I’m not particularly thrilled with any of the English translations these days. That may just be a sign of getting old and crotchety.
What are you currently using? What are you considering using? Are there any that you just can’t stand?
I still like the early NIV, but Zondervan needs to sell more of the new ones, so they won’t let you buy the old ones any more. Which means you can’t cite them in books… as I learned with Church Inside Out.
I’m using the ESV for writing. And don’t like it much.
What suggestions do you have?
I love my NET. Its notes are really good at explaining the decisions they make with particular passages. I think the ESV is useful, but I don’t like reading it.
Interesting how they are always revising without indicating that it’s a new edition. I didn’t realize the NIV had changed. Can you reference any particular verses showing this?
Vern, gender inclusive language is one of the most notable changes.
“what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” (Psalms 8:4, NIV 1984)
“what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4, NIV 2011)
From what I’ve read, the overlap is about 60%, give or take. I don’t have a paper copy of the 2011 to really make comparisons.
Nick, I find much of the language in the ESV to be antiquated. It’s a rework of the RSV, with much of the language maintained.
On my iPhone, I typically use ESV.
In the pew, NASB, because that’s what’s there. Find the language awkward.
At home, Goodpseed’s New Testament. A little antiquated, but goes to meaning. Much of what is in the original NIV is verbatim Goodpseed.
I love the ESV, basically because it is a child of the RSV – but with a little more readable English phrasing. The RSV was what Neil Lightfoot used in his classes, and if it was good enough for St. Neil, it is good enough for me. :)
I found the HCSB (now marketed as the CSB) to be a fairly good translation, but it has its quirks too. Maybe the CSB has improved on those issues – I have not seen one.
One thing I do like about the ESV is that when a biblical author uses the same word consistently in a passage, the ESV will use the same word in translation throughout (“hurl” and “appoint” in the book of Jonah comes to mind). Many translations will attempt to use synonyms, which works for devotional reading, but not so much for word studies. Also, the ESV does a pretty good job of staying with the tense of verbs as used in the original language, something the NIV really smooths out for readability in English. Once again, much of it comes down to “technical” study vs. devotional reading. A translation that is good for the first will not be all that good for the second, and same for the other way.
You could always translate your own . . . Alexander Campbell did! (well, at least the NT)
Paul
Paul, you inspired me to check 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 11:31 in the ESV. I’m afraid they whiff on that one, as most English translations do. There ought to at least be a note saying that the verb is the same in those two verses. (NET is consistent there)
That’s a pet peeve, where people miss the obvious parallelism between those verses because translators don’t make it obvious!
As for translating my own, I’m just not sure the world is ready for the Pig Latin New Testament.
Charles, I didn’t know about the NIV – Goodspeed connection.
No idea if it goes beyond coincidence.
Tim, you have me stumped. The verb in 11:28 is from the “dokimazo” root, the verb in 11:31 is from the “diakrino” root. Now, the “diakrino” root is found in 11:29, and in my edition there is a footnote that the word could also be translated “discerned” in v. 31. Did you mean to compare 11:29 and 11:31? I think “dokimazo” and “diakrino” are basically synonymous, but you’re right, if there is a distinction it does get lost in the ESV translation.
Dr. Willis stressed that the way to evaluate translations was by looking at the verbs. I did not understand that at the time, but through the years it has come to mean more and more to me. As I try to dig back into the Hebrew and Greek I have come to appreciate when translators are consistent, and try to discern why they use different words in similar passages.
You’re right, Paul, I was one verse off. Now I have to do all of my comparisons again! But I think those verses are very helpful, if you see the parallelism. If we don’t diakrino the body, we will be judged. But if we diakrino ourselves, we won’t be judged. Helps see that the discussion about the body is about us as Jesus body, not just Jesus’ body on the cross.
Thanks Tim, that is helpful and shows a BIG change not just of words but the very meaning.