Over on the Better Bibles Blog, Rich Rhodes talked about listening to an audio version of the King James Version. He found that the epistles were very difficult to listen to because of the vocabulary employed. He concludes his post by writing:”This is why I’m so passionate about getting a translation that speaks to the heart of English speakers.”
That’s what I find with the versions I use in Spanish. In my radio programs, I use the Spanish equivalent of the GNT, which isn’t my favorite version. I use it because it’s the easiest to understand in a spoken format like that. In our bilingual service, I use the bilingual NIV/NVI Bible because our congregation owns a number of those and most of our Spanish-speakers use them. (I like the NIV in English, but don’t like the Spanish version much at all)
Maybe I’m too picky, but I really haven’t found a Bible that truly fits what I would like to see in a Bible. For now, I settle for “the lesser of evils.”
What about you? Have you found what you’re looking for in a Bible version?
[Edit at 3 p.m. CDT: Matt Dabbs tells about a church burning all non-KJV Bibles. I’m guessing they’ve found the version they like!]
As I mentioned before, I’ve been participating in the Tyndale Blog Network, reviewing products that I receive from Tyndale. This time I’m a part of one of their virtual book tours, the Mosaic Bible blog tour. This Friday, October 16, The Kitchen will be hosting the tour, with Kevin O’Brien doing a Q&A session about the book.
In addition, Tyndale will be giving away a copy of The Mosaic Bible to one of the readers of this blog. On Friday, leave a comment indicating that you would like to be in the drawing for the giveaway.
Today’s stop on the blog tour: Internet Monk
I just can’t give up my NIV. For me it’s what the majority of my congregation use so I continue to use it too. I read from other translations, but NIV is my main-stay.
Besides it’s what Paul and Silas’ grandkids carried :)
Have you tried the NTV (Nueva Traduccion Viviente)? Only the NT is available right now, but the whole Bible should be out within the year.
http://www.nuevatraduccionviviente.com/
Cute Trey. And I agree with you on the NIV as far as most people carrying that. I preach from that text for that very reason when I preach in English.
Keith: I’ll have to look at the NTV. Is it related to the NLT in English?
Tim, have you ever wondered, as I do, why we need different versions of the bible. I understand we need books written in different languages, so they can be read to, and by various audiences, and reach the world. It is alright to search for God’s truth, but when we search to confirm what we believe to be true, instead of what Jesus said is true we will be caught always searching. I am totally fine with the JKV . As flawed as it may be in translation, I believe the story and the good news it presents is flawless. God is one, God is creator, Jesus is son of that creator, we are a part of that creation that God cares enough for to give his only begotten son to save. When we try to change the story to fit our belief, we will always be left wanting, searching for our truth.
Just curious, Laymond: with that reasoning, why aren’t you using the Tyndale Bible? Or the Bishops Bible? The KJV never should have been made in the first place if we only need one translation. Several existed in English before the KJV.
The search for better translations is not to find something that backs up what we believe; it’s an attempt to avoid that very thing. Many who defend the KJV do so because they have built their doctrines around some of the wording in the KJV (like “rightly dividing the word of truth”) rather than what the original text meant to convey.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
The ESV is my Bible of choice right now. I did a good amount of research on different versions about the time the ESV hit the market.
I like it’s readability (easily as good as the NIV) and the translator’s loyalty to word for word posture vs. thought for thought of others.
Some have disqualified the ESV because they believe it is slanted toward a Reformed position. Perhaps it is but the Reformers arrived at their conclusions reading the KJV and others you have mentioned.
Royce
For personal study, I prefer the ESV. On the few occasions I get to preach, I preach from whatever translation seems prevalent (ESV at Holly Hill, NKJV at smaller congregations in the area).
When I read or do personal or small group Bible discussion, I prefer either NLT or NRSV, depending on the personality read I’ve picked up in breaking bread and praying with them.
I don’t speak KJV English (and neither does anyone in my circle) — therefore in order for me to internalize it or share it with others, I have to translate it.
I see no point in carrying a translation I have to translate, unless there is no other option (language barrier issues, etc).
Royce,
I’ve come to enjoy the ESV a lot. It’s one of the five versions I open in Accordance when studying [NIV, ESV, KJV w/Strong’s, RV60 (Spanish), DHH (Spanish)]
Nick: did you read the link in my post? He talks about having to translate “KJV English” into modern English.
Tim, there you go again, as Mr. Reagan said. I did not say I preferred the KJV over another. I simply said I am fine with the story it tells.
I believe the creation story of the Old Testament, and the Gospel story of the New, what else do we need in a bible? please expound, just what are you looking for ?
Tim, don’t ask a question if you are not willing to accept an answer.
Tim asked “What about you? Have you found what you’re looking for in a Bible version?”
but that said I should have known you weren’t asking me .
Tim,
The NTV is related to the NLT insofar as it is being translated using the same basic translation principles that the NLT uses, but it is actually a fresh translation into Spanish done by and international team of Spanish-speaking Bible scholars (not simply a translation of the English NLT into Spanish).
Are you familiar with the Spanish translation from World Bible Translation Center? Check it out at http://www.wbtc.com.
I am familiar with that version, Dan. I know several of the guys that work over at the WBTC. One neat thing is that the entire Bible is available for free on the Web, in several different languages.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Laymond, you’ve been around here long enough to not play the “poor me” card. You also asked questions and accused some of searching merely to confirm what they believe to be true. I responded to your questions and your accusation (even though I guess (?) it wasn’t directed at me).
What am I looking for in a version? The same thing the translators of the KJV were looking for when revising the Bibles that had gone before. In their words “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar. ”
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I think I read a statement by John Piper some time ago that went something like, “Even the worst English translation of the Bible is infinitely better than no Bible at all.” I agree. I prefer the NIV, but I like several others versions, too.
This is a good series, Tim. :)
Good answer Tim
Terry,
That’s much like what the original KJV translators wrote in 1611 when they wrote “the very meanest translation of the Bible in English… is the Word of God.”
I put some quotes of theirs in this post:
http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=1683
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I find it humorous when people refer to the “1611” KJV as there preference, when in reality what they are used to is a later edition. For example, in the 1611 edition it starts:
“THE FIRST BOOKE OF MOSES, called GENESIS
1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
2. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkeness was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.” (see additional views at http://www.christianbook.com/king-james-bible-1611-edition/9781565638082/pd/631609#curr)
I’m not sure if this is correct. I have also seen editions where the Ss and Fs were swapped as well as he Us and Vs, so Jesus was spelled as Jefvf.
Also, it is not 1611 if you don’t have the Old English font and all chapter numbers in Roman numerals.
I like the TNIV and NRSV. Neither are without their criticisms but overall both are quality translations which acurately translate the intent of the original without being so wooden that they are difficult to hear and read with understanding in contemporary language. What I am tired of seeing is Christian book publishers exploit the Bible, in the name of capitolism, by publishing dozens of different Bibles with subtitles so that they can make a profit. No one can buy just a Bible anymore. Now our Bible’s are the “Teen…Bible” or “The Sportsman…Bible” or “The John Doe Study Commentary Bible”, etc… Of course there is no supply without demand, so it makes me wonder…are people purchasing the book because it is a Bible or because it is a Bible plus ______.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I’m not an expert, but I reallly like the ESV for some reason. It doesn’t insult my intelligence like some Bibles do.
However, I’m not sure why some of the words are translated the way they are. The King James Version majority text seems to be better, but I’ve read other majority text versions like the MKJV and they seemed really biased, and were too technical (they used the word Nations instead of Gentiles in places).
I just now started to notice it, and it really bothers me.
I’m puzzled by the English Standard Version’s translation of Jude 1: 5. It says “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”
(Jud 1:5)
The King James Version says “the Lord”.
The KJV Greek text says “ko-ree-os” which Strongs says is “Supreme”.
Not that I disagree with what it says, I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness, but it’s difficult to trust a translation if it differs from the King James Version like this, it’s irritating when I come across something that seems like a doctrine I have never heard, then find out it’s probably due to the Greek text used.
It would be nice if someone just re-translated from the KJV Greek text, using modern words like the ESV does. I agree that the ESV is kind of awkward in places, like in the Old Testment prophecy.
Jay: That’s an excellent point. Maybe someone should mass market the 1611 AV, just to see if these people would really use it or not.
Rex: I share many of the same sentiments regarding current Bible marketing.
Casey: Jude 5 is a difficult reading in the Greek. There are at least 14 different variants! You might look at this blog for a good discussion:
http://theologicalmusings.wordpress.com/2006/06/03/who-saved-israel-from-egypt-ιησους-or-κυριος-in-jude-5/
You jarred my memory. I believe Piper was referring to that quote. Thanks!