Bible Versions

[John Reece]

Hey, in an earlier reply above, I made the mistake of taking your word for what you have asserted to be the TNIV text of John 3:27.

Here is the TNIV text of John 3:27 in Accordance: To this John replied,

No bastardization of the English language there.

Unfortunately, the text as you have it is in the NIV currently published by Biblica, which is not the same as the TNIV, which apparently has been discontinued and is out of print (only used copies are for sale at Amazon.com).

[One Bad Pig]

I prefer the NKJV, though I wish the editors had gone with the Majority Text rather than the TR. I also like the NET, though I tend to prefer the alternate translations in the footnotes (which tend to be more formally equivalent).

[Scrawly]

No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

Thanks, and yeah the translation team is what appeals to me as well with the NIV. I really do like the NASB but I am questioning if the more literal a translation = the better a translation. D.A Carson disputes that principle in his book the King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979):

"In a recent article Iain Murray, editor of The Banner of Truth, defended the King James Version (KJV) against the New International Version (NIV) largely on the ground that the former attempted a more literal translation, and this he alleged, was more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration. It is a fair assessment, I think, that says the KJV is more literal than the NIV, although, as I have indicated, I doubt very much if that should always be taken as a compliment. But why a literal translation is necessarily more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration, I am quite at a loss to know. For example, if I may refer again to an illustration I have just used, to translate "Haben Sie niches gefunden?" by "Have you nothing found?" would scarcely be more honoring to the German author than "Haven't you found anything?," even though the latter translation is certainly less literal than the former. The Holy Spirit who inspired the words of Scripture equally inspired the syntax and idioms. Ultimately what we want is a translation that means what the original means, both in denotation and connotation. Even if one objects to Eugene A. Nida's famous expression "dynamic equivalent," because it can lead to all sorts of freedoms with respect to translation, it ought to be obvious that to some extent every translation, from anywhere on the spectrum, is necessarily involved again and again with finding the "dynamic equivalent."

So I'm curious, if you could only have one Bible, which version would you choose and why (between either the ESV, NASB, or NIV)?

[John Reece]

Excellent point, with which I totally agree.

Being primarily oriented in the Greek NT, when dealing with English versions I have become inclined to ignore the feministic avoidance of masculine language in the TNIV and NRSV. By the way, I also noticed that stratagem ― a plural term used to translate a singular term, just to avoid translating a masculine word ― in NET when I perused it yesterday (ETA: however, not so in John 3:27, and maybe nowhere in NET ― perhaps it was another form of gender neutral language in place of a masculine word).

I use TNIV (the only NIV in Accordance) and NRSV a lot in my language threads, because they are convenient to use and usually accurate in terms of meaning; however, when I come to a verse in which a plural form occurs solely to avoid rendering a masculine word, I leave Accordance and go out of my way to fetch the text from an online source for ESV. But there are also sources to use for that purpose in Accordance that would serve just as well.

I had used RSV from the time I first started reading the Bible in 1952. I had looked forward to the publication of the NRSV in 1989; however, when it arrived, I was quite taken aback by the contortions of language taken to avoid masculine terminology. So, when the ESV was published in 2001, as an alternative to the NRSV, that became my English version preference for a while (before I had any online sources or options).

Since health problems keep me from attending public meetings, and all my Bible work is now done using Accordance modules or online sources, I just eclectically pick and choose from a smorgasbord of versions, the choice depending on how accurately a version renders a given verse.

I certainly reject the TNIV version of John 3:27!

[Obsidian]

[John Reece]

Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

No. Although I have a leather bound NET Bible beside me on my desk, and a digital copy in the form of an Accordance module in my iMac, I never use it; not because I have any problem with it; I just don't need the notes, and I have better translations available at my finger tips.

Coincidentally, a friend who has been a professional Russian ↔ English and German ↔ English translator for 40 years stopped by my house on his way home from a walk in a nearby state park yesterday afternoon and asked me to recommend a "readable" translation for distributing in evangelistic ministry. He is an Asbury Seminary graduate whose personal Bible has been for decades and still is the New American Standard Bible, so he was not asking for himself but for other recipients of Bibles as gifts.

Without hesitation, I recommended the currently published NIV (= the same as TNIV), because when I looked to see how English versions rendered a text that seemed important to me but not well rendered in other English translations, the only version that came through with what I thought was the right meaning was the TNIV = current NIV. That's because of the quality of the translators: Gordon Fee was the NT editor (the same role played by Wallace in the case of the NET), and R. T. France was a member of his translation team. By the way, it was while the two of them were working on the TNIV that Fee picked France to write the Matthew commentary in the NICNT commentary series (Fee was the editor of the series).

[Scrawly]

There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse marking impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

Thanks I am aware of it being online. Good point about the footnotes..

[Scrawly]

I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here, wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

Yeah I definitely have concerns over that, however, I am not aware of any actual examples where this bias is manifested. Can you provide one/some?

[Paprika]

Thanks for the recommendations everyone.

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

There's another option for the NET Bible: you can access it online as I do for in-depth studying. The downside to NET which I neglected to mention is that the many footnotes, in conjunction with the chapter and verse markings, impede smooth reading (or at least they do so for me).

[John Reece]

https://bible.org/article/net-niv-es...cal-comparison

So, despite the fact that no translation is flawless, I would nevertheless like to steer clear of the ESV for the above reason(s) alone.

I notice that in the linked article authored by Daniel B. Wallace, he did not mention the fact that he was one of three directors of the NET project.

NET is essentially a Dallas Theological Seminary project; see here, wherein I note the fact that Wallace's failure to note his premier position in the development of the NET was likewise the case with regard to the rest of the DTS faculty and student body involvement in the NET Bible project.

Do you have any concern about possible "sectarian bias" at DTS?

[Scrawly]

https://bible.org/article/net-niv-es...cal-comparison

So, despite the fact that no translation is flawless, I would nevertheless like to steer clear of the ESV for the above reason(s) alone.

[Jedidiah]

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

ESV and NASB are quite similar.

[Pentecost]

As I've heard ESV and NASB are the two most literal of modern translations, I use ESV myself, though it is a bit clunky.

[Scrawly]

Thanks for the recommendations everyone.

I am still strongly considering the NET bible for reasons cited by Paprika. I like the NASB, however, when was the last time it was updated/revised? I shy away from the ESV because I am concerned about sectarian bias, however, is this of my own imagining? The ESV also seems to be a favorite of the New Calvinists and Piper cubs, and I like to be just a bit different.

[Zymologist]

I'm rather fond of my 1599 Geneva Bible, but I can't really pinpoint any particular translational reason for this. I just like it.

Otherwise, I have always been comfortable with the NASB, and heard only good things about the ESV.