I would really like to know the Bible most used by forum users. I wish we had a poll. That would be cool.
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
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.
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
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]
I did cancel it - I have already accepted the LXX as the first Bible of the Church (and have read Brenton's translation)
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]
1. NIV2. ESV3. LEB4. Message
ESV, NASB`995, HCB, NKJV, and KJV
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.
Not a change just an update in Language.
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.
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
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.
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".
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'
3Because narrow is the gate and 4difficultis 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: ThomasNelson.
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.
NKJV>NASB>ESV>KJV>NIV>NET
the King James, it certainly is a person's choice
Generally children aren't given a choice. Adult preferences are chosen for them.
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.
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.
The English Bibles I use are
1. NIV
2. KJV
3. NASV
4. NLT
English
2. NASB95
3. NET
Greek
1. NA27
2. ESV Interlinear
It is interesting to me how many people I run into who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all of the others are distortions of Scripture. Usually it is the older folks (over 75) but occasionally not. What is quite amusing is when I tell them that the KJV was not the first English translation and they just can't believe that. Or I try to explain about the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and I get the "deer in the headlights" look. Usually I just agree to disagree with them and move on. But last Sunday I had quite a discussion with one 95 year old lady who told me I was teaching incorrectly because I said that John the Baptist was working in the area of Bethany baptizing in the Jordan. She told me I was wrong that he was in Bethabara, which is what her King James says (John 1:28) . No amount of explaining or showing her that most other English translations say Bethany could convince her. I finally just had to move on ackowledging that there is a difference between the translations but that it isn't a salvational or doctrinal issue thus not one to dwell on extensively. The sad thing is she is obviously upset by it since she did not come to Church yesterday and had called several members complaining about my incorrect teaching and usage of the "false Bibles" in my preaching and teaching. I am somewhat troubled by all of this as you can probably tell. But I am not sure what I could have done differently.
Bob Schlessman Replied
"It is interesting to me how many people I run into who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all of the others are distortions of Scripture. (...) The sad thing is she is obviously upset by it since she did not come to Church yesterday and had called several members complaining about my incorrect teaching and usage of the "false Bibles" in my preaching and teaching. I am somewhat troubled by all of this as you can probably tell. But I am not sure what I could have done differently."
You got blindsided. May the Lord be with you in meeting her needs.
Textual Criticism seems to be blasphemy to many. To the KJV person it often looks like it is just a way to cut up the KJV. Just another change from the way things used to be. I like and teach from the KJV but I have taught a lesson on textual criticism to our youth group. (I started with the RULES but did not get to age of text until last) [Our church ‘converted’ our last pastor from the NIV to the NKJV – he was at the lesson I gave (before his ‘conversion’)]
I am not a pastor and many of them will give you very good advice here. But what if you apologized for upsetting her? [She might hear you apologize for more than you do – she may be able to give you an idea as to how deep the KJV is in your church] Then start reading both the KJV and what every version you use [to show how they are very much the same] and if the verse you want to use is in the 5% where they differ then find a different verse [use one that teaches the same thing but from where they agree]
But what if you apologized for upsetting her? [She might hear you apologize for more than you do – she may be able to give you an idea as to how deep the KJV is in your church]
Apologizing is very good advice David and something I plan on doing today. As far as how deep the KJV is within my congregation, there is a very small minority (5% or less) who use the KJV. The majority uses the NIV and those who use the KJV don't take issue with other translations in the manner this person did.
Then start reading both the KJV and what every version you use
Though I typically teach and preach from the NIV I have always read and studied several versions. I have read the Bible competely through in ten different verions. I often comparatively quote from more than one version. I believe that to be locked in on any single version is poor scholarship. Just as using only one commentary or Bible dictionary limits one's understanding. I have no problem with the King James other than it takes more work because of the language. I find myself spending additional time defining phrases and words (e.g. "divers temptations", "upbraideth not"), for the congregation and restating in modern language what the Scriptures say. With the NIV or NASB it is already done for me I can spend the time on expository development. Truth be told, my preferred version for personal reading is the NASB95, but since the majority of my congregation uses NIV, that is what I preach.
[Our church ‘converted’ our last pastor from the NIV to the NKJV – he was at the lesson I gave (before his ‘conversion’)]
I find this very interesting. You mentioned age of text (I'm assuming you mean the version itself), but did you discuss age of the manuscripts used? That for me is the deciding issue for which version I use the most.
All of that said I guess where I take issue is when I hear preachers equate version usage with validity of the messge. There is a well known TV evangelist who has come out a said the ones who use anything except the KJV are the devils pawns and liars. The sad thing is he is not alone in this thinking and the issue is truly a source of division within the Church.
Truth be told, my preferred version for personal reading is the NASB95, but since the majority of my congregation uses NIV, that is what I preach.
Ditto, Bob. It's kind of like being a missionary to a different culture.You need to speak their language. So what would I do if a served a congregation that loved, say, the Living Bible? [:D]
There is a well known TV evangelist who has come out a said the ones who use anything except the KJV are the devils pawns and liars.
I guess that would include Jesus and the Apostles... [:P]
And those who translated the KJV... [:P]
And 99% or so of all Christians who have ever lived... [:P]
Ditto, Bob. It's kind of like being a missionary to a different culture.You need to speak their language. So what would I do if a served a congregation that loved, say, the Living Bible?
Hopefully you'd help them see the error of their ways. [:O]
Donnie
Ongoing between Bob Schlessman and David Ames
Bob: “age of text”?
Dave: Yes, I meant age of the manuscripts. Got to that near the end (as their eyes glazed over – the ones that I wanted to understand did.)
Bob: There is a well known TV evangelist who has come out a said the ones who use anything except the KJV are the devils pawns and liars. The sad thing is he is not alone in this thinking and the issue is truly a source of division within the Church.
Dave: [Has your KJV lady heard that evangelist? – the devil is in the works – the question is where and when] [Matt 25:32-46 ?] [And there are those that seem to define a cult as those that still use the KJV]
You are on my prayer list as is she.
1. NET - because of the notes
2. TEV aka GNB, for casual reading of large blocks of text
3/4/5. ESV for talking to Presbyterians (PCA) or NASB for talking to Baptists. NIV for talking to whose English literacy is limited.
1. NET - because of the notes 2. TEV aka GNB, for casual reading of large blocks of text 3/4/5. ESV for talking to Presbyterians (PCA) or NASB for talking to Baptists. NIV for talking to whose English literacy is limited.
What a hoot!
It is interesting to me how many people I run into who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all of the others are distortions of Scripture. Usually it is the older folks (over 75) but occasionally not.
That is not the case in the area in which I live (central North Carolina). the gentleman who informed me that the KJV could be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew was probably less than 50 while I am very close to 75. The KJV only movement is extremely strong here and encloses all age groups from very young to seasoned citizens.
NIV for talking to whose English literacy is limited.
To paraphrase Silent Same Hmmmmmmm… [:D]
NASB for talking to Baptists
If they are Independent Baptist from my area, you would probably be considered a heretic. However, I pastored Independent Baptist congregations for over 20 years, and I always taught that the KJV is a translation and that the originals were/are inspired and not any translation.
It is interesting to me how many people I run into who think the KJV is the only true Bible and all of the others are distortions of Scripture. Usually it is the older folks (over 75) but occasionally not. That is not the case in the area in which I live (central North Carolina). the gentleman who informed me that the KJV could be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew was probably less than 50 while I am very close to 75. The KJV only movement is extremely strong here and encloses all age groups from very young to seasoned citizens.
Ditto Jack! Here in the Southwest corner of Virginia KJV Only crowd is not bound by any age. There are a few KJVOnly preachers in this area younger than me (I'm 32). I work with a Christian club at the local middle school and KJV is an issue there as well. Can't get away from it regardless of age here.
Here in the Southwest corner of Virginia KJV Only crowd is not bound by any age
How far west? I know the movement is strong in Patrick, Henry, and Pittsylvania counties. I served as pastor in Stokes & Rockingham counties in NC.
Jack,
I'm in Virginia...as far west as you can go. Lee County "Where Virginia Begins"
KJV, NKJV, ESV
The short answer for me is the ESV, but I actually prefer to work from the original languages then come back to the ESV and other Bibles after delving though some of the Theological Dictionaries to garner additional insight into the translations. Ultimately if I'm teaching, I reference back to the NIV with whatever notes I've generated, since it is the pew Bible in my church and the most used version.
NIV for sermon work
NLT for my own personal reading / journaling / reflection
ESV for my doctoral work (my first reader uses it) I also love the reverse interlinears for the OT
NET (as mentioned before...great notes!)
BHS / NA27 but checking the SBL now too
Doesn't that put you close to Hatfield-McCoy territory? Didn't they have their fun and games in Harlan County?
EDIT: Should have checked my facts before clicking post. That little tussle happened further north, in Pike County, KY and across the line into West Virginia.
NKJV (90% of my use. Retains the flow of the KJV while modernizing some less common words/phrases. They did go too far in some cases, in my opinion though. Love it.)
KJV (After hearing this preached for years, I actually "recall" Scriptures in this translation. Almost always consult the differences between this and NKJV)
NASB (for comparison with a "critical text" version)
NIV (There are enough members using this to warrant me knowing what they are reading when I read or teach from NKJV / KJV)
NLT (occasionally consult for a dynamic translation)
Not surprisingly the ESV is the favourite bible and also received the most votes from people's top 3.
Other bibles got more total votes than the TNIV, but not as #1 choice:
NAS95 beat ESV for 2nd choice (16 v. 13)
ESV beat NAS95 for 3rd choice (14 v. 9). So LEB was the third 3rd choice.
Nice, Dave. Thanks for the stat work.
That would be a problem. I guess do all of your sermon and lesson prep using the other versions but read from the Living Bibl,e noting differences and clarifying the original texts. Unfortunately the amount of prep and work would increase significantly. [:S] It wouldn't be much different than using The Message. They are both paraphrases not translations. Hopefully you would be able to bring them around to sanity and convert them. [:D]
In my experience though most lay people tend to stick by their preferred version no matter how many convincing scholarly arguments one may have.
It is funny to think that the KJV can be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew. I think it is typical of those who belong to the King James only club. Not surprised to hear the age spread in your area though. That is also the case if you go south of where I live into the more rural areas of the state (southern Illinois). There are several Bible colleges in the lower midwest who also belong to the club. I guess if it was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for me. [;)]
if you go south of where I live into the more rural areas of the state
I live in Litchfield, Illinois. If I knew the name and address of your church I might stop in some time.
if you go south of where I live into the more rural areas of the state I live in Litchfield, Illinois. If I knew the name and address of your church I might stop in some time.
Bob and Jerry -
I grew up in Jerseyville and now serve in Olney, IL. Went to school at SIU-C.
Jerry
Not surprisingly the ESV is the favourite bible and also received the most votes from people's top 3. Bible Votes TOTAL ESV 23 50 NAS95 11 36 NIV 11 19 NKJV 8 14 KJV 6 15 NRSV 6 10 NET 3 12 TNIV 2 2 Other bibles got more total votes than the TNIV, but not as #1 choice: The LEB got 8 votes, all as 3rd choice! HCSB got 5 votes NA26/27 got 5 votes NLT got 4 votes NJB got 3 votes, all as 2nd choice NAS95 beat ESV for 2nd choice (16 v. 13) ESV beat NAS95 for 3rd choice (14 v. 9). So LEB was the third 3rd choice.
I'll through in my vote:
Just to mix things up...
It is funny to think that the KJV can be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew. I think it is typical of those who belong to the King James only club. Not surprised to hear the age spread in your area though. That is also the case if you go south of where I live into the more rural areas of the state (southern Illinois). There are several Bible colleges in the lower midwest who also belong to the club.
Several years ago, the movement was fed from Pensacola, Fl and Portsmouth, VA. I don't know how much influence these "leaders" have now.
Is that a KJV spelling?[:)]
Sorry, TNIV will still be last
Not surprising, as it is the most recently published.
Just to mix things up... Sorry, TNIV will still be last
Dave -- That's a clever double entendre (given translation discussions on the forums and newsgroups) which makes for good-natured ribbing of Michael. That gave me a hearty laugh. Thanks.
Scott
I live in Litchfield, Illinois. If I knew the name and address of your church I might stop in some time
Not too far from you Jerry. I'm in Palmyra and serve Palmyra Christian Church. I get down to Litchfield occasionally to visit a member in the nursing home there. Drop by some time.
