re: Bible translations

Marty Brownfield (
Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:13:24 -0800

> From: David McKay <>, on 1/21/97 4:08 PM:
> 21st January, 1997
> As a distinguished bunch of august translators, I guess we don't really
> need 'em, however I'm wondering if interested list members could share
> which translations they favour and why?
As long as you asked.....

There's no accounting for taste. I prefer the NIV just because when I seriously
began studying the Bible that's the version my church preached from and that's
the version I memorized from. It is also the version the church I attend now

But every translation has its quirks. There are many cases when I think the NIV
tends to sacrifice accuracy for smoothness; e.g. 1 Thes. 1:3 (work "produced
by" faith? labor "prompted by" love?). The old RSV uses archaic 2nd-person
pronouns when referring to God. I find the "gender neutral" terms in the NRSV
annoying, myself. I guess in theory it is more accurate, and in some places
even helpful, but the NRSV seems to go out of its way in this. (The
gender-neutral term in Ps. 8 really takes the teeth out of the argument the
Hebrew writer makes in Heb. 2:6-9.) And, unlike the gentleman in an earlier
post, I think the text behind the KJV and NKJV is inferior to that used by the
other versions mentioned above.

But when you are reading scripture, use what you are comfortable with, whether
NKJV or Phillips or ASV -- whatever style gives the text meaning to you is
what is important. When you are studying scripture, use multiple translations
and the original (as others have mentioned).

Just my (quite humble) opinion.

Marty Brownfield or