The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum POLL: Bible Versions

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.the-highway.com/cgi-bin/forum/dopoll.pl"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1050378554sbc_and_reformed"><br>Which Bible version do you use most often?<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="1" class="checkboxes"> KJV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="2" class="checkboxes"> NKJV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="3" class="checkboxes"> NIV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="4" class="checkboxes"> NASB<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="5" class="checkboxes"> ESV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="6" class="checkboxes"> RV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="7" class="checkboxes"> ASV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="8" class="checkboxes"> Geneva<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="9" class="checkboxes"> CEV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="10" class="checkboxes"> NLT<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="11" class="checkboxes"> Good News<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="12" class="checkboxes"> RSV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="13" class="checkboxes"> NRSV<br><input type="radio" name="option" value="14" class="checkboxes"> The Message<br><br><br><br><INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT NAME="PollSubmit" VALUE="$lang{'SUB_VOTE'}" CLASS="buttons"></FORM> <br><br>Here's an excellent analysis of the 40 current versions...<br><br>http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

It doesn't make much difference, but I thought I would be more specific and say that I use the 1995 update of the NASB, most often. It just took out the "thee's" and "thy's." I'm sure there are some out there that prefer the old version of the NASB. Occasionally I like the old American Standard Version, also.

That's kinda hard actually. My Church uses the KJV exclusively for worship, but mostly for uniformity therein. In personal practice and study, we are free to read, and recomended as well, many other versions. I use the NASB mostly, but also use the KJV often as well. I've read the NIV but feel it is a bit liberal. I was an RSV kinda fellar for a good while, until I became reformed. I don't do paraphrases much, though I have read most of the Living Bible paraphrase. Just toooooo liberal. I have recently been poking around in the NKJV and I like it real well also. But my carry is an NASB. That's my nickel's worth.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

The NIV liberal?<br><br>What makes you say that? I have heard that it is considered one of the more conservative ones.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The NIV liberal?<br><br>What makes you say that?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Perhaps I shouldn't be answering for someone else, but from what was written in the post you are replying to, it appeared to me that he was using the word "liberal" in a different sense than perhaps you are understanding it to mean? The use was not intended to convey a theological reference but possibly one that referred to the method of translation. I too consider "dynamic equivalency" to be something negative and unacceptable when it comes to translating the inspired Word of God. That is why I refuse to use the NIV and have tried to convince people to avoid it and use one of the more "conservative" translations for years. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

Short condensed sentences dominate the NIV. It has also removed many of the connective words (such as 'and', 'so that' and 'for') that linked the thoughts of a passage together. One illustration (among many) is the excluding of 'for' at the beginning of Romans 1:18, thus not allowing the reader to see the association with verses 16-17.<br><br>The NIV often translates the same Greek or Hebrew word into a number of different English words. For example, in Romans 1:3, Paul says that Jesus was descended from David "according to the flesh". 'Flesh' is an important word in the rest of Romans, and its appearance in the opening verses is very significant. However, the NIV translates it 'human nature' in 1:4, and 'sinful nature' elsewhere in the book. The NIV removes the connection between ideas. They don't allow the reader to build up an idea of what Paul means by 'flesh'.<br><br>The Never Intended Version (NIV) is not IMHO the best of versions, but I would rank it somewhat in another category—a commentary, and not a very good one at that.<br>

I use the NASB and sometimes the NKJV; mostly because I was told early on in my faith that the NASB was the most accurate version. The church that we were members of until we moved used the NIV as well as did the majority of the members. <br><br>There's my 2 cents [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/broke.gif" alt="broke" title="broke[/img]

I don't list it with the NWT or the Josepf Smith KJV, but the NIV just doesn't seem as direct as the NASB or the NKJV. It seems to be translated into a more post-modern jargon and marketed for the masses. Maybe like the dumbed-down version for public education. Also, as I look at old and dead theologians for their understanding, I look at current ones also, and the NIV isn't getting many reformed nods. Just my opinion.<br><br>Lately, I've been reading from the Holman Christian Standard a friend sent me. I'm reading through the NRSV version this year for my daily readings. Sometimes when I visit my mother, I read from her amplified. The NKJV and NASB are the best ones to me.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>

NASB for Bible study.<br>NIV for reading.<br><br>I didn't know, until I read it on this forum, that the thees and thous had been removed from the newer NASB. I'm glad they are gone.<br><br>The NASB, although accurate, is choppy and awkward to read. I notice this again and again. Still, if I could have only one Bible, that is the one I would choose.<br><br>I don't use my NKJV. I will have to do some research on this translation, since it is recommended on this forum. Evidently John MacArthur has a high opinion of it.

Ok! I understand now...<br><br>I have several copies of the NIV, and I will get a copy of the NASB. One copy of the NIV is a study Bible, which lately I have not used because I have realized that I end up reading the "study" parts interspersed with the text. It gets rather choppy, and since I have used a version that has no interspersed commentary I have found my ability to study much easier.

sbc_reformed,<br><br>Here's a link that will show you a chart which compares the different versions/translations of the Bible. The more conservative translations are "word for word" translations, the more liberal are the "thought for thought" versions, and the most liberal are the paraphrase versions.<br><br>Once you get away from the "word for word" translations it depends a lot on the opinion of the translators. In my opinion it becomes a commentary rather than a translation. The positive side of that can be it may be easier to read and understand for some. However it may also be misleading because it's being interpreted by translators who are trying to put it in their own words. Contemporary words and phrases rather than the original words.<br><br>Wes

I am sure we could provide dozens of examples of where the translators of the NIV has taken, let's say liberties? But one that has always impressed me as being blatantly corrupted is Luke 9:62. Compare what any of the "word for word" translations have, e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB with the NIV. My advice would be that you do this sitting down. <br><br>In His Grace,

This is all news to me. I didn't know there were problems in the NIV; except I like to see God captilized and they don't do that. That is just a personal preference of mine.<br><br>This is changing the subject just a little, but does anyone on this forum use a Ryrie Study Bible. <br>I consider mine worth it's weight in gold!<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Once you get away from the "word for word" translations it depends a lot on the opinion of the translators</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, and if you check the backgrounds of some of the translators of the NIV bible, you will have questions about whether or not some of them are even true Christians.

I tried to compare the NIV translation of Luke 9:62 with NKJV and NASB and, guess what?. NIV was not an option on the drop down list. Wonder why.<br><br>Parallel Bible Search = <br><br>

I use several, with perhaps NKJV a bit in the lead.<br><br>I usually take a NASB to Sunday morning service because it is small and there are books to take for Sunday School. For the service,<br><br>I will try to bookmark the readings in Olive Tree's Palm Bible Reader program where I have KJV, ASV, and with a new 16 Meg Palm NKJV and ESV.<br><br>I will also refer to a 1599 Geneva Bible (L.L. Brown's facsimile version).<br>

KJV for reading and basic studying<br>NKJV for reading to my 6 year old daughter<br>Jay Green's LITV or Young's YLT for studying<br><br>RSV, NIV, and Moffatt if I run out of logs for the fire.<br><br>Steve

If you don't have an NIV (no loss, IMHO) then I can post it here for you:

NIV: Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

KJV: And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

ASV: But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

YLT: and Jesus said unto him, `No one having put his hand on a plough, and looking back, is fit for the reign of God.'

Darby: But Jesus said to him, No one having laid his hand on [the] plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.

In His Grace,

I recently switched from the NKJV to the ESV. The ESV is in paragraph form which I like, and it is easier to understand--just compare reading Gal 3 and 4 -in fact all of Pauls epistles make much more sense when reading the ESV instead of NKJV or KJV.<br> I know this is begining to sound cliche--but it is true--the ESV also retains the literary eloquence of the KJV--<br>I still read my NKJV and KJV, the NASB seems to choppy and awkward for reading and I stay away from the NIV and other dynamic texts. The NIV may also be 'easier' to understand in some aspects, but it does not capture the poetry of Gods words in its translation.<br>

averagefellar<br><br>When you said "the Josepf Smith KJV", are you knocking the KJV by associating it with the heretic Joseph Smith?<br>I certainly hope not. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nono.gif" alt="nono" title="nono[/img]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When you said "the Joseph Smith KJV", are you knocking the KJV by associating it with the heretic Joseph Smith? I certainly hope not.</font><hr></blockquote><p> I believe he meant that Joseph Smith used the KJV to make his [color:red]own version</font color=red>, thus the JSKJV for short. He was comparing it to the JW's NWT (New World Translation), who basically did the same thing. Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the LDS, made drastic changes in at least 3,410 verses of the KJV which consisted of additions, deletions, rearrangements, and other alterations that caused it to vary not only from the KJV, but from other biblical texts. Changes range from minor details to fully reconstituted chapters. <br><br>

Just as a side note, in the NIV there are places where the word, "blood" is removed and a virgin is replaced with "young woman".

Hardly. Please read more of my posts to gain a better understanding of my beliefs. After doing this, you should realise I am quite reformed and strongly oppose the errors of my forefathers in aiding Joseph Smith in establishing the mormon heresy. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img] I was simply putting the JSKJV and the NWT in a category of the worst. My opologies for not being clearer, friend. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Joe<br><br>Thanks, I wasn't even aware that joseph Smith had a translation.<br><br>Tom

How many non- Americans voted for the NASB ?<br><br>How many non-English voted for the KJV ?<br><br><br>howard

I am very curious why you would ask that question? I have always and only used the KJV. I don't use this Bible based on what nationality I am. Was this just curiosity on your part, or is there some hidden meaning?<br><br>Maybe we are both just curious.

Hi Linda. Just curious thats all !<br><br>Regards howard

I voted KJV<br><br>Tom

In college we called it the non inspired version.

What about the Modern King James Bible?

The KJV only because it is the only study Bible that I have now with cross references etc. I also Have The Book on CD (I have not yet used it), and a parallel with KJV and NIV.

A good study bible goes for about $2500 Jamaican about US$42 and there are three of us to buy for. What would be a good more modern English Study Bible?