Protestants / Baptists only: Do you use a literal translation?

[Sola*5]

Please only protestants and Baptists:

Do you use a literal translation of the scriptures? Is there any reason why you use the one that you use? What do you think of some of the modern paraphrases such as the renovare and the message?

It is my opinon that they are corruptions and not worthy of being quoted authoritativly, paraphrases after all are simply mens opinions of what they think the text means and not literal translations of what God has said.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Church of England ,one of the foremost original Protestant churches, uses the King James' bible, or some times the NRSV . We do not take the Bible literally, nor do we believe that there is a single totally accurate literal translation, nor any need for one.

 

[*Paul*]

Personally I only use the King James Version now and that is for many reasons. I have read other versions like the NIV, Amplified, New King James and others but i have come to the very strong conviction that the KJV is for me.

I agree with the OP position on paraphrases and I would check any quote from them against my king James bible as I would any other version.

 

[Nanda]

I was a Baptist in New England for several years, and we did not take the Bible literally.

 

[*Paul*]

The Church of England ,one of the foremost original Protestant churches, uses the King James' bible, or some times the NRSV . We do not take the Bible literally, nor do we believe that there is a single totally accurate literal translation, nor any need for one.

What bible do you read at home though? Do you consider the Church of England as protestant?

I attended an Anglican Church for a few months recently and that was a protestant church but the Vicar there is always in trouble with the bishops for being so evangelical, there they all used the New NIV though one guy quoted from the message during his talk.

 

[*Paul*]

I was a Baptist in New England for several years, and we did not take the Bible literally.

The baptist church I used to attend was King James only and they took it leterally where it made sense to. The same way you would any other writing. I.e when Jesus said I am the door you know He is using a metaphor to demonstrate a literal Spiritual truth.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What bible do you read at home though? Do you consider the Church of England as protestant?

I attended an Anglican Church for a few months recently and that was a protestant church but the Vicar there is always in trouble with the bishops for being so evangelical, there they all used the New NIV though one guy quoted from the message during his talk.

I read the KJV I was brought up with it so understand the language with out trouble.
I have a copy of the NRSV. But rarely use it.

In Other Threads I have explained the Anglican Church in some Detail.
It is indeed "Protestant" but not in the way commonly used by many American churches. they have tried to put their own meaning on the word.

As for quoting from the Message ... a visiting Priest used a Mormon text for his talk.
But afterwards said to me Mormons were very dangerous.??????

Evangelicals are trying to increase their presence in the Church but it does not go down well. The new head of a seminary is Evangelical and half the staff have left in protest. I don't think he will last long.

If you went down the road you would probably find that the next Anglican church was Quite different in Character to the one you attended. They range from near catholic to near puritan. (Though none are Bible Alone.)

 

[kmkemp]

Personally I only use the King James Version now and that is for many reasons. I have read other versions like the NIV, Amplified, New King James and others but i have come to the very strong conviction that the KJV is for me.

I agree with the OP position on paraphrases and I would check any quote from them against my king James bible as I would any other version.

I use NKJV. I am curious as to what the differences are between the NKJV and the KJV though. I was under the impression that the only differences were the stripping of old English and changing older words into their present day equivalents. Is this misguided?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My problem with the Nkjv is that it has lost the cadence of the original.
I have never compared the two in detail ... nor do I intend to.
Like all Bibles I would refer back to the KJV if some one quoted from the NKJV

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I use the most literal translation that I know of: the English Standard Version.

I have another more literal version, but I'm not sure how available it is.

 

[*Paul*]

I use the most literal translation that I know of: the English Standard Version.

I have another more literal version, but I'm not sure how available it is.

Don't be a spoil sport angellous cast your vote.

 

[*Paul*]

I use NKJV. I am curious as to what the differences are between the NKJV and the KJV though. I was under the impression that the only differences were the stripping of old English and changing older words into their present day equivalents. Is this misguided?

I don't know a whole lot about it but I have never found the KJV hard to understand or archaic, like most books I read I have had to look up the meanings of words. I simply love the KJV so much, and from what we know of the translators they were very brilliant men and they made use of the labours of those who had gone before them too such as wycliff and tyndale and the church fathers. There were about fifty of them and they were split into groups and then checked each others work to refine the process. But it is such a massive part of English history too and was used almost exclusivly in the protestant church for centuries especially as the geneva became less popular.

 

[McBell]

Please only protestants and Baptists:

Do you use a literal translation of the scriptures? Is there any reason why you use the one that you use? What do you think of some of the modern paraphrases such as the renovare and the message?

It is my opinon that they are corruptions and not worthy of being quoted authoritativly, paraphrases after all are simply mens opinions of what they think the text means and not literal translations of what God has said.

My apologies.
the poll came up on the home page and i voted without knowing that it was in this rather specifically specified area.

So please disregard one vote of using multiple versions.

Thank you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Don't be a spoil sport angellous cast your vote.

Vote cast

I missed the poll....

 

[Izdaari]

I'm Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination from a Wesleyan/Methodist tradition.

I own and use a wide variety of translations. I have the following ready to hand: NKJV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NLT (2nd ed.), God's Word, and NAB (a Catholic edition). At different times and for different purposes, I like all of them. I have a NASB somewhere packed away, haven't been able to find it for a while. The one major translation I don't use is the KJV, because I really don't care for the archaic English and find it a barrier to understanding.

The Message is one I don't have but would like to have. It isn't a true translation, but rather a paraphrase, one pastor's interpretation. Still, that one pastor is a good scholar and theologically orthodox, so that's not a major problem except for serious study. Another that I don't have but plan to get is the Amplified, simply because many people I respect (Joyce Meyer most notably) find it very helpful.

If I had to pick just one? That'd be tough, but I'd have to go with NIV because that's what my favorite study Bible is. But I think ESV and HCSB are superior translations. NIV is good enough for most purposes, is popular with my denomination, and reads easily.

 

[Izdaari]

I use NKJV. I am curious as to what the differences are between the NKJV and the KJV though. I was under the impression that the only differences were the stripping of old English and changing older words into their present day equivalents. Is this misguided?

That's about right. It's essentially the KJV with more modern language, based on the same manuscripts (Textus Receptus) and still mostly literal. I like the NKJV well enough, though I don't like the KJV; it's enough more modern to get around my KJV mental block.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My favorite version is the NIV. It makes the bible an easy read. In church, we use the KJV of the bible, but I have a 4 version study bible that has Amplified, KJV, NIV, and NASB that makes thing clearer for me. When a discrepancies arise, I always refer to my Strong's books which really makes things fun.

I believe we should take the bible literally when ever we can, but not always.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please only protestants and Baptists:

Do you use a literal translation of the scriptures? Is there any reason why you use the one that you use? What do you think of some of the modern paraphrases such as the renovare and the message?

It is my opinon that they are corruptions and not worthy of being quoted authoritativly, paraphrases after all are simply mens opinions of what they think the text means and not literal translations of what God has said.

All translations are human opinions (interpretations), from the "most literal" to the "most paraphrased."

That being said, I do prefer the ESV or the Contemporary English Version, which are "more literal" translations.

I hate the NIV because it is marketed as literal when it's not.

 

[Captain Civic]

I generally use the NLT, as I find it the easiest to read. However, I always keep in mind that it is closer to paraphrasing than literal translation, so I usually search for multiple translations for a verse that I'm iffy about. I have a CEV as well, but rarely use it.

I would also like to express my distaste for the NIV. Mostly because the way that the writing flows has confused me on more than one occasion. For example;

Matthew 5:13 ; You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

I had no idea what it meant by salt not being salty. It's salt, what else could it be? But then when I saw the NLT version;

Matthew 5:13 ; You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it useful again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless.

That makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[ChristineES]

I have read several translations: NIV, Good News Bible, ASV, RS, MKJV, and The Amplified. I always found it helpful to use more than one translation, so I can get the most out of the Bible.