Bible Translations -- Opinions & Questions

I thought we were talking about Josephus not the Roman.

After many months and buying many versions, I still think the NIV is the best IMHO. The CSB and ESV are growing on me though..

I also like the New Jerusalem version also.

reply to post by edsinger


I think that the New Living Translation is better than the NIV, as for being a paraphrase. But, that's just my opinion.

I use the ESV as my main Bible. I love it. I believe putting it in the KJV tradition is quite accurate. It "feels" like the Bible and is very readable--though some parts are strange like the "at table" in the Gospels. At first, I was kinda weary of the ESV because it was more or less made in reaction to the TNIV, but, I think that the translators did a good job out actually translating instead of getting too worked up over the reason why they actually started translating it. Despite why people say about the Wescolt-Hort text that it's based on, I'm glad that I can have a Bible based on texts older than the Textus Receptus [which is good as well, just not as old]. Many of these people tend to be KJV-onlyers anyway.

Since you said earlier that the ESV is growing on you, you should take a look into the ESV Study Bible. I purchased it when it first came out and I haven't been disappointed yet with it.

Someone earlier said that the modern translation leave out the last 12 verses of Mark and I wanted to say that that isn't true. They make a notation saying that in the earliest Greek manuscripts, it's not included.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by edsinger

 

I think that the New Living Translation is better than the NIV, as for being a paraphrase. But, that's just my opinion.

Since you said earlier that the ESV is growing on you, you should take a look into the ESV Study Bible. I purchased it when it first came out and I haven't been disappointed yet with it.

Someone earlier said that the modern translation leave out the last 12 verses of Mark and I wanted to say that that isn't true. They make a notation saying that in the earliest Greek manuscripts, it's not included.

I have a NLT and its not bad per se but it is thought based, I like the more literal based. Its harder to understand but you see what the author intended. As for the ESV SB, that is what I have, the Reformation ESV Study Bible. Most of my Bibles are of the 'study' type.

As for the Mark comments, the translators are right when they point these areas out. The KJonly folks don't seem to understand how and when the KJV came about. The 'Received text' was good but a good 7-800 years newer than what we have today. The best example is the "and the Three are One". That just 'appeared' in the 13th century and there is NO text basis for it being there. The Trinity does not NEED it to be proven.

Check out a New Jerusalem version in Borders or Barnes and Noble. Check a few of your favorite verses. It is a Great Study Bible also...even if it is the Catholic Bible outside the US (NAB in US).

It is good to check other translations at times to get a better 'feel' for what is being said..

PS, Download E-SWORD if you dont have it, it is AWESOME and FREE.