Christians, which translation of the Bible do you prefer? Thoughts about the ESV?

Question

I've been reading the NIV translation for a long time, but I'm curious what others prefer and why.

Thanks.

Answer 1

I use the KJV with Strong's references and Red letters, for quoting purposes (while amongst Christians), I use the NASB w/Strong & RL for general reading purposes, I use the Good News and Bible in Basic English versions for quoting purposes (when in a group of people who don't wanna hear the 'thee's and the 'thou's), and I study from the Greek Language version.

The ESV is alright... there's no real differences I can spot between the ESV and the NASB.

For future reference, go to www.e-sword.com... there, you can download, for *free*, a TON of Bible versions for use on their *free* e-Sword reader. Including most of the varieties (or a similiar variation on it) mentioned in this topic, including the ESV.

Answer 2

There are alot of opinions as to bibles,

Please note what the translators of the NIV said as to the accuracy of their translation.

Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:

“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition.
. . . to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

As you can see from others comments to your question, People are victims of the KJV. The reason newer bibles leave out those verses is because they should never have been there to begin with.

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

agrees with Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D about the KJV, but he calls it the Protestant Burden.

If your bible doesn't read like the KJV people consider it a "bad" bible. Why, because that is what english people grew up with.

Jason BeDuhn states that the NWT is one of the most accurate New Testement Bibles available today.

Which is why that is the one I prefer.

Answer 3

I own the ESV, and it is a fairly readable modern translation. Its drawback is that it is adapted from the Revised Standard Version, which I view with considerable skepticism. Although the ESV doesn't have the same problems as the RSV, its pedigree has always concerned me.

If you are looking for a translation that has the feel of the NIV, but is less of a thought for thought translation, I would recommend the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Of course, my opinion, and $1.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Denny's.

Answer 4

I like The Message more than any other I have, also whatever translation you have, if you get the Life Application edition, it is a wonderful study bible for any translation. I have it in NIV and also New Living Bible. The study notes at the bottom of the page is the same for any translation.

Answer 5

I'm all for the one that is an easy read and understandability. They must follow the original manuscript. I enjoy the NLT, NKJV, NIV, Amplified etc.

I would suggest getting different translations (minus the New World Translation).

That way you can compare. There's a website where you can do the same thing for free. It's a great tool!

www.bible.com

Answer 6

I'm with Tim, I grew up with the KJV and I just enjoy reading it. Not that other versions are bad, but I just feel comfortable with KJV.
I've also noticed that with all the different varieties, some translations completely change the meaning of a verse. Like you read the same verse in two or three versions, and you get different takes on what it supoosedly says.

Answer 7

I prefer the King James Version.Some of the other translations change key wording and therefor meaning.Im not familiar with the ESV.

Answer 8

Below are four different Bible's that have one scripture featured, which is more like the King James which is also featured below? ESV-Psa 83:18 that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth NASB-Psa 83:18 That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth ASV-Psa 83:18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. KJV-Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth NWT-That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. It looks like the two you are asking about has altered at least one scripture, would make you wonder how many other scriptures have been altered?

Answer 9

I use the KJV. For many years I didn't like it. It was hard to understand, and I didn't understand why they needed to use phrases that didn't make any sense. I never really read from it, but still I didn't like it. Then one day I actually read from it. When read in a frame of mind similar to the frame of mind you have to be in when reading Shakespear, it can be easier to understand. Of course the more you know about Jewish life in the timeframe your reading in the more sense it will make.
Also, the church I am a member of only uses the KJV.

Answer 10

I prefer the KJV, because it was translated by sixteen(16) individual and independent people(including Shakespeare) and it was translated directly from the ancient manuscripts.