Big G and I enjoyed this podcast today. She likes KJV because it sounds Shakespearean. 😂 Zach, I agree, we should have an ESV 2.0. 🤜🏻🤛🏻 One of my favorite parts of this last year's Challenge 4 class was going around the room after reading our devo passage & comparing different word choices and the implications for a reader who only looks at that translation. Sometimes, we would go find the Hebrew or Greek word for some additional etymology to draw out meaning & nuance. I love seniors! I learn so much alongside them!!
Personally I like NLT for listening in the car and then KJV for study purposes. The words for linking remain the same largely in different scriptures. Luckily we have the spirit of truth😁
My thinking has always been that the congregation should use the same translation as the Pastor so we're all on the same page at least during church services but choose your own at home. Or let the congregation choose one thanslstion for church service. Consistency is needed.
Hey, just to clarify a couple of items for those who don't know: 1) The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR), not the Majority Text (though It's in the family of the MT). 2) A common misconception is that MT proponents think we should go with a translation of what a simple majority of Greek manuscripts say without regard to the "oldest texts", but that's not technically correct. What they DO believe is that the majority of manuscripts preserve what was originally written from manuscripts that are even OLDER than the two manuscripts the Critical Text primarily depend on. So MT advocates actually agree that we should depend on the oldest manuscripts, but disagree that the oldest EXTANT (currently available) manuscripts are as reliable as what was preserved in the majority from even older non-extant documents.
From time to time, I like to cross reference to the CJB. It's not an everyday reader version since it leaves some Hebrew untranslated (including proper names), but I love the way some of the wording works out.
Im a KJ guy but not KJ only. I do use NASB sometimes that give me clarification on some tough passages or words. Then when i read the KJ i will substitue the NASB word in thought for the tough word. Make sense? Geneva Bible is older than KJ and is almost exactly the same wording. GB was brought to the New World by most Puritans
Yes, that's because the KJV and Geneva Bibles were both revisions that used Tyndale's translation as a starting point. I believe the KJV was a direct revision of the Bishops Bible which was a revision of the Tyndale version that removed a bunch of offensive (to the crown) notes and restored some of the more traditional (Catholic-sounding) terms (like "baptize" instead of "immerse").
I think it’s a little misleading to say “the oldest manuscripts don’t have the longer ending of Mark”. It would be more accurate to say two manuscripts of unknown origin and little to no use by the church in history prior to 1881 do not contain it, although one of them has the space. All other manuscripts have it. It is also witnessed by early church fathers. Additionally, Mark 16:9-20 contains vital doctrinal readings on baptism, the resurrection, gifts and the authority and power of Christ. Casting doubt on these verses dramatically affects said doctrines.
This wasn't much help on actually understanding translations and the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text. The best advise was that they all liked the NLT.
Big G and I enjoyed this podcast today. She likes KJV because it sounds Shakespearean. 😂
Zach, I agree, we should have an ESV 2.0. 🤜🏻🤛🏻
One of my favorite parts of this last year's Challenge 4 class was going around the room after reading our devo passage & comparing different word choices and the implications for a reader who only looks at that translation. Sometimes, we would go find the Hebrew or Greek word for some additional etymology to draw out meaning & nuance. I love seniors! I learn so much alongside them!!
There is an ESV 2.0. It’s the CSB.
I use NIV, CSB, NRSV. ESV is ok.
Personally I like NLT for listening in the car and then KJV for study purposes. The words for linking remain the same largely in different scriptures. Luckily we have the spirit of truth😁
My thinking has always been that the congregation should use the same translation as the Pastor so we're all on the same page at least during church services but choose your own at home. Or let the congregation choose one thanslstion for church service. Consistency is needed.
I agree, I think it is good for the congregation to use the same translation as what is being preached from.
Hey, just to clarify a couple of items for those who don't know: 1) The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR), not the Majority Text (though It's in the family of the MT). 2) A common misconception is that MT proponents think we should go with a translation of what a simple majority of Greek manuscripts say without regard to the "oldest texts", but that's not technically correct. What they DO believe is that the majority of manuscripts preserve what was originally written from manuscripts that are even OLDER than the two manuscripts the Critical Text primarily depend on. So MT advocates actually agree that we should depend on the oldest manuscripts, but disagree that the oldest EXTANT (currently available) manuscripts are as reliable as what was preserved in the majority from even older non-extant documents.
From time to time, I like to cross reference to the CJB. It's not an everyday reader version since it leaves some Hebrew untranslated (including proper names), but I love the way some of the wording works out.
Im a KJ guy but not KJ only. I do use NASB sometimes that give me clarification on some tough passages or words. Then when i read the KJ i will substitue the NASB word in thought for the tough word. Make sense? Geneva Bible is older than KJ and is almost exactly the same wording. GB was brought to the New World by most Puritans
Yes, that's because the KJV and Geneva Bibles were both revisions that used Tyndale's translation as a starting point. I believe the KJV was a direct revision of the Bishops Bible which was a revision of the Tyndale version that removed a bunch of offensive (to the crown) notes and restored some of the more traditional (Catholic-sounding) terms (like "baptize" instead of "immerse").
ESV NASB for me
I think it’s a little misleading to say “the oldest manuscripts don’t have the longer ending of Mark”. It would be more accurate to say two manuscripts of unknown origin and little to no use by the church in history prior to 1881 do not contain it, although one of them has the space. All other manuscripts have it. It is also witnessed by early church fathers.
Additionally, Mark 16:9-20 contains vital doctrinal readings on baptism, the resurrection, gifts and the authority and power of Christ. Casting doubt on these verses dramatically affects said doctrines.
This wasn't much help on actually understanding translations and the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text. The best advise was that they all liked the NLT.