Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Favorite Version

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Favorite Version

    What is your favorite version.
    One for studying/one for reading?
    one for listening?

    YLT/NAU -studying

    CSB - reading

  2. #2

    Default Favourite version

    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.
    David McKay
    Aussie Christian
    What I'm Reading

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007


    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.

  4. #4


    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.
    David McKay
    Aussie Christian
    What I'm Reading

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004


    Hey guys (gender-inclusive!),

    Check out Rod Decker's insightful review of the ESV:
    (if link is broken, google "Rod Decker ESV Review"; scroll down a little on his website)
    and his preliminary TNIV observations:

    And for comparison, you might be interested in:

    - the revitalized ISV project:
    - the HCSB (CSB in BW7)
    - - the TNIV website
    - and the NET Bible (esp. for its notes)

    Finally, (based on your discussion), you'd love reading Wayne Leman's blog: (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 . . .

    Last edited by ingosorke; 02-20-2007 at 09:27 PM.

  6. #6


    CSB - studying

    CSB - reading

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

  7. #7

    Default My Favorites

    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
    Ken Neighoff
    Numbers 6:24-26
    יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ׃
    יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ׃
    יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם׃

  8. #8


    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem View Post
    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

  9. #9

    Thumbs up KJV as literary masterpiece

    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dale A. Brueggemann; 03-01-2007 at 01:03 PM. Reason: technical typo

    Dale A. Brueggemann

    כִּי עֶזְרָא הֵכִין לְבָבוֹ לִדְרוֹשׁ אֶת־תּוֹרַת יְהוָה וְלַעֲשֹׂת וּלְלַמֵּד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט (Ezra 7:10)

  10. #10


    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem
    Does that make me a textual Luddite?
    "Luddite. Found it!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts