Preferred Bible translation

[farouk]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

My opinion is that the Bible should be translated to be understood.  If one translated the words and phrases literally -- and there is not a single translation that does this -- then it would be more-or-less meaningless.  I am currently reading a book entitled "One Bible, Many Versions" by Dave Brunn.  Here is an excerpt regarding logos: "yes, sometimes logos does mean "word".  But in the KJV we find that it also means "treatise", "account", "reason", "communication" and "saying" among the twenty-four possibilities.  Many of the twenty-four renderings of logos in the KJV are used in other versions too, such as the ESV and NASB.  But those versions also translated logos in ways that the KJV did not.  If we survey all the ways the ESV and the NASB translated logos we will find more than thirty additional renderings."  And these translations are considered to be word-for-word!

He points out that clearly there is no such thing as a precise word-for-word translation.  Every single translation puts word into the destination language according to their meaning.

There is some truth to what you say, indeed; but a word study - done via a translation - needs to keep closer to the original rather than via a paraphrastic, or dynamic equivalence translation: as their basic text, most of the commentaries will likely quote from a more formal version rather than via a paraphrastic or dynamic equivalence one.

[Deadworm]

ny translation but the highly corrupt KJV and NKJV which are based on the latest and most error-filled manuscripts!

[JimmyB]

On 5/21/2023 at 11:38 AM, Deadworm said:

ny translation but the highly corrupt KJV and NKJV which are based on the latest and most error-filled manuscripts!

Most translations, especially the newer ones, are the best, because...

The art/science of translating is better than it has ever been.

The are more and better manuscripts now than ever before, especially when compared to what was available 400 years ago.

Most modern translations are extensively reviewed by ecumenical committees to insure against doctrinal bias.

People, including every single person on this forum, reads-writes-speaks-thinks in 21st Century English.  The Bible should communicate in present-day language if it is to be clearly understood.

Perhaps people feel "religious" when they use the King James translation, but that is a clear deception.

Jesus was a rural carpenter who spoke and wrote in Aramaic, the common Hebrew dialect.  Forsooth, He spoketh not in an ancient tongue.

 

[Alive]

I will not argue which translation is best, although I do have a favorite…I study from many as well@#original texts.

I think its important that we affirm that God has made certain that we have what we need. In fact, regarding scriptural study and integrity, we have an “embarassment of riches” as one scholar said. Let us build a trust and faith in the scriptures for all who call on His Name.

He is faithful.

[Fallen into Grace]

I am a translation hopper but my three favorites are ESV, NKJV, and KJV. Right now I'm reading KJV. NIV 2011 and CSB are in my second group of favorites. I like ESV because it's like a modern more smoother version of KJV in modern but smooth English. NKJV is a modern version based on manuscripts similar to KJV. KJV is KJV and it's thees thous and yes yous (to distinguish singular versus plural) and it being more literal sometimes makes it a great study version...except maybe in Paul's letters and Job. NIV and CSB are good in between versions (don't like the Selahs in Psalms being omitted in NIV 2011 though). KJV is not as hard to understand except maybe in Paul's letters and Job). That's where the ESV comes in handy or on any book of the Bible. ESV is what KJV would feel like if made in modern day. That's one of the reasons ESV is one of the best Bible versions.

[NConly]

If one looks there is a list of words and or verses left out in certain versions choose wisely.

[farouk]

36 minutes ago, NConly said:

If one looks there is a list of words and or verses left out in certain versions choose wisely.

@NConly Indeed, from this point of view also, KJV seems more intact.

[farouk]

@NConly What you say is one of the reasons why I really do like and prefer the King James.

I know a lot of ppl try other versions, which do have their certain strengths in some ways, but some ppl end up coming back to the King James.

[JasperWalls11]

I like the ESV and the NASB

[NConly]

36 minutes ago, farouk said:

@NConly What you say is one of the reasons why I really do like and prefer the King James.

I know a lot of ppl try other versions, which do have their certain strengths in some ways, but some ppl end up coming back to the King James.

I have several all kjv but each is different