Bible choice

[ashamoun]

I know this topic has been discussed on this forum before, but with the new "Reformation Study Bible" I thought a new thread would be interesting.

As many of you may know there has recently been a "Reformation Study Bible" which was published under the direction of R.C. Sproul. It has only been about four years or so since I started serious study and reading of my Bible. The Bible that I started in was an NIV. Through learning and reasearch, I have come to think that an NASB or ESV is more true to the original language and would like to switch, but I have so many notes in my current Bible. Have any of your switched Bibles in this manner? I know it's somewhat of a quandry because the longer I keep my NIV, the more notes I will acquire and the harder it will become to replace it.

Friends of mine have recently switched to the "Reformation Study Bible" which is an ESV and love it.

Any thoughts on switching Bible in general? And any specific thoughts on this new study Bible?

[Brandan Kraft]

I stick with KJV only these days....

[ray kikkert]

I stick with KJV only these days....

KJV is still the best and the best to raise children on. Telling to me that Zondervan would consider a "gender" neutral babble bible out of the NIV.

[wildboar]

There are two major issues to consider when choosing a Bible. The one is the textual basis for the New Testament (the Old Testament used is much more uniform among the translations) and the other is the method of translation. (Unfortunately while working at Baker I have found too many who have chosen Bibles based on how they look....oooh! hot pink with a snap!...one church even chose which Bibles to order for their pews based upon the size of the Bible).

I'll try to simplify this, so please excuse my simplification if anyone out there is aware of how complicated the whole matter really is but I figured a long explanation of textual transmission wasn't worthwhile. There are various views as to the history of manuscript copying. The one was adopted by the early church, most of the reformers, and used up until the time of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort developed a different theory about the history of the text. The KJV and NKJV are based upon the older theory and the vast majority of the modern translations are based upon the theory developed by Westcott and Hort. After studying the various views I came to adopt the Byzantine-priority position which results in a text similar but not equal to that used in the KJV and NKJV. There is no major translation as of yet based upon this exact text so I tend to favor translations such as the KJV and the NKJV for that reason. One of the benefits of the NKJV is that it lists translateable areas where the Byzantine text position and the Westcott and Hort position deviates from the Greek text that it uses. The good news is that whichever text is used there is a remarkable uniformity so that the manuscripts agree about 85% of the time and within that 15% many of the differences are not even translatable and very, very few of these variants have any theological significance.

The other issue has to do with the method of translation. Translations and even individual passages within translations fall along the spectrum between translating "word for word" or "thought for thought". A completely word for word translation results in nonsense. A completely thought for thought translation is not really a translation but a paraphrase. Some people have a great deal of time understanding the Scriptures and really like the thought for thought translations because they find it easier to make sense of them. The problem is that the further you drift into the thought for thought translations the more the translation is dependent upon the translator's theological biases. It may be easier to understand a thought for thought translation but what you are understanding may not be what the passage is actually saying. Some translations at the far end of the thought for thought translation side are "The Living Bible" (which had a great Arminian slant to it) and "The Message"(which had a bit of a more calvinistic slant but also introduced some pagan ideas such as luck). The NIV falls somewhere in the middle of the thought for thought and word for word translations. The NASB and NKJV fall on the word for word side but are still in readable English and intelligible. They make for good translations for studying God's Word. The KJV also falls on the word for word side and was once very intelligible but many of the words have become obsolete and some of the meanings have the opposite of what they once did. There are also a number of places in the Old Testament where the KJV either purposefully or accidentally followed the Vulgate or some other version rather than the Hebrew. The ESV is a significant improvement over the NIV. It remains almost as readable while making significant strides in accuracy. It also has a much greater literary quality than the NIV. The NIV tends to read like a newspaper. Accuracy wise it falls somewhere in between the NIV and NASB/NKJV. The HCSB is another recent translation which is actually more readable than the NIV but also about as accurate as the ESV.

Taking little passages here and there individually it is easy to show the great error that some translation has fallen into and the great superiority of another. Taking the translations as a whole it is much more difficult. Nobody is going to become a heretic from using any of the major translations and none of the major denominations are the result of a particular translation. Having been a Greek major in college and comparing various translations while translating it seemed that overall the best option was the NKJV and the New Geneva Study Bible/Reformation Study Bible which was once available in the NKJV was an excellent study Bible as far as study Bibles go. In October or November Ligonier ministries will be printing a limited number of these as well.

[Yoder]

I have a NKJV reformation Study Bible, NKJV MacArthur Study Bible and I am going to get the new reformation study bible that is out in the ESV. I have a KJV/NIV Parallel I use to compare passages from time to time.

I have been reading some passages in the ESV with the e-sword program and I think it holds up fairly well. I really like the NKJV though.

Dave

[ashamoun]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

What would you recommend that I do though. I know the NIV isn't "terrible" by any means, but I also know that it is not in the "top tier" of Bible translations. (Please forgive my crude references here when describing God's Holy Word, but I don't know how else to get my thoughts across, I mean no disrespect in any way) Would you recommend that I make a change? Especially considering the amount of notest that I have in my NIV.

WB, thank you for the information, but I assure you taht I am not considering teh Reformation Study Bible simply because it's the new thing. I have been considering a change on and off for about a year when I came to the understanding of the availability of a more "genuine" translation if you will. I have an NASB, a KJV, and a NKJV on my bookshelf that I use for reference, but the NIV is my "everyday" Bible and I have been happy with it so far, but I am constantly wondering if I am missing something by using it as my everyday translation.

[Mickey]

I have the Reformation Study Bible edited by Sproul. Its ok. There are some good notes and then there are some bad ones. I havn't picked it up in a while though. I prefer my NASB but my favorite is the ESB right now. It's been about a year or so since I have done an in depth study of textual transmission and lower critisism so I am a bit rusty. I have a NKJV and I really like it too. I havn't come across many if any significant scriptural differences between the NKJV and the NASB, but I know some are there. At this point I like a bible with just the text, (no study notes) which is my NASB . If I need clarification on a subject I post here on 5solas and consult some of the many commentaries I have on my self and online.

Overall I think the Sproul study bible has some good features and some of the notes provoke some good thought, but if I remember he does avoid some important texts, and he from what he writes about reprobation is sophmoric at best. I believe he takes an infralap view which would explain his commentary on some subjects.

I say go for it if you must have a study bible and you don't mind spending the money.

[wildboar]

WB, thank you for the information, but I assure you taht I am not considering teh Reformation Study Bible simply because it's the new thing.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were. I do think that newer translations such as the HCSB and the ESV have done what the NIV did, only better. But it would certainly be understandable if you didn't want to part with your Bible full of notes. The most important thing is that the Bible is read. If a person's church uses a particular translation it is certainly helpful to be familiar with that translation as well. You can miss quite a bit if you bring a different translation with you and try to follow along at times. The church I am in the process of joining uses the NIV as many churches do. The NIV in many ways has become the KJV of the previous generation and I don't think it will be disappearing anytime soon. I don't foresee churches rapidly switching to the TNIV anytime soon. People memorize verses in a particular translation and get used to a particular translation and won't part with that translation easily and that's probably a good thing in many ways. The biggest problem I have found in the NIV is the lack of punch which is found in the original. Due to its determination to keep a uniform style throughout the whole Bible, the power of certain phrases is often lost. It's not so much that key doctrines are missing but that they just don't have the same punch.

Sometimes it can be helpful as well to read through another translation just to get a fresh perspective. It doesn't mean you have to ditch your other Bible, but by doing so you can get a fresh perspective on passages which you may not have noticed because they have become so familiar.

[Robert R. Higby]

Paraphrases and amplified texts should all be discarded. The pure translation of the original text is most important.

The big issue with most of these actual translations (for me) is the tremendous amount of theological bias inserted into the renderings. The NIV is full of such deviation. I have found less of this type of thing in the original KJV than any other translation; second place would be the NKJV and NASB.

Every translation has its place, because each one generally has a few verses or passages that are translated better than in the others. But it is wise to always compare and check the original language on difficult translation issues. This does not always solve everything but it does turn up most bias very quickly.

The translation method is more important than knowing the textual variants (although both are critical), because there are more errors from translation bias than from the use of different manuscripts. :cool:

[wildboar]

BillTwisse:

Just curious as to where you have found these theological biases present in the NKJV and NASB. Do you have any examples?

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

KJV because of it's poetic style.

The NKJV because I'm too stupid to understand the KJV 99% of the time. :D

[Brandan Kraft]

I'm not suggesting we use the KJV because Don Fortner says so, but here are some reasons he gave...


GRACE FOR TODAY Radio Message #512

WHY DO YOU USE THE KING JAMES VERSION?


This is a question that I am frequently asked by friends as I travel from place to place. I realize there are many who use other, more modern translations of Scripture. If the people I preach to used another translation, I would probably use the translation they used, if it were acceptable. (The only modern translation acceptable to me is the New King James Version.) However, I do prefer the King James, or Authorized Version for the following reasons:

1. All other translations are developed by comparing ancient manuscripts. If a passage is found in the oldest, best manuscripts, and in the majority of them, it is received. If not, it is deleted. THE KING JAMES VERSION IS A TRANSLATION BASED UPON THE RECEIVED TEXT. It is a translation, but not a comparative translation.

2. THE KING JAMES IS, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST, MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Certainly, there are some passages that are translated more accurately in other versions. But on the whole, I think the Authorized Version is best.

3. THE KING JAMES IS THE MOST READABLE TRANSLATION. Granted, we no longer use, "thee", "thou", and "ye". But that does not mean that we are unable to read and understand such simple words. Though we do not use the "eth" ending on our verbs, it is important to note that ending as it is used in the Scriptures. Whenever it is employed, it means that the verb is a verb of continuous action. For example, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16).

4. EVERY ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES THAT I HAVE READ EITHER OMITS 1 John 5:7 OR SAYS THAT IT SHOULD BE OMITTED. Though it is taught throughout the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly stated in only one verse in the Bible - I John 5:7. "This text", wrote John Gill, "is so glaring a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, that the enemies of it have done all they can to weaken its authority, and have pushed hard to extirpate it from a place in the sacred writings."

For me, these are sufficient reasons for staying with the King James. God has always preserved his Word in the language of the people, and in the King James it is preserved in our language for us. If you must have a modern English translation, I suggest The New King James Version.

[wildboar]

There are problems with a number of Fortner's statements.

1. The King James Version was translated by comparing ancient manuscripts. There is not some magic manuscript in a glass box called the Received text somewhere. The NKJV is also based upon the same manuscripts as the KJV.

2. This requires a good deal of proof and comparison. It cannot just be dogmatically asserted.

3. "eth" does not necessarily mean continuous action. The present tense is used in Greek in a variety of ways and adding eth doesn't help anything. I also think it would be very difficult to prove that the KJV is the most readable translation. It is not the adding of eth or thees and thous that make it difficult but the archaic words and words which are still used but have the opposite meaning. From various studies it has been shown that the KJV is written at a 12th grade reading level, the NKJV at the 8th, NIV at 7.8, NCV 3rd, etc.

4. The NKJV includes the passage in question, but the passage has very shaky textual support. Those who believe that God preserved His Word shouldn't be arguing for this passage since it is omitted from the Greek manuscripts.


Following are some of my own thoughts as they have been developing as of late:

I have been attempting to develop a truly reformed view of textual transmission and Bible translations. So, I've been reading much from the orthodox era of reformed theology. Unfortunately nearly all of the post-Warfield theologians have either adopted Warfield's views (Robert Reymond) or do not include a section dealing with the real issues involved (Herman Hoeksema). Muller's volume on Holy Scripture has been the most helpful followed by Turretin's section in his Institutes.

Turretin and the majority of the others from the orthodox period were very clear that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament should never be emended based upon conjecture or a reading from an ancient version regardless of how difficult the grammar may be. Unfortunately none of the major translations have followed this and in many ways the KJV is one of the worst offenders in this regard (the RSV comes close). The NKJV and other modern translations have corrected what they have regarded to be unnecessary emendations, but none have gone all the way in this matter. Many of the emendations are barely noticeable but a handful are some very familiar passages such as Psalm 22:16. The KJV reads:

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

The only two translations I found which actually follow the Hebrew on this verse read:

NET Psalm 22:16 Yes, wild dogs surround me-- a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet to the ground.

TNK Psalm 22:17 Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions they maul my hands and feet.

I have also been reading William Ames and found what he said in regard to Bible translations to be quite interesting. Chapter 34 section 33 reads: "We must not rest forever in any accepted version, but faithfully see to it that a pure and faultless interpretation is given to the church." This was the reformed position on Bible translating as evidenced by the many translations and revisions of translations that took place during the reformation and post-reformation era. We shouldn't be scared of new translations. The church has an obligation to improve upon the translations which it has and must not rest on any version.

[Mickey]

Here is one verse that I think the modern versions show their bias with:

Ishaiah 45:7

(NIV) I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

(NASB) The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

(Amplified) I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well- being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord,
Who does all these things.

(NLV) I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the
one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who
does these things.

(ESV) I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.

(NKJV) I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.'

The rest arn't worth mentioning.

Now there are two versions that I know of that are faithful to the proper interpretation.

(KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things.

(ASV) I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I
am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

[Robert R. Higby]

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible also translates Isa. 45:7 correctly (I do not have it with me right now). 'Evil' (RA) in the comprehensive view includes both physical calamity and spiritual wickedness.

I agree with Charles that some of Fortner's arguments are invalid; they come from the KJV-only dogma on the 'Received Text' which has been proven time and again to be in error. The more ancient and more reliable Alexandrian and Syriac texts probably lack certain verses (including 1 John 5:7) because there was later interpolation. We do not need 1 John 5:7 to prove the Trinity.

Mike has given one example of theological bias in certain translations; I will look for others (specifically NT) when I get back to my library at home! I know that one is Eph. 2:3 which I recently mentioned in one of the threads. :cool:

[wildboar]

I'm not certain that this is a result of theological bias but of context. The word translated as "evil" can have a wide range of meaning and so since in the passage it is being set up as the opposite of "peace" or perhaps better "prosperity/well-being" it only makes sense to translate it as "calamity or misfortune". The word translated as "evil" is also used in contexts where it refers to lesser quality cows. It certainly does not appear that in this passage moral evil is what is in view but evil as viewed by the person receiving it.

[wildboar]

The more ancient and more reliable Alexandrian and Syriac texts probably lack certain verses (including 1 John 5:7) because there was later interpolation. We do not need 1 John 5:7 to prove the Trinity.


It is not in the Byzantine manuscripts or any of the real manuscripts either. The reading is not found in Erasmus' earlier editions of the Greek NT and not found in Luther's translation. The verse is believed by most to be inserted after Erasmus was harassed by the church for not including it since it was found in the Vulgate and they produced a manuscript for him which included it after he said he would include if they could find one manuscript that had it.

[Robert R. Higby]

It is also my view that SHALOM, the opposite of RA in Isa. 45:7, refers to WHOLENESS OF BEING which includes spiritual, moral, and physical. I believe the context of Isa. 45 is cosmic (light vs. darkness as spiritual entities or kingdoms, not merely physical phenomenon). :cool:

[foundinHim]

In general I prefer the ESV to other English versions . I should add that I have no working knowledge of the Greek as WB and others here on the board have . But I do have resources which I can refer to for certain words in a given verse -- and the more preferred rendering .

My study Bible was the NIV . I had a ton of notes in it . I have not transferred them as of yet . Unlike others I like to have a different Bible than the one being preached from . It makes me more aware of the nuances involved . ( Sometimes much more than details ) .

On the issue of theological biases -- according to some KJ sites the NIV has too much of a Calvinistic slant . IMHO it is no slant -- it is just being biblical . I know of a bunch of shortcomings concerning the NIV . I have read stacks of stuff criticizing it over the years . I do not appreciate eliminating words like propitiation , for instance . Even the NLB has something to the effect -- the anger of God being averted . That's awkward but better than " sacrifice of atonement . "

I have had the NT of the TNIV for about 2 years now . I think it is an improvement over its predecessor . But I have suggestions as to how to make it even better . BTW , the ESV will be undergoing some revision . About now they are having meetings regarding possible changes for the better .

I have the HCS Bible . It is just as comforable to read , if not more so , than the NIV . And it is more accurate . I have the NRSV which is considered a liberal traslation . However , despite some bad renderings here and there ( married only once -- in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1: 6 for example ) I find it very similar to the ESV -- surprise , surprise .

The NAS Bible updated is good . It is exactly the same as the ESV much of the time . Sometimes it uses a different synonym . The NAS is too wordy at times . The ESV is more concise . I find the ESV has in its text what the NAS has in its margin .

I have the New Berkeley Version . Both Testments came out in 1969 . This was before the NIV and before the New American Standard . It is pretty good , generally . But it didn't catch on . It is also called the Modern Language Bible but ironically retains archaic expressions when prayers are made to God . But in other ways it sounds more contemporary , and yet more conservative when compared with the NIV .

I also have an old Weymouth New Testament . It too has a special place . I appreciate the language it uses .

I think it is a real advantage to compare several versions -- not to just use one all the time . You never know what you may have been missing .

Incidentally , the KJ is a revision of several Bibles . It is still largely William Tyndale's groundbreaking work . I have seen and compared Tyndale's NT and part of the Old in modern typeface . It reads in kind of a modern fashion for the most part . Tyndale deserves more credit .When the JK version differs from Tyndale I usually like the latter .

The KJ Bible of today is really due to the major revision that Benjamin Blayney did in 1769 . But it still reads much like it did in Tyndale's time ( 85 years or so before the inauguration of the 1611 Bible ) .

[melted]

My main Bible is NASB updated, but I've been thinking about getting an ESV as well. I have the ESV in my Bible software and have found it to be very accurate thus far. The only obviously bad parts I've run across is the translation of Mat 16:19 and Mat 18:18. I'm sure there are more, just haven't discovered them yet.

[Yoder]

My main Bible is NASB updated, but I've been thinking about getting an ESV as well. I have the ESV in my Bible software and have found it to be very accurate thus far. The only obviously bad parts I've run across is the translation of Mat 16:19 and Mat 18:18. I'm sure there are more, just haven't discovered them yet.

And what about those verses do you not like?

Dave

[wildboar]

In many ways the Berkeley can be considered the more conservative counterpart to the RSV. There are couple of good books on bible translations and alot of bad ones. Stay away from the one edited by Comfort (the editor at Tyndale house thinks the NLT is the greatest thing since sliced bread...surprise, surprise!). Although I disagree with many of their conclusions, the two most helpful for information on Bible translations that I have found thus far are The Journey From Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner and The Bible in Translation by Bruce Metzger. In my opinion Metzger's opinion of the NRSV is a little too high and he spends a little too much time on it in the book but he did work on it after all. The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken does a good job of showing the problems with dynamic equivalence translations and translations which read like newspapers. He also has a shorter little booklet that is a summary of his larger book. The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition by Arthur Farstad provides alot of good information on that particular translation especially regarding improvements made over the KJV. I've also noticed that the TNIV makes a number of significant improvements over the NIV, it's a shame they went the gender-neutral route on some of the passages though (and no God doesn't become an it in the Bible). Grudem and Poythress have a good book on the problems with the TNIV.

[melted]

And what about those verses do you not like?

Dave
Here is the NASB:
Mat 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

and ESV:
Mat 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

These verses improperly translated give the religionists of today ammo for their belief that things happen in heaven AFTER or BECAUSE OF things that happen on earth. A greek scholar may provide additional commentiary, but the verbs are future perfect passive. Perfect is a completed action in the past with continuing results. The NASB nailed this one, but KJV and ESV, among others, messed it up.