I would really like to know the Bible most used by forum users. I wish we had a poll. That would be cool.
Where did you get the NIV Anglicised from? I cannot find it advertised anywhere on the Logos website?
Al Bastian - you have excellent taste [:D]
Complete Bibles:
NRSV/RSV
NJB
The Community Bible - not in Logos ... will the Filipinos add some pressure?
NEB/RNEB
NET
NAB ('cause I have to)
Sort-of Complete Bibles:
JBS
NETS
incompletes
Robert Alter
Everett Fox
Most looked forward to:
Greek Orthodox liturgical translation
Study Bibles:
The Access Bible
Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible.
The Orthodox Study Bible
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (NT only available)
The Navarre Bible (for the Latin more than the notes)
Catena Aurea
1. NIV
2. NAS95
3. NA26INT (I need the cheats!) [;)]
YLT for me. If there's an issue in the greek, YLT quite happily steps into the quagmire and takes a shot at it. He's represents the summation of 2000 years of copyists trying to get it to work.
Wow. I wonder how long I've had this resource and never opened it? Probably since I upgraded in L4. COOL!
1. NASB
2. NASB
3. NASB
4. NET notes (& recently ESV notes)
5. LHI
6. NKJV
7. BHS
8. LGNTI / NA27 McR Int.
9. LLXXI
10. LXX Brenton (once I get Gottingen loaded, it will be on this list as well, I imagine)
I have a question for those who use the ESV...why should I use it over NASB? Is there any reason at all...besides the notes (which I can use seperately)?
NASB- I preach and teach from it
ESV -
NET- translator's notes are excellent!
1. Czech Study Translation (excellent literal translation with plenty of the translation notes, it soon should be available in Logos)
2. Bible, 21st Century Translation (new Czech translation, I use it for preaching and casual reading)
3. ESV (my most frequently used English Bible, actually I use it also for my daily reading).
4. NET Bible
5. Biblia Tysiaclecia (Polish Catholic Millenium Translation)
6. NASB95
ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, LEB, NKJV, NIV in that order.
I prefer it for readability, especially in the Old Testament. Matter of preference. I don't think it is better than the NASB, just a complement to it.
While I still like the NASB as my second choice, the ESV is more readable while maintaining its literalness.
1. ESV
3. LEB
Ha! Jacob said basically the same thing and beat me to it. [Y]
1. NAS95, because my NAS77 doesn't have morphology or reverse interlinear.
2. NRSV, for when the deuterocanonical books come up in my studies.
3. NA27 & LXX.
4. Septuagint Version of the Old Testament
5. 1917 Tanakh
1) NASB95 (for study - I memorized from this version all through college, so it's hard for me to study from others)
2) ESV (for reading, at least right now)
3) HCSB (really learning to like this)
4) NET
5) ISV (only N.T. right now - can't wait for O.T. - I'll use this a lot then)
6) NRSV
7) ASV 1901
8) AV
9) Young's Literal (I like this, but it's definitely showing its age with all the new information we have on the Greek N.T. in the last 100 years)
10) NIV
I generally have all of those open when studying a passage. I'll read through my current section in each of them a few times. For example, in a study I'm leading through Ephesians, I was interested in what words they used for 1:20 ("...rule and authority and power and dominion..." - NAS).
Interestingly, I believe it's Fee's book "N.T. Exegesis" (fantastic book - would love it in Logos) recommends reading the passage through in at least 7 English translations.
Donnie
New English Translation (NET).
1. NASB 2. NASB 3. NASB 4. NET notes (& recently ESV notes) 5. LHI 6. NKJV 7. BHS 8. LGNTI / NA27 McR Int. 9. LLXXI 10. LXX Brenton (once I get Gottingen loaded, it will be on this list as well, I imagine) I have a question for those who use the ESV...why should I use it over NASB? Is there any reason at all...besides the notes (which I can use seperately)?
Peace and Joy in the Lord, David!
*smile*
One of the reasons that so many Confessional Lutherans like the ESV might be better explained by this link:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=854&IssueID=49
I have a question for those who use the ESV...why should I use it over NASB? Is there any reason at all...besides the notes (which I can use seperately)? One of the reasons that so many Confessional Lutherans like the ESV might be better explained by this link: http://www.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=854&IssueID=49
That link doesn't compare ESV to NASB, though. In fact it only mentions NASB once, in a list along with ESV. They are both "formal equivalence" translations, i.e., more word-for-word than phrase-for-phrase, which a "dynamic equivalence" translation like the NIV would be. ESV is newer, but other than that I don't know enough about either to say why someone would prefer ESV to NASB.
What's amazing to me is that so few posts on this thread mention the KJV. I didn't realize that it had faded into the background so much. I like the Lexham BIble a lot but wish it were in the Old Testament as well.
I have never been a fan of the KJV. It uses a majority text and is written in old English. Granted the language as been somewhat updated, it still is very archaic. This makes it less desirable for practical bible study. Since we are talking about a bible study program, I find it reasonable to see the KJV lacking in the polls.
Sounds like you're much like me. I've used NASB as my (very) primary bible since 1982. I recently started using ESV because I'd heard very good things about it from people I respect. At first there were a couple of specific issues that bothered me. But I pushed past those and began using it as my main reading bible. When I tried having it as my main study bible in Logos, it just didn't work for me. I think my definition of "literal" is different than how it's used when speaking of translations. When I got the LEB in Logos, which I love, it made the differences more stark - it's very close to the NASB.
So I have NASB as my #1 bible in Logos, but I do read from the ESV a lot.
I think people who have moved from NASB to ESV do so because they perceive it as easier to read, with a bit more up-to-date English, and not as stilted in some places as the NASB. Those are reasonable observations. I know that I never said to myself while reading the NASB, "That sentence is worded very awkwardly."
1. NKJV
1. NASB95
2. HCSB
3. ESV
4. NIV
1. NASB952. GNT3. ESV4. NET
I cut my theological teeth on the NAS in college and seminary. I preached from it for better than twenty years after that. But my congregation is reading from the NIV. I know the more literal translation is best for deep study. That's why we go to the original languages: a "literal" translation. From a communicator's standpoint, I have to consider the audience. Can they follow what I am reading? What will they read at home? And if what they have is not readable to them, will they read it at all?
The NIV is not a perfect translation. "Dynamic equivalency" has its limitations. It still stands apart from the paraphrases below it as an excellent balance between the poles of "literal" and "readable." It is also popular.
Perhaps our preferences grow out of our functions. Many Logos users (or at least forum members) seem to be students and academics. Demonstrable accuracy matters a lot there. Pastors also seek accuracy, "correctly handling the word of truth" (NIV, paraphrased!). Perhaps, though, we are aiming not at scholarship, but at application.
IMHO.
From a communicator's standpoint, I have to consider the audience. Can they follow what I am reading? What will they read at home? And if what they have is not readable to them, will they read it at all?
Thank you!
Steve
I agree with you. It is a matter of "horses for courses".
NIV is the translation which I prefer for public reading in church worship. It reads well and has good sonority and is mnemonically helpful.
ESV and NASB both seem pretty good for word-for-word translation. (Personally I prefer NASB in the Old Testament.) Both are a bit "clunky" for public reading. I use them at church Bible studies, though I always encourage my people to bring along whichever translations they like, as we can compare them in trying to understand a particular passage.
NLT is an easy-to-read translation for private devotions.
For exegesis I prefer to use the original languages usually BHS or NA27.
Every blessing
Alan
I was shocked and not shocked about the KJV's not being hardly mentioned. Archaic language? I prefer to say our language has changed from that of 1611, but this language of seventeenth century England is simply beautiful.
While I did originally start off with a NIV, I quickly went to the KJV and have found it particularly easy to understand after a short time using it. Since then, I have never felt a need to study multiple translations. I would rather simply drill down to the original Greek and Hebrew if there are questions.
Archaic language? I prefer to say our language has changed from that of 1611, but this language of seventeenth century England is simply beautiful.
The verses I memorised are all from the KJV and I cannot relate to them in another translation! One bible version treated the story from John 8:1-11 as a footnote and I was outraged... Time moves on and the ESV is now my study bible with NKJV being my Combat Manual.
Part if the issue here may be that those who use the KJV tend to not to do Bible Study like the rest of us - not completely true, but as a broad generalization. They may argue that they have the best translation, so studying the text is not as important as some other things. Or they may not be interested in this thread - they know what they want to use, no questions.
To answer the question of this thread: NKJV (presently I am enjoying a chronological reading of the Bible aided by The Word of Promise narration).
To respond to the above post, the local assembly where I fellowship still uses the beloved KJV as do many folks associated with Gospel Halls, though some have migrated to the NKJV or a few to the ESV. Therefore, in conducting Bible study my “base” translation is the KJV and its underlying Greek text. Actually, I find the KJV rather good when one directly accesses the original Greek. My personal favourite is the NASBU for word study. Like some others I enjoy the precision and freshness of the HCSB.
A typical Text Comparison consists of: KJV (base), NKJV, NASBU, HCSB, NRSV, and NLT - I believe this provides a good spectrum of English translations that helps me both understand a passage and identify original language work that I might want to study further.
To complete my English translations I wished there was one based on the Majority text to compare with the NASBU. I respect folks support of the ESV, though I find the NASBU better for word study, and less (sorry) honest then the HCSB in that it retains as some have coined "Biblish" language. Still I admire its translation goal. It will be interesting if the NIV2011 will supplant the NRSV for me.
I can tell you Rosie that when chosing between the NASB and ESV it is simply a matter of choice. Those two translatations are the most literal. I read the NASB because my Old Testament Professor required it for class, so I simply made it my prefered choice. Out of all my professors it seems like those interested in the Old Testament lean toward the NASB and those in the New Testament lean toward the ESV. Hebrew scholars with NASB. Greek scholars with ESV. It is a very general observation but that is what I see among my profs. I think either will work and serve the same purpose.
What's amazing to me is that so few posts on this thread mention the KJV. I didn't realize that it had faded into the background so much. I like the Lexham BIble a lot but wish it were in the Old Testament as well. I have never been a fan of the KJV. It uses a majority text and is written in old English. Granted the language as been somewhat updated, it still is very archaic. This makes it less desirable for practical bible study. Since we are talking about a bible study program, I find it reasonable to see the KJV lacking in the polls.
I am not a fan either, however I am not going to talk bad about a translation that has been the standard for well over 400 years. You said it nicely when you said, "... we are talking about a bible study program" and there are better translations for personal Bible study. There are better resources in our software package to study with. The KJV is still the standard for many churches and is still a translation bringing people to God. It's not archaic, it is majestic. But I prefer a more updated version to study, preach, and teach with.
KJV For me with interlinear and greek and Hebrew and aramaic word aids along with Figures of speech idioms etc and all the tools of logos myself I do shy away from most modern version bibles but that is my preference ( I am hard headed and enjoy the mining of the word apart from what the new versions supply there are just to many different translationsn etc) I really am growing to love logos 4 which allows me to study in this manner as well as I am sure everyone here does
I was shocked and not shocked about the KJV's not being hardly mentioned. Archaic language? I prefer to say our language has changed from that of 1611, but this language of seventeenth century England is simply beautiful. While I did originally start off with a NIV, I quickly went to the KJV and have found it particularly easy to understand after a short time using it. Since then, I have never felt a need to study multiple translations. I would rather simply drill down to the original Greek and Hebrew if there are questions.
From other threads it seems that most that post here are converts to textual criticism. [And my own collection on that subject is up to 12 volumes (need someone to start or point to a good thread on volumes to add to that set)] [and way too many of the defenders of the KJV went off the deep end (IMHO - the result being that instead of supporting the KJV they drove people away)] [I hope you know that the Greek under the NIV and the KJV differ 5% of the time.] 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)
Ha! Jacob said basically the same thing and beat me to it.
Ha!
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)
Are there really any needs to update the language of the AV1611? While we have changed how the words have been used since then, with a short amount of time in the KJV one can learn these differences. I love the thou's, thee's, and ye's because they offer a degree of precision not offered by simply using the word you. One can never tell, except by context, if the you being used is 2nd person singular or plural. Using the thee's and thou's removes all doubt.
(IMHO - the result being that instead of supporting the KJV they drove people away)
As far as driving people away? I will answer with John 6:44. I am not trying to deflect what you are saying, but simply saying I love God's word and I will steer clear of any worldly conflict on this. Reducing this whole controversy to the thief on the cross, what did he know? While his witness was important, he didn't have time for study. Though we have time to study now, it is still God that saves, not if we read the KJV or not.The Lord deserves all the glory, not the individual and his choice on which modern book he would choose.
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 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.
. I come from a people who are destroying themselves with this issue.
Remember John 6:39. No matter what a person's point of view is on this admittedly hot topic, our Lord has made a promise that we can trust in. It simply just doesn't matter in a person's salvation on this topic. The Lord has made his promise concerning his elect, and it is the Lord who saves. I really don't think that we are going to thwart his promise based upon this decision.
I'm a firm believer in the Eternal Security of the Believer. What I meant by "destroying" is their reputation among unbelievers because of constant bickering and contention on this subject and others.
Understood and agreed! The Lord has reminded me of 1 timothy 3:7 concerning this topic.
Shawn I fully agree. I wasn't asking to start off a debate. I was just curious about the assertion that the NKJV was attempting to "improve" or "correct" the KJV Instead of it being an update. I was under the Impression they were essentially the same bible. The preface of the NKJV seems to suggest this as well.Of course there are minor differences but essentially I thought the NKJV was just updating the language of the KJV. I may have been wrong in my conclusion, that was the reason I asked for more info.
I asked for information, a book or website that address this, not a debate. For what It is worth, I am not a KJV only guy but I do take your caution though that this could turn into a heated debate. I for one will not be engaging in such neither do I want others to engage in such debates. The forum rules do not allow this.
My intention is to get more info on the difference, If there is any on the KJV/NKJV.
Edit
Ted and David, you both have great spirits and I appreciate the comments.
Ted, my favorite book on bible translations is "How to choose a bible version" by Robert L. Thomas. It is a Logos book and I have it in my library. Actually several years ago I bought it as a paperback before it became a Logos book. I loved it. Let me recommend bible-researcher.com. A great site for learning.
Thanks for the info. Many blessings.
1. HCSB
2. NET (also my printed bible for reading and studying sans computer)
3. ESV (when I need the RI and it's my local church's teaching text now)
Given how often HCSB and NET have come up... I would sure like to see Logos provide Reverse Interlinears for these clearly popular translations!
As a Swede I'm kind of fascinated with this constant arguing over the KJV. I can't imagine there is anyone in Sweden using 'our KJV' as their main Bible. To the best of my knowledge, it must have been out of print for hundreds of years. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a copy. Back then, of course, only churches, universities and the very rich could afford such a thing as a Bible, so there can't be very many copies left around.
I'd never seen an electronic version either until just now, when I looked around and found the photographed pages of Matthew, so it seems someone is working on it. Very slow reading, though.
There are a couple of free 18th and 19th century versions in Accordance and MacSword (being on Mac, I haven't checked the Windows programs), but not yet in Logos that I know of. I imagine they will turn up once the PBBs are back (or maybe they're already there, only I don't know where to look for them). And it's not very hard to find 19th century family Bibles. But no one that I've ever heard of uses these Bibles for actual reading. I believe they're mainly used by linguists to study the development of the Swedish language, and such things.
The oldest translation still in everyday use would probably be the 1917, and those people are dying out fast. Except for the Orthodox and the Jews, who seem to favour it. Mostly, I believe, because they're both immigrant groups with a different relationship to the Swedish language. And in the latter case also because they're too few to easily afford to make a new edition of the Hebrew-Swedish Siddur.
Actually, I am personally sticking to the 1982 Bible and refusing to move on to either the 1998 or the 2000 one. In Sweden that makes me very odd and old-fashioned. So you can see why the idea of using something like the KJV is kind of unimaginable...
Of course, it also kind of fascinates me when the very same people, on the one hand pretty much claim that the KJV translation itself was inspired, and that it, and only it, is the authentic Word of God, and yet, on the other hand, refuse to use the original KJV (since it includes the Deuterocanonicals (and even some Apocrypha, I believe))...
Ted I believe your general observation about the NKJV being an updated version of the KJV to be correct. There are others in the world who would completely disagree. When you carefully read the preface, which we should always do for any translation, other text families were consulted and more important differences are cited in the footnotes.
As for all the unchristian arguments over the KJV, one has to ponder if individuals are not acting in a Christ like manner maybe they are none of His. However, that is not for me to determine. I simply leave such persons alone, as any meaningful discussion is usually impossible. To some this is just another avenue of argument, and certain folks will argue over religion in much the same manner as other things in life.
How much of the Word are we reading? And more searching, how much of it are we emulating?
The only thing I would say is that in defending newer translations some folks have, I believe, unintentionally maligned the KJV. There is absolutely no need to malign any faithful translation of God's Word, especially a translation that I believe will never be eclipsed in terms of its contribution to the body of Christ.
I trust that Logos users are sincerely interested in original languages, and realize that any translation is just that, a translation of the Word. While I do not believe all have the same value, I do believe all can have a benefit to the reader.
Hopefully we can continue with this enjoyable discussion about our favourite translation(s), which understandably mean so much to us.
Regards
Very well said, Mark.
Peace,
K
So you can see why the idea of using something like the KJV is kind of unimaginable..
I share your bemusement re: the books included and was surprised / pleased with my new resource The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint byMüller, Mogens
However, I think part of the appeal of the KJV is that the "poetic ideal" of English as implicitly taught in our schools is:
For the KJV proponents, note I said "part of the appeal" - I recognize that there are other factors.
Thanks M.J for mentioning The First Bible of the Church, I have It in my Logos library. It looks very good and I shall be reading It with much Interest.
Kind Regards
was surprised / pleased with my new resource The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint byMüller, Mogens
I bought that one as well. Now I just have to find the time to read it...
I think part of the appeal of the KJV is that the "poetic ideal" of English as implicitly taught in our schools is: William Shakespeare's play Tate and Brady psalter King James Bible
I think part of the appeal of the KJV is that the "poetic ideal" of English as implicitly taught in our schools is:
Somehow, I suspect Jesus spoke in prose... [:P]
Somehow, I suspect Jesus spoke in prose...
I wonder whether he knew that? [;)]
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])
