV1984 and Jewish NT plus Tanak. The only old English Bible that I use is the ASV 1901.
Surprisingly some places won't hire you unless you use KJ 1611 or ASV 1901 funny 😂
DAL
0 -
My top three are ESV, CJB and TLV in Logos. I am starting to use Fox's Five Books of Moses for Parashah readings
I can't work at all anymore without looking at the Greek text for any length of time. It's not a matter of having good translations. I can't even explain it. I always see something better.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
For reading, studying, preaching, etc. I use the NIV2011. Sure it isn't perfect but I believe it does a good job of balancing accuracy and meaning. This balance is primary for me in a bible translation.
In the Text Comparison tool I use the following in this order (reflecting the translation spectrum).
1. ESV
2. CSB
3. NIV2011
4. NCV
5. NLT
A note for all those praising their word for word versions (nothing wrong with that) can I refer you to Bill Mounce's plea for us to stop using the word 'literal' when what we really mean is word-for-word: https://billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/what-%E2%80%9Caccurate%E2%80%9D-translation
Cheers. Liam ;-)
Carpe verbum.
0 -
For personal use, I prefer the NASB95. I have used the ESV occasionally but see little advantage to it over the NASB95. The audio ESV in Logos is nice though.
Otherwise, I have to use the NRSV because it is used more widely in academic settings. It is also handy to consult the deuterocanonical books as needed.
I use the NIV only in services because this is the text my church uses.
Every blue moon or so, I may read in the NLT for a change. I find it useful to get through more tedious sections (long genealogies, census lists and descriptions of the tabernacle and temple measurements, construction, and furniture).
0
