What Bible Translations Do You Prefer?

blueskies

blueskies

Supporter
I started off with the KJV and over the decades have familiarized myself with any archaic language well enough so my comprehension is very good by now.

The version of KJV I use most of the time is the KJV Sword Study Bible, red letter - large print edition.

Also lately, for some reason, I started to use the KJV for OT reading and then switch to the NASB for NT reading. Not sure how this began. I have other translations but gravitate towards these two exclusively excepting an occasional dip into the CJB for specific references and occasionally a different perspective while reading the KJV and the NASB.

What Bible translations do you reach for most often?
 
blueskies said:
Ha! Yikes
Not feeling so very sleepy I wrote this very late at night. Now I see in the light of day I titled this post, “… Bible Transaction(s)… which might be an interesting, but different topic all together! :confused:😵‍💫:)
I had meant “Bible Translations”.

Can the title be amended or must I bear the disgrace?
Click to expand...
Changed the tithe fir you blueskies
 
blueskies said:
I started off with the KJV and over the decades have familiarized myself with any archaic language well enough so my comprehension is very good by now.

The version of KJV I use most of the time is the KJV Sword Study Bible, red letter - large print edition.

Also lately, for some reason, I started to use the KJV for OT reading and then switch to the NASB for NT reading. Not sure how this began. I have other translations but gravitate towards these two exclusively excepting an occasional dip into the CJB for specific references and occasionally a different perspective while reading the KJV and the NASB.

What Bible translations do you reach for most often?
Click to expand...
Hi blueskies
I only have only used KJV and NKJV .
I feel comfortable with them and trust them.
 
blueskies said:
I started off with the KJV and over the decades have familiarized myself with any archaic language well enough so my comprehension is very good by now. The version of KJV I use most of the time is the KJV Sword Study Bible, red letter - large print edition. Also lately, for some reason, I started to use the KJV for OT reading and then switch to the NASB for NT reading. Not sure how this began. I have other translations but gravitate towards these two exclusively excepting an occasional dip into the CJB for specific references and occasionally a different perspective while reading the KJV and the NASB. What Bible translations do you reach for most often?
Click to expand...
Hello blueskies;

I like how you cross reference or go to a specific translation in the OT or NT, of what the passage is saying to you.

I use several translations in my bookcase right next to my desk. Most translations that I refer to are formal equivalence that keep the text as closest to the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB are good examples.

The other translations I use are the functional equivalence, of keep the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek while reading the text that is closest to English. The NIV, GNB, JB and NLT are good examples.

I have one translation called the Message and is considered a free translation. This Bible is more of a contemporary form of English but in my experience the Message can be read as a commentary, therefore the believer who is new at studying the Bible must graduate to other translations that will help develop their theory of translation, called literal.

I have been using the ESV for some time.

God bless you, blueskies, and thank you for sharing.
 
blueskies said:
Can the title be amended or must I bear the disgrace?
Click to expand...

Done.
---

I personally have several translations... I tend to be most comfortable with studying from kjv... but as you also stated, I will sometimes look at others.. right now I tend to make use of an rsv that my husband got me whenever I want a different rendering of a text.

We also have the sword study bible :)
 
AtomicSnowflake said:
Done.
---
I personally have several translations... I tend to be most comfortable with studying from kjv... but as you also stated, I will sometimes look at others.. right now I tend to make use of an rsv that my husband got me whenever I want a different rendering of a text. We also have the sword study bible :)
Click to expand...

Hello Atomic;

Try reading the Polyglot. It was signed in 1881. By it's font size I should be done by 2027. lol!
 

Attachments

  • Polyglot Bible.jpg
    Polyglot Bible.jpg
    90.6 KB · Views: 9
  • Polyglot Bible Cover.jpg
    Polyglot Bible Cover.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 7
blueskies said:
What Bible translations do you reach for most often?
Click to expand...
Most often? It may be a tie between NASB and ESV. But all in all I feel uncomfortable putting all my eggs in one basket (one translation), especially with critical passages from the NT, I will use multiple translations (not paraphrases) and even Greek Lexicons if needs be.
 
blueskies said:
I started off with the KJV and over the decades have familiarized myself with any archaic language well enough so my comprehension is very good by now.

The version of KJV I use most of the time is the KJV Sword Study Bible, red letter - large print edition.

Also lately, for some reason, I started to use the KJV for OT reading and then switch to the NASB for NT reading. Not sure how this began. I have other translations but gravitate towards these two exclusively excepting an occasional dip into the CJB for specific references and occasionally a different perspective while reading the KJV and the NASB.

What Bible translations do you reach for most often?
Click to expand...

I was raised on the KJV and used it all through school. In the past few years I have moved gradually to the ESV.
 
Skovand1075 said:
I prefer to read multiple versions
Click to expand...
I have also gravitated to cross referencing different translations of particular words, phases and passages in order to get a more multi-dimensional understanding.

I think this brings a greater understanding and insights for me.
LearningToLetGo said:
I prefer KJV for many passages. Perhaps it's the archaic language. It feels different.
Click to expand...
Yes, I feel the same. Particularly the OT just seems richer and more textured.
 
I think the bottom line is which body of Greek manuscripts do we go with, the Majority Text (many but more recent) or the Critical Text (few but older)?
 
I use a Bible study software called One Touch by BibleSoft. There is a FREE version for those interested which contains many Bible versions, and many other Bible study tools. I have the purchased version with some added study tools.

But the English translation I rely mostly on is the good ole' 1611 King James Version. I also use the study Bible that 19th century Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger put together, a KJV with scholarly notes in the side margin, and Appendixes in the back of his research which makes worth just having a copy enough. It's called The Companion Bible.

Regardless of what those using more modern English translations may think, I must give a warning.

In modern New Testament translations that uses the revised Greek texts created by Wescott and Hort in the 1880s, many Scriptures that are written in the KJV New Testament are missing in the later modern versions. This is because Wescott and Hort relied on a different set of Greek manuscripts for their revised Greek text for the later NT versions.

The reason is because Wescott and Hort referred to a few Greek texts they claimed were older, like the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which were manuscripts only discovered centuries later. The Vaticanus manuscript was discovered in 1475 in the Vatican. The Sinaiticus was found in a monastery in the 1800s in two parts over a period of about 60 years. Those texts are 'claimed' to be older than the Greek Received Texts that the KJV used for the New Testament, but their origin and authenticity have never been proven to this day. Their history of being older is only assumed by a lot of scholars today.

I highly recommend seeing this scholarly documentary on what happened, and beware of the newer modern Bible versions that leave out something like 2,900 words that are in the Greek Received Texts that the KJV used.

 
I admit that using the KJV takes some getting used to, but the later KJV editions are no longer in Old English, so those who like to argue against the KJV are often just using their bias. One of the things Wescott and Hort's Greek New Testament translation does and remove the divinity of Jesus Christ (see the documentary link I posted above). And the majority of later modern translations are based on Wescott and Hort's Greek text, even the NKJV shows the corruption of having been modified by Wescott and Hort's Greek text, even though the publishers won't admit it. Yet it makes some of the same mistakes the other modern NT versions make.

I was asked to do a Bible study one evening at a friend's house with him and his wife. He was using the NKJV, and I was using the standard 1611 KJV. He got fed up with his NKJV because it was clear when I read the NKJV did not read the same. So the NKJV isn't really a cleaner edited KJV, it is a new text that leaves the original KJV in places. ("An enemy hath done this.")
 
DavyP said:
I admit that using the KJV takes some getting used to, but the later KJV editions are no longer in Old English, so those who like to argue against the KJV are often just using their bias. One of the things Wescott and Hort's Greek New Testament translation does and remove the divinity of Jesus Christ (see the documentary link I posted above). And the majority of later modern translations are based on Wescott and Hort's Greek text, even the NKJV shows the corruption of having been modified by Wescott and Hort's Greek text, even though the publishers won't admit it. Yet it makes some of the same mistakes the other modern NT versions make.

I was asked to do a Bible study one evening at a friend's house with him and his wife. He was using the NKJV, and I was using the standard 1611 KJV. He got fed up with his NKJV because it was clear when I read the NKJV did not read the same. So the NKJV isn't really a cleaner edited KJV, it is a new text that leaves the original KJV in places. ("An enemy hath done this.")
Click to expand...

Hello DavyP;

When you posted, "so those who like to argue against the KJV are often just using their bias." reminded me 10 years ago when we got large turnouts on Friday evenings while I was teaching. Many were new believers and came with their KJVs, NKJVs, GNBs, NIVs, ESVs, the Message, etc...We didn't argue because one translation was this and another was that. We made it work but at some point we invested in ESV pew Bibles and everyone was using the same translation.

As a result, many of those who attended have grown in their ministries be it street witnessing, volunteering, church leadership, etc...and are prepared using the 2 Timothy 4:2 discipline and have narrowed the Bible or cross reference Bibles that they use for their personal study, ministry, teaching and preaching.

I do understand studying a translation being closest to the Hebrew and Greek, but I have also encouraged disciples that not everyone is on the same level of grasping the Word as others, but press on because our potential is there. Most translations are acceptable so we can choose a translation that works and challenges our academic discipline.

Getting back to your post, the ones who argued exposed their bias but also grumbled, “this is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?” using the John 6:59-66 reasoning and ended up church hopping as a casual option of finding a church that was easy. Today most of them aren't really doing anything. It breaks my heart when Christians lose faith because many of Jesus’ teachings are difficult.

God bless you, DavyP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top