Support for Other Versions

[Binaca Chugger]

Growing up at FBCH, I have heard many arguments why the KJV is the correct translation for the English Speaking Peoples.  I have also heard many arguments for why other versions should not be used.  After being on this forum for a while, I have read many arguments against the KJVO position which, I think is an extremist view.

If you do not use a KJV, which version is your main version for reading, study and preaching?  Why do you choose this version?

The KJVP and the KJVO groups present information why the KJ is the correct translation.  I have seen very little information presented to defend any other version as an accurate translation.  What information is available to prove your preferred version is the correct translation?  I am particularly interested in the ESV, as it seems to be becoming very popular in conservative, non-KJV churches.

 

[rsc2a]

I use the ESV primarily. Before that it was the NIV. I wanted something that was closer to a word-for-word translation but that was still readable. From the research I found, the NASB is probably the most "accurate" but very choppy whereas the ESV smooths out some of the choppiness by using a slightly more idea-for-idea translation methodology.

I don't think this particular translation is "the" correct translation because all translations are subject to the translator's interpretation. I believe it is "a" correct translation just like many others, which is part of the reason that I prefer to use multiple translations and paraphrases with selections ranging from the KJV to the NIV to the Cottonpatch Bible. In fact, I recommend that people who are extremely familiar with one particular translation to take a break from that one and use another one for a while to allow yourself to see the text with new eyes.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I used to use the LOLCAT translation.  There was a time when it was actually pretty accurate.  Unfortunately, it has been edited continually and isn't nearly as reliable as it once was. 

 

[FSSL]

The ESV is a great translation. I like it.

My preference has been the NIV. Even with the latest update, I still like it.

When I was in seminary, learning Greek & Hebrew, I saw the genius of the NIV translation. It was not the dynamic equivalent, sloppy, translation KJVOs make it out to be.

In this day and age... it is not difficult to own many different ones and read them all.

That is my $.02.

 

[Ransom]

If you do not use a KJV, which version is your main version for reading, study and preaching?  Why do you choose this version?

For everyday, go-to-meeting Bible use, I have used the NASB since 1993. I like its literalness. (I'm still carrying an old edition, but I appreciate the improvements of the 1995 update; I have one of each.) When I first read it, the language just really stuck with me.

For online or writing, I use the ESV. It's about as literal as the NASB but more readable - since it's based on the RSV, it had a head start on good, literary English. Also, the publishers have gone the extra mile to encourage its use on the Internet.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I dont like the NIV at all, if one has an option.

Cmon folks.  For all of the attacks against the kjvo position, surely there must be a strong position for why another version should be trusted, right?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The ESV is a great translation. I like it.

My preference has been the NIV. Even with the latest update, I still like it.

I like the NIV.  I use the NKJV more often, but only out of habit, not preference (not anymore, anyway).  My second go-to translation is NIV. 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

But......why?

Is your choice built simply on preference?

 

[FSSL]

My choice is both preference and a knowledge of the biblical languages.

Are you looking for a dogmatism from our side that equates to the polar opposite of the KJVO?

 

[rsc2a]

I dont like the NIV at all, if one has an option.

Cmon folks.  For all of the attacks against the kjvo position, surely there must be a strong position for why another version should be trusted, right?

But......why?

Is your choice built simply on preference?

Notice the "o" in the KJVo question above? That's the problem people generally have with that group, not with the KJV part of it.

Do I think the KJV is a good translation? Sure.
Do I think it is without error? No. I can think of many off the top of my head.
Why do I think others are better? Because they are in a form of English the vast majority of people today can understand without resorting to a dictionary on archaic words.
Do I think those others are without error? Nope. Translation is fundamentally an interpretive process, and I have no illusions that the translators of the various translations not allowing their biases to subtlety influence their word choices.

 

[Ransom]

For all of the attacks against the kjvo position, surely there must be a strong position for why another version should be trusted, right?

The antithesis of KJV-onlyism is not "all other Bibles are equally authoritative and trustworthy."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

But......why?

Is your choice built simply on preference?

Yes, preference for the method of translation, for the accuracy and for readability.  As for method, I'm with rsc2a in that I want something close to a word-for-word translation but massaged for readability.  As for accuracy, I am not fluent in (Biblical) Greek and don't know much Hebrew, but I can decipher both with a guide.  And I can decipher Greek well enough to know when a particular translation of a passage lacks fidelity to the Greek. 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

My choice is both preference and a knowledge of the biblical languages.

Are you looking for a dogmatism from our side that equates to the polar opposite of the KJVO?

Yes!  For all of the hate against the kjv, what documentation shows the greater accuracy of another version?  Why should someone swutch to a different version?  What makes a different version better?  Surely there is an argument beyond preference, isnt there?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Why should someone swutch to a different version?
[/quote]

Because of this:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'd rather fight than swutch. 

 

[FSSL]

My choice is both preference and a knowledge of the biblical languages.

Are you looking for a dogmatism from our side that equates to the polar opposite of the KJVO?

Yes!  For all of the hate against the kjv, what documentation shows the greater accuracy of another version?  Why should someone swutch to a different version?  What makes a different version better?  Surely there is an argument beyond preference, isnt there?

First of all... no one hates the KJV. We show the KJVO, using the KJV, that their beliefs are wrong.

Second, stay with the KJV if you like. I have given you arguments, beyond preference, why I use the NIV.

Third, you will not find an equal dogmatism on our side. We have not erected a myth to constrain the consciences of others.

Fourth, why is a preference for a particular version not enough reason?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Why should someone swutch to a different version?

Because of this:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes.  But the middle schoolers I teach have just as much trouble with a whole passle of passages as you do with this passage.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I'd rather fight than swutch.

You got me.  Typing on the phone again.  Or, maybe a switch would be just that hard - a swutch.  :

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Why should someone swutch to a different version?

Because of this:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Yes, yes, yes.  But the middle schoolers I teach have just as much trouble with a whole passle of passages as you do with this passage.
[/quote]

Honestly, can you say this

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

...is just as understandable as this...

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

...to the vast majority of English-speakers today?

Actually, that's not a fair question. If you say yes, I'll point blank ask why you insist on being dishonest or deliberately naive, and if you say no, I'll ask why you don't want people to have a Bible in a language they can understand.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Why should someone swutch to a different version?

Because of this:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Yes, yes, yes.  But the middle schoolers I teach have just as much trouble with a whole passle of passages as you do with this passage.

Honestly, can you say this

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

...is just as understandable as this...

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

...to the vast majority of English-speakers today?

Actually, that's not a fair question. If you say yes, I'll point blank ask why you insist on being dishonest or deliberately naive, and if you say no, I'll ask why you don't want people to have a Bible in a language they can understand.
[/quote]

To me, this is not a sufficient answer to support why another version is more accurate than any other.  This is your "go to" passage each time versions are discussed.  My rebuttal is that there are many passages in any version that are difficult to understand by the casual reader of the Bible.  If we are only going to base our decision on which version we read by which is the least challenging, we should probably stick to the Brick Bible.  On second thought, that one frequently uses the term yahweh, so, it too, should be pushed aside.  You see, I am afraid that this line of reasoning will result in a Bible that never challenges the intellect or the heart.

I am not looking to discuss which version is the easiest for someone to read.  I want to know why you choose the version you personally utilize.  What credentials does it have?  Why is the translation better?