Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

[Reynolds357]

The main differences, that I'm aware of, between the ASV and the NASB is that in ASV it's the thee's and thou's and NASB has a more contemporary you instead.

If I remember correctly, the major difference is in manuscripts used for their translation.

[TrustGzus]

If I remember correctly, the major difference is in manuscripts used for their translation.

There might be minor differences due to manuscripts. The NASB being more current has had more manuscripts available. The ASV was done in 1901. The NASB being most recently updated in 1995 uses the Nestle-Aland 26th edition for its text.

In both cases Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are used. But the NASB is much more influence by papyri that has been discovered.

I think the biggest differences is just in updating the English between the near century that passed between the two.

[TrustGzus]

I didn't vote. Don't know if I will. I read a different version every year. This year I'm reading the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Sometimes tongue-in-cheek called the Hard Core Southern Baptist.

[Brother Mark]

I use the NKJV the most, since I wore my last NIV out; however, I use nearly a dozen different translations when I'm studying a particular point. I'm particularly curious about the NLT.

W

You do what I do. I compare many translations when I am studying.

For reading purposes, either the NIV or NASB. For study, I start with the NASB.

[Brother Mark]

I forgot to mention earlier... One thing to keep in mind is how the different bibles are translated. Some are thought for thought translations while others are word for word.

For instance, if you are translating a bible for a tribe in the jungles of Brazil and you translate word for word you might say "whiter than snow". However, if you do it thought for thought, you might say "whiter than rice" or "whiter than 'this native flower'". That gets the thought across. However, when you get ready to do a word study on snow, you cannot do that with the thought for thought translation.

Also, a concern of mine, and I don't know if it's valid or not, is that a thought for thought translation seems to have room for the translator to put in his on biases more easily than a word for word translation will do.

[Fenris]

I read it in Hebrew.


I am a fan of the KJV, I think it captures the poetic flow of Hebrew the best. It does have many translation errors though.

[Watchman]

I read it in Hebrew.

Show off!

W

[Fenris]

Show off!

I actually have a Christian friend at work who learned Hebrew and Greek, so that he could read both bibles in their original languages.

I consider that pretty awesome.

[Watchman]

I actually have a Christian friend at work who learned Hebrew and Greek, so that he could read both bibles in their original languages.

I consider that pretty awesome.

I do, too...was just jabbin' atcha a bit!

[Hannah]

For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

[keck553]

KJV for serious study, NIV for casual reading.

[TrustGzus]

For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

Hannah, that is awesome. Keep reading the NLT if it blesses you. Keep handy in your abode a version or two like the NASB or ESV or even the NIV so you can compare with something formal than the NLT. The NIV is more formal than the NLT, the ESV is more formal than the ESV and the NASB is even more formal yet. No translation is perfect. So for those of us that aren't proficient in the original languages, having a few good translations is a good way to safeguard. It's not a perfect method, but a decent method. If you like the reading in a particular version (such as the NLT) but no other translation reads like it, there's a good chance that it might not be the most accurate at that point.

[Boo]

Now that I have a couple years of actual study of bibles and God's Word behind me, I have developed my own study methods which give me confidence in the results. I do most of my study on computer and online. There are a few great free software programs that allow me to compare translations and they even come with Strong's references and Nave's Topical Bible. I also have a couple commercial packages that provide information that is difficult to come up with otherwise.

The really great part is in how I can get through the eventual sticking points by going to two manuscripts (TR and Codex Sinaticus) to compare the source document with the English translations and iron out those issues. So many points of confusion can be cleared up by the source manuscripts and the Hebrew and Greek biblical dictionaries.

I will never go with just one translation of the bible - too many built-in errors made by man. When I carry an actual bible, it is an ESV.

[Luciano Vinci]

I use the KJV the most, only because I am forced to because most of the word studies use KJV. I like reading the Message for daily devotions, not for any serious study. And I carry the NKJV around for church services and such. But I really have no preference. I like them all, and dislike them at various times.

[Jollyrogers]

For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

I tend to use the ESV more in the last year. Before that it was the NASB. Have a NIV & NKJV and of course E-sword

You seem to be fascinated with the different versions, have you tried the free computer program E-Sword? It is free to install and has many free translations in English along with some other languages. As long as that version is out of copyright, it should be free. It would be a way to browse and compare them.

http://www.e-sword.net/