Does the Bible version or translation that you use really matter?
For KJVO'ers, I'm just honestly not that interested in your arguments here. I wanted to start by saying that so we'll have a mutal understanding that this will not evolve into a debate about the KJV vs everyone else. I have use the KJV, still consult the KJV, and I am fine with people who use the KJV.
That aside, I am really looking into Bible versions lately. We do suffer, for some extent, to the curse of too many. I love having multiple translations on one hand. Lately I've been pretty steady at consulting the ESV, HCSB, NLT, NKJV, and NIV. I also pull out the KJV, NRSV, NASB, and other versions from time to time.
However, I feel like we're getting to the point that confusion is developing. I love the ESV. My church uses it, and it comes the closest to the KJV in terms of memorability (Is that even a word?). A number of very blessed and committed Christians preach or teach using this version. I recently completed a book by the English Editor of the ESV, and he made a strong case for the importance of literalness in the Bible as it relates to figurative language. The ESV is a pretty literal version.
Yet, you end up with passages like Ezekiel 7:17. The ESV goes off in another direction. The Bible that gets this right, surprise, surprise, is actually the NIV. Bibles like the KJV, NASB, and other solid translations refer to weak knees over the implication of the soiling of oneself. Another prime example is Philippians 3:8. The word Paul used was the common Greek four-letter word for crap. Yet literal versions and dynamic versions alike soften it to "rubbish," "garbage," "refuse," etc. The KJV comes the closest by using the word dung, but that was dropped by modern versions. (I don't, personally, find dung offensive at all and most people know the term.)
So my questions is how literal are the literal translations?
Which brings me toward my ultimate question. I use the ESV and don't have a problem with it. I can "solve" the anachronistic or inverted language. In a way, it is positive because it helps me slow down and think on a verse. However, does it get in the way of the next person who doesn't understand English like I do? Does it sound outdated in a modern time? Christianity already suffers from being "backward" for some people who have never really taken a deep look at the faith. If I lose them because the verse I quote sounds like it is from 100 years ago, do we just chalk it up to them not being receptive, or have we done all we can do?
The reason I am bringing this up is I am struggling with it. I've tried to settle on my primary version. It has been the ESV for some time, but I came across the HCSB which I really like and then I use the NLT for my youth. I love what the NLT does sometimes, and get frustrated with it at other times. Same for the NIV, it's love hate. However, people use these versions because they find them acceptable. I can't overlook the fact that the NIV remains on top. For all the ESV success, it remains several spots below the NIV on the CBA list.
So, do we go with a translation like the NIV/HCSB/NLT which is "more accesible," or do we stick literal with the ESV/NASB/KJV because it's "better?" What are your thoughts? Does it matter?
For KJVO'ers, I'm just honestly not that interested in your arguments here. I wanted to start by saying that so we'll have a mutal understanding that this will not evolve into a debate about the KJV vs everyone else. I have use the KJV, still consult the KJV, and I am fine with people who use the KJV.
That aside, I am really looking into Bible versions lately. We do suffer, for some extent, to the curse of too many. I love having multiple translations on one hand. Lately I've been pretty steady at consulting the ESV, HCSB, NLT, NKJV, and NIV. I also pull out the KJV, NRSV, NASB, and other versions from time to time.
However, I feel like we're getting to the point that confusion is developing. I love the ESV. My church uses it, and it comes the closest to the KJV in terms of memorability (Is that even a word?). A number of very blessed and committed Christians preach or teach using this version. I recently completed a book by the English Editor of the ESV, and he made a strong case for the importance of literalness in the Bible as it relates to figurative language. The ESV is a pretty literal version.
Yet, you end up with passages like Ezekiel 7:17. The ESV goes off in another direction. The Bible that gets this right, surprise, surprise, is actually the NIV. Bibles like the KJV, NASB, and other solid translations refer to weak knees over the implication of the soiling of oneself. Another prime example is Philippians 3:8. The word Paul used was the common Greek four-letter word for crap. Yet literal versions and dynamic versions alike soften it to "rubbish," "garbage," "refuse," etc. The KJV comes the closest by using the word dung, but that was dropped by modern versions. (I don't, personally, find dung offensive at all and most people know the term.)
So my questions is how literal are the literal translations?
Which brings me toward my ultimate question. I use the ESV and don't have a problem with it. I can "solve" the anachronistic or inverted language. In a way, it is positive because it helps me slow down and think on a verse. However, does it get in the way of the next person who doesn't understand English like I do? Does it sound outdated in a modern time? Christianity already suffers from being "backward" for some people who have never really taken a deep look at the faith. If I lose them because the verse I quote sounds like it is from 100 years ago, do we just chalk it up to them not being receptive, or have we done all we can do?
The reason I am bringing this up is I am struggling with it. I've tried to settle on my primary version. It has been the ESV for some time, but I came across the HCSB which I really like and then I use the NLT for my youth. I love what the NLT does sometimes, and get frustrated with it at other times. Same for the NIV, it's love hate. However, people use these versions because they find them acceptable. I can't overlook the fact that the NIV remains on top. For all the ESV success, it remains several spots below the NIV on the CBA list.
So, do we go with a translation like the NIV/HCSB/NLT which is "more accesible," or do we stick literal with the ESV/NASB/KJV because it's "better?" What are your thoughts? Does it matter?
