Q&A: Bible Translation

Here’s a note via the contact form, and since it does not contain an email address I can’t respond to it (if you send a message via the contact form, be sure to include an email address if you’re asking for a reply).

I did the research myself, and beleive the TR is likely the best Greek text. I have struggled with some of the arahic words, but the more one uses the KJV, the easier it gets. I know about the Majority Text position, but I cannot think God would sort of hide the best manuscripits for over 2,000 years.

May I ask what are your thoughts on the NKJV? I don’t mind the NKJV, but there is something about it I cannot point to but it doesn’t always flow the best. I actually think the NASB is a smoother translation, but off the wrong Greek text.

My last question on this issue is this. You mention the 1967 Scofield Bible, do you use that one? Do you like it? I found some on Ebay, and was wondering if it is better than the 2003 Scofield reissue which I use. Have you heard of the The Subject Bible? The KJV Store has it and it has the arachiac words defined which is good.

I’ll use NKJV for normal teaching, but since Nelson requires royalty payments to use the NKJV text (look in the front of your Bible and you’ll find the rules), in books and the web site I use KJV. After changing the spelling from British-> English and a few other changes (similar to the 1967 Scofield), you’ll find that’s the text which generally appears on the site and in my books.

Many “KJV-Only” people reject the NKJV (as well as the 1967 Scofield), but my position remains the same: a good-quality translation from the Textus Receptus base will always be acceptable. The NKJV isn’t perfect, but it’s solid. Personally, I find the NASB a bit too “wordy” to be used (a subjective idea to be sure), but since it follows Westcott-Hort/Alexandrian base and we have the NKJV from Textus Receptus, I’d prefer NKJV over NASB.

However, many people I highly respect use the NASB, and if you compare it to other “modern” translations, you’ll notice it follows Alexandrian base a little less than the others.

My primary Bible remains a 1967 Scofield KJV, and has been for 30 years or so (I have a well-worn first printing, and purchased a new one when they decided to re-issue it a few years ago. I thought it was still in print, but perhaps not). I prefer it over the newer Scofield releases as it replaces the archaic KJV words in the text, while making a note in the side notes. Thus, when reading it flows easily.

Example: 1 Thessolonians 4:15

KJV: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

1967 Scofield: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not |precede|gg them which are asleep. (in the side notes: ggKJV: prevent)

On the newer Scofield’s I’ve seen it’s opposite — they put the outdated word in the text and the newer word in the margin.

I don’t know anything about “The Subject Bible”, so can’t comment on it. I found the store listing, but I’d like to thumb through it a bit before saying anything about it.

A dog, a horse, and Superman walk into a bar… Not a joke, it’s a special article I wrote titled “Animal Magnetism,” ONLY available to subscribers. Gosh, it’s free too! GET IT TODAY by entering your primary email address below. Quit anytime, it’s risk-free!

Copyright ©Frames of Reference LLC 1998–2017

Printed from https://www.dyeager.org/2010/06/qa-bible-translation.html