My Top 5 Bibles have changed

I don't have your patience (and enthusiasm!) ... I gave up on their 7th or 8th attempt to ship and instead got a couple of Kindle volumes for the same price. I'll likely get the NEB later.

John

Has your top five changed with the release of the NEB and REB?

Well, No. The NEB and REB mean nothing to me personally.

But My Bible preference has changed.

Around the year 2000 I began looking for a Bible to replace the KJV I had been reading and studying forever.

I first switched to the NKJV, but found that the language just didn't flow well, and it just seemed that something was missing.

Then I tried the NASB95. As everyone already knows, this one is very accurate in a word for word way, but the flow of the English is awkward and "Biblish" in many places. I liked it, but it still didn't "feel" right.

Then came the ESV. I got very excited about the ESV because it promised to be everything that the previous ones weren't ... I used the ESV for several years. But something still seemed lacking. The English didn't flow perfectly everywhere, and it still was not as easy to understand as say the NRSV or the NIV.

Maybe Ironic, but I never really tried the NIV until after the 1984 version was given the axe by its publishers. I bought up a bunch of copies and I had it already in all my Bible software packages. The NIV84 up until recently has seemed to me to be the best overall translation. The English is natural and flows easily, and the more loose "thought for thought" translation method never seemed to deviate from the Original intent much. I am aware of the complaints of some scholars, but consider those to be minor. I found the NIV84 to be the first translation since the KJV that really worked for me.

Unfortunately, its publishers have sabotaged it in order to promote a new "gender neutral" philosophy. I was determined to keep using it anyway as long as I believed it was the best available overall translation. Well, now I have found a translation that is even better.

It is the Holman CSB, or HCSB. It is much more literal than the NIV84, and contains fewer words, yet somehow manages to flow beautifully and accurately in normal English too. It is a brand new translation from scratch, thus loses a lot of the baggage still found in the ESV.

I do not have it in my Logos collection, but I have it on my new Nook E-reader and have been reading a lot. And I really like it. I know it isn't perfect, as no translation is. But it seems to be the best available right now. Not sure what Logos is charging $10 for, as the translation is free on every other platform. I vowed to never spend another penny on Logos resources, but I have been tempted to pay the $10 for this one. The weird thing is that Logos on my Android tablet will display it, but will not download unless I pay the $10. All other platforms the text alone is free. Strongs numbering and the extensive footnotes and references costs more, and the study Bible (which is excellent and I already have the hard copy) costs more still. The Logos website doesn't tell you what features it has, so I am guessing it is just the text alone, which is free on other platforms. Talk of a HSCB reverse interlinear doesn't do much for me because (1) I already have HCSB (free) in Bibleworks and (2) I still use Libronix, and they probably will not make it compatible with Libronix.

In Summary: Love the HCSB. It took me more than 14 years to find a suitable replacement for the old KJV. Not really needing it in Logos. Not enough to upgrade to L5 and deal with all the bugs and issues people are still having.

NEB and REV in my opinion, like many old translations or revisions, have value just for reference. But who would want to use them as their primary Bible?

Dan Francis

My Top 5 Bibles in Logos have changed

1) NRSV

2) NJB

3) REB

4) NAB:RE or NIV 2011

5) The Message

Are mine for what's it worth.

-dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509787#Comment_509787

NEB and REV in my opinion, like many old translations or revisions, have value just for reference. But who would want to use them as their primary Bible?

For myself I could easily see the REB being my primary Bible. To quote a couple reviewers, if memory serves it was from Amazon

`Compared to the other "serious" bible versions, the REB does not have the specific agenda (some say bias) of the NIV. Plus I find it is an easier read than the NRSV; which I also find very good`. and another reader says `The text of this bible is the best ever, since the Authorised Version, as far as dignity and readability are concerned`

I can easily agree with these assessments.

-Dan

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509794#Comment_509794

NEB and REV in my opinion, like many old translations or revisions, have value just for reference. But who would want to use them as their primary Bible?

For myself I could easily see the REB being my primary Bible. To quote a couple reviewers, if memory serves it was from Amazon

Compared to the other "serious" bible versions, the REB does not have the specific agenda (some say bias) of the NIV. Plus I find it is an easier read than the NRSV; which I also find very good. and another reader says The text of this bible is the best ever, since the Authorised Version, as far as dignity and readability are concerned

I can easily agree with these assessments.

-Dan

That's interesting.

Truthfully, I have never read in the NEB or REV. Never even knew they existed.

If it works for you that is great.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509803#Comment_509803

from a review of Gorman, Michael J.,Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers.(Revised and Expanded Edition; Peabody MA; Hendrickson, 2009). Pp. xii+286, Paperback, US$19.95, ISBN 978-1-59856-311-5

In chapter two Gorman focuses on the selection of an English translation for exegesis. He expresses a preference for formal-equivalence translations and divides translations into four categories: 1) preferred for exegesis (NRSV, NAB, TNIV, and NET), 2) useful for exegesis, with caution (RSV, NIV, NASB, REB, ESV, HCSB), 3) unacceptable for exegesis, but helpful in others ways (NLT, NJB, CEV, GNB, The Message), and 4) unacceptable for exegesis (KJV, NKJV, LB).

I think this counts as a bit more than an historical curiosity.

Mike Childs

The NEB did not force me to change, but the demise of the NIV 1984 did. I want to preach from a Bible that is accurate, readable, and widely available for my congregation to use. Of course, it had to be available in Logos. I do most of my exegesis / study in the Greek and Hebrew texts, but I need a good English Bible when preaching. For me that has been the NIV 1984 until the publishers discontinued it. Now it will no longer be available to new Christians in my congregation to purchase. I have to change.

I probably would have picked the ESV personally, but I wanted to consider what my young adult membership is using. Turns out they are mostly using the NLT. At first I thought, "No way." But the more I read it, the more I like it. It is not just a paraphrase like the old "Living Bible". They went back and translated from the Hebrew and Greek, and the scholars who translated it are top notch. (For example, the translators include John Oswalt, Don Carson, F. F. Bruce, etc. That is solid enough for me.) I personally still would have preferred the ESV, but I am now preaching from the NLT. It is a pretty solid translation.

So my top five English Bibles now are:

1. NLT

2. ESV

3. NRSV

4. NIV 1984

5. NASB 1995

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510641#Comment_510641

from a review of Gorman, Michael J.,Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers.(Revised and Expanded Edition; Peabody MA; Hendrickson, 2009). Pp. xii+286, Paperback, US$19.95, ISBN 978-1-59856-311-5

In chapter two Gorman focuses on the selection of an English translation for exegesis. He expresses a preference for formal-equivalence translations and divides translations into four categories: 1) preferred for exegesis (NRSV, NAB, TNIV, and NET), 2) useful for exegesis, with caution (RSV, NIV, NASB, REB, ESV, HCSB), 3) unacceptable for exegesis, but helpful in others ways (NLT, NJB, CEV, GNB, The Message), and 4) unacceptable for exegesis (KJV, NKJV, LB).

I think this counts as a bit more than an historical curiosity.

That is interesting, and worthy of thought. However, it is just one man's opinion, though an outstanding scholar he may be. And like all peoples' opinions it reflects his biases. (And of course, my opinions reflect my biases.)

My opinion is that you should always do a careful exegesis from the Greek and Hebrew. Then it really will not matter so much which English version you use. At one point or the other, you will disagree with any of them.

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510641#Comment_510641

from a review of Gorman, Michael J.,Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers.(Revised and Expanded Edition; Peabody MA; Hendrickson, 2009). Pp. xii+286, Paperback, US$19.95, ISBN 978-1-59856-311-5

In chapter two Gorman focuses on the selection of an English translation for exegesis. He expresses a preference for formal-equivalence translations and divides translations into four categories: 1) preferred for exegesis (NRSV, NAB, TNIV, and NET), 2) useful for exegesis, with caution (RSV, NIV, NASB, REB, ESV, HCSB), 3) unacceptable for exegesis, but helpful in others ways (NLT, NJB, CEV, GNB, The Message), and 4) unacceptable for exegesis (KJV, NKJV, LB).

I think this counts as a bit more than an historical curiosity.

Hi MJ,

I think it is curious that none of the "preferred for exegesis" are on the more literal side of the translation continuum (with the possible exception of the NET).

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510819#Comment_510819

I think it is curious that none of the "preferred for exegesis" are on the more literal side of the translation continuum

As was noted by Michael, this is just one man's opinion - my point was simply to point out that the REB was a standard version not an outsider. I suspect that it is to be expected that the translations for exegesis are less literal. Exegesis is about ideas so translations most concerned with getting the ideas right would seem logically to be at the top. But I've not seen other lists ranking translations for exegesis so I don't know. Do others know of comparable lists?

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510835#Comment_510835

I think it is curious that none of the "preferred for exegesis" are on the more literal side of the translation continuum

As was noted by Michael, this is just one man's opinion - my point was simply to point out that the REB was a standard version not an outsider. I suspect that it is to be expected that the translations for exegesis are less literal. Exegesis is about ideas so translations most concerned with getting the ideas right would seem logically to be at the top. But I've not seen other lists ranking translations for exegesis so I don't know. Do others know of comparable lists?

I have not seen any other such lists. I realize it is just one man's opinion. I just found it curious. To exegete means to interpret the text. If you use a dynamic equivalent translation, that interpreting is already done for you. A more literal translation allows you to see the text that you are trying to interpret. That is just another man's opinion [:)].

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510840#Comment_510840

A more literal translation allows you to see the text that you are trying to interpret.

That's the flip side of the argument and definitely has some merit. I'll admit to having some strong opinions on translation based on Sanskrit and Pali to English. But, of course, I always defer to a friend who translated Beowulf into Newari[:D]

Edit:

I just checked and wonder if your original observation is justified ... I don't know the date of the chart and it is incomplete but:

Travis Walter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510855#Comment_510855

It seems there is a lot of people that have an axe to grind with the NLT. I'm no scholar, but I know it was translated using original texts etc.. And its very easy to read and certainly not a paraphrase.

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510855#Comment_510855

A more literal translation allows you to see the text that you are trying to interpret.

That's the flip side of the argument and definitely has some merit. I'll admit to having some strong opinions on translation based on Sanskrit and Pali to English. But, of course, I always defer to a friend who translated Beowulf into Newari

Edit:

I just checked and wonder if your original observation is justified ... I don't know the date of the chart and it is incomplete but:

Thanks for posting that chart, MJ. It is helpful and I have seen it before. An even better way to see where a translation falls on the continuum is to read its preface.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

Randall Cue

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510884#Comment_510884

It seems there is a lot of people that have an axe to grind with the NLT. I'm no scholar, but I know it was translated using original texts etc.. And its very easy to read and certainly not a paraphrase.

Hi Travis,

I know personally the man responsible for the Gospel of John in the NLT. He is a fine Greek scholar and a very good man. The NLT is not a paraphrase, you are correct. Just as I mentioned to MJ, I would suggest you read the preface to the NLT. It is very enlightening.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510855#Comment_510855

I just checked and wonder if your original observation is justified ... I don't know the date of the chart and it is incomplete but:

That is a very helpful chart! Thanks, MJ. I would agree with just about everything you have said.

It is not a given that "word for word" translation is the most accurate. Languages do not work that way. Sometimes word for word translation may obscure what the original message is, just because of the nature of translating from one language to another. That is why words are added even to the KJV in places that they are not found in the original. If it just came down to word for word being the best, then an interlinear would be the only translation needed.

If one does not read Greek and Hebrew, it would probably be wise to select two translations - one that is more word for word and one that is more thought for thought.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511008#Comment_511008

I would note that it is not a given that "word for word" translation is the most accurate. Languages do not work that way. Sometimes word for word translation may obscure what the original message is

+1 [Y]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510855#Comment_510855

I don't know the date of the chart and it is incomplete but:

Thank you for the chart, very useful. Note that the link is no longer active, so wonder if anyone has produced one that is more complete.

tom

My top 5 are:

NRSV
NET
NIV (2011)
Message
Good News
Cotton Patch
ESV

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511078#Comment_511078

My top 5 are:

NRSV

NET

NIV (2011)

Message

Good News

Cotton Patch

ESV

Tom, Isn't that 7? [;)] Seriously though I think most people would put the ESV higher than #7. But each to their own.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511062#Comment_511062

wonder if anyone has produced one that is more complete.

Found several comparison charts with a Google search. Thought two might be useful:

BIBLE TRANSLATION CHART - Mardel Verbal chart plus sliding scale

Bible Version Chart - Bibles More complete, but without the sliding scale

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511449#Comment_511449

Thanks Jack - I'll add them to my list

Steven Read

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511625#Comment_511625

The Mardel page appears to no longer exist but I was able to find a similar page on that site

https://www.mardel.com/bibletranslationguide

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510884#Comment_510884

It seems there is a lot of people that have an axe to grind with the NLT. I'm no scholar, but I know it was translated using original texts etc.. And its very easy to read and certainly not a paraphrase.

I think the most valid concern regards reading level and complexity. Bible Gateway has a page showing reading levels for a variety of translations. The NLT is said to be a 6th grade (11 years old) reading level, while the NASB and ESV are around high school reading level. It's an assumption, but I believe a valid assumption, that the Scriptures were written for adults, not children; certainly the complexity of Paul's writing is evidence of that, and Jesus Himself didn't speak in 10-year-old language. So, the thinking is that a translation that aims at a lower reading level than the originals will, by necessity, reduce the complexities and nuances of the original text.

Matthew R. Funk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510809#Comment_510809

I followed a similar path to you Mike, but the bible snobs in my church would all rebel if I preached from the NLT. Wish I was more courageous...