PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Version



seadams
02-17-2007, 11:52 PM
What is your favorite version.
One for studying/one for reading?
one for listening?

YLT/NAU -studying

CSB - reading

Gontroppo
02-18-2007, 08:44 AM
I like the TNIV for reading, and have read the whole bible through using the TNIV and the ESV [in the Reformation Study Bible] and am now reading the whole bible through using the NIV Archaeological Study Bible published by Zondervan.

I also like the latest edition of the New Living Translation.

I don't mind the ESV, though I'm disappointed with the way it was promoted, because I believe it was misleading.

I'm currently memorising Hebrews in the TNIV, and have completed chapters 1 to 4.

Yes, I was inspired by Ryan Ferguson.
http://worshipmatters.blogs.com/bobkauflin/2006/11/ryan_ferguson_r.html

seadams
02-20-2007, 12:23 AM
In which way do you think the ESV was mis-promoted?
I find the ESV either suffers for the sake of it's heritage or the translation team relied to heavily on the RSV without doing enough research. I have no idea--I suspect it's the heritage issue, of not wanting to depart from the flavor of the RSV/KJV. But there are a few words which different versions translate a little more accurately. Aside from this I think the ESV has a lot of strengths and I like it very much as one of the better translations.


Also, have you looked at the "gender-inclusiveness" of the TNIV? I haven't-- I've just heard about it, read a web page or two.

I find Young's Literal Translation to be extremely accurate when it comes to translation of nouns--the most accurate I find. For example if you were reading a passage, came across a word, you wondered what the Greek was, referred to a lexicon, I find Young's usually nails it perfectly.

Gontroppo
02-20-2007, 07:45 AM
In Australia at least, the ESV was promoted as being more accurate than the NIV, not gender-inclusive like the TNIV and an essentially literal translation, as opposed to those dreadful "dynamic equivalent" translations.

We were told that the translators were extremely trustworthy, that this was a bible version we could have confidence in, and that it is not like some of those dodgy versions that instead of translating, interpret the bible.

But in fact the ESV frequently uses the so-called "dynamic equivalent" method its promoters warn us about, though maybe it is not used as frequently as in the NIV and TNIV. There is plenty of interpretation in the ESV. I think I can safely say it occurs on every page. [And I have read every page of the ESV Reformation Study Bible.]

Concerning gender inclusiveness, the ESV's main difference from the RSV is its use of gender inclusive language. [This is also the main difference between the TNIV and the NIV, too.] Sometimes the TNIV translators have been unnecessarily "politically correct" in rendering a few passages in gender inclusive language where this was not needed, or even in a very few cases, where it has changed the meaning intended by the original author.

But mostly, the translators have simply done what the ESV translators have done, and have removed masculine language where there was none in the original.

Also, sometimes the TNIV translators have put gender inclusive language in the body of the translation, where the ESV committee have relegated the gender inclusive meaning to a footnote. [See Romans 1:13, for example.]

When we are told that the translators of the ESV are more reliable than some of those dodgy "dynamic equivalent" translators of versions such as the NIV/TNIV, NLT, etc, it is interesting to ponder that many of the translators of the ESV have also worked on other translations, including translations that the ESV promoters like to decry.

Also, several of the translators of the NIV and TNIV are highly esteemed bible commentators who have written some of the best commentaries available. I'm not saying that this means they are beyond criticism, but I do think that many of the things said against the NIV and TNIV are misleading and not based on an understanding of how language works, nor of the difficulties of taking a set of writings that are more than 1900 years old and conveying their meaning in Twenty-first century languages.

Youngs is not English and is out-of-date. To translate is to render in the language of the reader or speaker. No one I've met reads or speaks in Younglish!

I like the ESV, though I agree with the assessment that it was done too quickly.

But I'm disappointed with the misleading promotional methods which have been used to give the impression that it is more reliable than other recent versions.

ingosorke
02-20-2007, 10:01 PM
Hey guys (gender-inclusive!),

Check out Rod Decker's insightful review of the ESV:
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/esv.htm
(if link is broken, google "Rod Decker ESV Review"; scroll down a little on his website)
and his preliminary TNIV observations: http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/tniv.htm

And for comparison, you might be interested in:

- the revitalized ISV project: www.isv.org (http://www.isv.org)
- the HCSB (CSB in BW7)
- www.tniv.info (http://www.tniv.info) - the TNIV website
- www.bible.org (http://www.bible.org) and the NET Bible (esp. for its notes)

Finally, (based on your discussion), you'd love reading Wayne Leman's blog: http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/ (or google: wayne leman bible translation)

I love comparing translations, but from a practical ministry point of view (preaching, public reading, memorization), nobody seems to be on "the same page" anymore . . .

Ingo

SCSaunders
02-28-2007, 10:07 AM
CSB - studying

CSB - reading

CSB - listening (my lips tend to move when I read)

Ken Neighoff
02-28-2007, 04:21 PM
I use the New America Standard Version, 1995 edition for preaching and study
I also use NA 27 and BHS also for study

For personal devotions this year I am using the New Revised Standard Version

millenia05@earthlink.net
03-01-2007, 11:15 AM
The 1769 edition of the KJV for reading, studying and teaching.

Does that make me a textual Luddite?

Only if you teach as some do that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew/Greek!

Please believe me, I say this with a big smile :) on my face.

John B. Senterfitt

Dale A. Brueggemann
03-01-2007, 02:02 PM
KJV... Does that make me a textual Luddite?

Nope, it might even indicate that you're an aficionado of fine literature, since subsequent English translations have never seemed to reach that same level of literary excellence.

SCSaunders
03-01-2007, 06:35 PM
Does that make me a textual Luddite? ???
"L."
"Lu."
"Ludd."
"Luddite. Found it!"



Luddite : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change

I get it. Kind of like a John Henry.
http://i12.tinypic.com/33m5vr5.jpg

paul
03-03-2007, 12:07 AM
when i got saved, our pastor answered my question by saying the 1901 ASV was probably the superior translation. after 10 or 15 years, i could no longer buy that and began with the NASB. I've read many since, but have turned in the past year to the KJV for reading and studying.
i want a word for word translation, because i believe that's how God inspired it. when i was younger, i wanted to understand all the verses. now, i have an appreciation that i may not understand all that God says, and i need to work through that. i'm willing to need understanding while i gain wisdom and experience and mull the passage and context.

Septuagenarian
03-06-2007, 09:01 PM
If you want a word-for-word translation, you will have to do it yourself by learning Greek and Hebrew. All translations are colored to some greater or lesser degree by the theology of the translators. I consider the NASB to be one of the best out there, but there are spots where they fail dismally to translate literally. For example, there are two places in the New Testament where the original language uses the phrase "in sanctification of spirit." Instead of translating it literally so the reader can decide between a couple of possible interpretations, the NASB translators changed it to "by the sanctifying work of the Spirit." The word "work," of course, doesn't even appear in the original, and the meaning may be something quite different from that implied by the translation.

So, get to work on the language. The only downside is that, depending on how fussy you are about literalness, you may get put out with the translators. Well, it does take several years to develop any proficiency at all, and that is a difficulty. Just take the time to learn enough not to make foolish mistakes. A little knowledge of the language is almost worse than none, but a good working knowledge yields great rewards.

Dale A. Brueggemann
03-07-2007, 06:00 AM
If it's literal you want, you won't be achieving that with the KJV; the translators' very efforts to produce fine literary English ruled that out, which is way it was so readable for such a long period in the history of the English language, and is still the delight of those who love its literary turns of phrase.

Of course, the KJV could be quite "dynamic" in its translation. See for example its "God forbid" for mh. ge,noito (Luke 20:16; Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21; 6:14).

And I guess the Lord's prayer would begin something like this:

Father of us, the in the heavens, sanctified be the name of you. May it come, the kingdom of you; may it come to pass, the will of you, as in heaven and upon the earth. The bread of us, a daily need [?], give us today.
A better question than how "literal" it is is rather how "accurate" it is. And that absolutely requires not only lexical, grammatical, and syntactical judgments, but even theological judgments.

Scribe Thoth
03-31-2007, 04:59 AM
The Original Question before the KJO crowd decided to chime in was what you're favorite version was for Reading and Study...

When it comes to Reading, I prefer the USB 4, because of the Paragraphing and plain arrangement of the Text. When it comes to Study, I prefer the NA 27 Update because it contains the major Variations in the text for me to ponder and pray over why and what they mean... When it comes to the OT, my Favorite Reading Version is that of a Reproduction of L, because it reads better... When it comes to Version of OT Study... BHS for the most part--but one must take some of the textual notes and the Masora for what they are at for face value... I wish that BW had NA27 Apparatus so that all of my needs were fulfilled, that and Smyth's Grammar... but one can always Dream....

MGVH
03-31-2007, 09:38 AM
Smyth's Grammar is downloadable as a free PDF at Textkit (http://www.textkit.com/learn/ID/142/author_id/63/)
I suspect it would be a ton of work to integrate it into BW, but at least it is free, and I do have access to it on my computer.

WBryant
04-01-2007, 02:18 PM
Nope, it might even indicate that you're an aficionado of fine literature, since subsequent English translations have never seemed to reach that same level of literary excellence.

I agree with you. Personally, I enjoy the language and literary level of KJV. But I find that this puts me a an exceedingly great (to use a KJV idom) disstance from modern hears with whom I wish to communicate. So how do you as a teacher and preacher and public reader of scripture bridge the communication gap?

WBryant
04-01-2007, 02:30 PM
something personal resonates in me with the KJV.

I find that the New Englsih Bible and its successor REB provide the level of English prose I am looking for.

I think the freshness, and sometimes unususal, renderings of the New American Bible exciting because they require me to think.

I tend to find the New King James Version to be a surprising read. I just wish it had used a better Original Language text and that it had a different name.

For practical and professional purposes, I use NRSV. It charts a middle course which does leave it rather bland and non-discript.

Nothing seems to satisfy except reading the Bible in the Original languages.

terogs
04-10-2007, 05:57 PM
I can't get by with a single favorite Bible any longer. I've used the NASB for about 35 years so that's kind of a mental default. I use the ESV to teach because it's becoming the standard among the students in my classes. But I enjoy reading the ISV and the translation and notes in the NET to challenge my thinking.

jopark74
04-14-2007, 09:44 PM
Study - NET/ NA27/ BHS
Read - NIV/NAU
Devotions - KOR
PREACH - NIV

Alan Johnson
04-16-2007, 01:22 PM
For general reading, the ESV. For study, the same, along with original languages and other English versions, particularly YLT and NLT.