KJV, NKJV or ESV for second language?

[Subhumanoidal]

Hello,

which one is better for someone, who use English as second language (foreigner)

I will appreciate your help !
All the best !

Perhaps try the NLT.

 

[Amanuensis]

The NIV is corrupt. Many of its verses totally change the meaning when compared to the KJV.

Maybe the Greek was considered and the KJV was found wanting?

 

[Dino246]

Where did I say I was KJV only?

You didn't, nor did I say that you did. However, the argument you used is often used by KJV-onlyists. Don't like the label? Find a better argument.

I did not say the KJV is the standard,

Here are your exact words:

"The NIV is corrupt. Many of its verses totally change the meaning when compared to the KJV. "

Those words in bold make the KJV the standard to which you compared the NIV. You don't need to make a direct assertion for that assertion to be made.

Just pointed out that the NIV is corrupt and often changes the meaning of what is said.

You said "totally change the meaning", not "often changes the meaning".

The claim that the NIV corrupt on the basis that it is different from the KJV is not valid. By exactly the same poor logic, the KJV is corrupt because it is different than the NIV.

You are very quick to make unfounded charges.

Quick, yes. Unfounded, not even remotely.

But not unexpected seeing that is your habit to attack any and all that disagree with you.

I didn't attack you at all, so quit your whining.

 

[Amanuensis]

NIV because it focuses on being faithful to the meaning of the original language as it would have been understood by the original readers. I have not found the ESV being given the same level of respect as the NIV among all of the best Commentary writers. They are all constantly using the NIV or their own translations.

 

[RichMan]

You didn't, nor did I say that you did. However, the argument you used is often used by KJV-onlyists. Don't like the label? Find a better argument.


Here are your exact words:

"The NIV is corrupt. Many of its verses totally change the meaning when compared to the KJV. "

Those words in bold make the KJV the standard to which you compared the NIV. You don't need to make a direct assertion for that assertion to be made.


You said "totally change the meaning", not "often changes the meaning".

The claim that the NIV corrupt on the basis that it is different from the KJV is not valid. By exactly the same poor logic, the KJV is corrupt because it is different than the NIV.


Quick, yes. Unfounded, not even remotely.


I didn't attack you at all, so quit your whining.

Whining? That's funny.
If you can not see the corruption in the NIV your not nearly as smart as you believe,
I will leave you to your stupid beliefs.

 

[Dino246]

Whining? That's funny.
If you can not see the corruption in the NIV your not nearly as smart as you believe,
I will leave you to your stupid beliefs.

And you accuse me of attacking you.

Hilarious.

If you want to argue about the NIV, start a thread and stop hijacking this one.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

NKJV
Least adulterated version written in modern English

 

[Amanuensis]

So the answer to the question "Which is the best English Translation?" Is always going to be "It depends on the verse in question."

in 4 years of bible college and as I read more and more scholarly books like recent highly rated bible commentaries I keep seeing NIV used as the translation cited. There must be a reason that those who are expert in the original languages and in the manuscripts in extant prefer the NIV over the others. However I have noticed that they do mention when they think the NIV is not correct about a particular verse and what they think it should be and why, explaining all the Greek syntax and rules that go over my head.

Since the NIV is more in line with modern English it would be a good choice for someone who is learning modern English and at the same time would like the comfort of knowing that they are reading an English translation that is faithful to communicating the sentence meaning of the original manuscripts.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

So the answer to the question "Which is the best English Translation?" Is always going to be "It depends on the verse in question."

in 4 years of bible college and as I read more and more scholarly books like recent highly rated bible commentaries I keep seeing NIV used as the translation cited. There must be a reason that those who are expert in the original languages and in the manuscripts in extant prefer the NIV over the others. However I have noticed that they do mention when they think the NIV is not correct about a particular verse and what they think it should be and why, explaining all the Greek syntax and rules that go over my head.

Since the NIV is more in line with modern English it would be a good choice for someone who is learning modern English and at the same time would like the comfort of knowing that they are reading an English translation that is faithful to communicating the sentence meaning of the original manuscripts.

Any version that you have the patience to read is the best version, let's just put it that way.

 

[Runningman]

Hello,

which one is better for someone, who use English as second language (foreigner)

I will appreciate your help !
All the best !

I am currently working with an ESL student and the God's Word translation seems to be simplest. It might depend how much English they know. I showed them a Bible written in their native tongue, but that Bible is antiquated with difficult to understand words in their opinion. It might just take some testing. Try the God's Word translation and see how it goes.

 

[Krasimir]

I am currently working with an ESL student and the God's Word translation seems to be simplest. It might depend how much English they know. I showed them a Bible written in their native tongue, but that Bible is antiquated with difficult to understand words in their opinion. It might just take some testing. Try the God's Word translation and see how it goes.

Thank you, but what is "God's Word translation"?

 

[Runningman]

Thank you, but what is "God's Word translation"?

The God’s Word Translation is a translation of the Bible in English using a dynamic equivalence approach to translating. The idea being that a less literal approach is more sometimes effective than a literal word for word approach to translation. Often a good Bible translations use a fine balance of form and dynamic equivalency in their approach to translation.

if you’re an ESL teacher you know that non-native English speakers can be a bit too literal sometimes.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Youversion and olive tree

Ahh, okay.

 

[Edify]

Perhaps try the NLT.

Hello Krasimir, and welcome!
I would say "Which is the best English Translation?" probably should be changed to "Which is the best Translation?", for what good is a easily readable translation if it is corrupt?
I am wary of the NIV because of all the changes thru the years.
For accuracy, I read the NASB & the ESV. The NLT is ok for breaking down into easier to understand english, but not entirely accurate.

 

[ResidentAlien]

For accuracy, I read the NASB & the ESV. The NLT is ok for breaking down into easier to understand english, but not entirely accurate.

Accuracy is only as good as the manuscripts they translate. Sure NASB and ESV are good translations of highly suspect manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

 

[Amanuensis]

Hello Krasimir, and welcome!
I would say "Which is the best English Translation?" probably should be changed to "Which is the best Translation?", for what good is a easily readable translation if it is corrupt?
I am wary of the NIV because of all the changes thru the years.
For accuracy, I read the NASB & the ESV. The NLT is ok for breaking down into easier to understand english, but not entirely accurate.

I think that the reason that the NIV has more edits from time to time is precisely why the majority of Greek Scholars like to use it.

As scholars discuss the best English translation for a particular ancient Koine Greek word that only appeared once in the New Testament for example, they might find new examples of that word in ancient 1st century documents discovered in an archaeological discovery. This might shed light on how that word was used in everyday language in the 1st century and be the catalyst for why that word might need slight modification.

I think of the word didaskein (may not be the exact spelling) in 1 Tim 2:12. Maybe this word would be better translated as Correct, but it is translated as Teach right now. If there were cases where it was found to be used in the context of correcting someone in other literature from the 1st century that might be a reason to change it to the word Correct. Now some would have a problem with changing it because it has been Teach all this time but the facts are that the Greek word didaskein is very much a mystery to many scholars and a great volume of discussion has been devoted to it through church history.

There is a need for more examples of the use of that word. Hopefully some 1st century Greek literature will confirm what the most common use of that word was when Paul wrote 1 Tim. Meanwhile I find that the word is probably explained by the phrase "or usurp authority over the man" as if he were to say. "Let me explain what kind of teaching I am talking about, I am talking about Correcting a man like you are speaking to him condescendingly or are superior in knowledge to him, like your going to teach him a lesson, or correct him?" A disrespectful attitude. That is probably what the word means but we use the word "Teach" for several different Greek words and yet the word "Teach" can mean different things in different contexts. Does it mean "Teach the Bible"? Probably not. It probably means Correct a man, and I base that on the context.

There are reasons why we should edit an English word if we discover that the Greek is better translated with a different English word.

Keep an open mind and learn about the challenges or translation from Greek to English or ancient Hebrew to English rather than taking a stand against a translation that has more edits in its history than others. Edits might be a good sign that it is a better Greek to English translation.

 

[Runningman]

I think that the reason that the NIV has more edits from time to time is precisely why the majority of Greek Scholars like to use it.

As scholars discuss the best English translation for a particular ancient Koine Greek word that only appeared once in the New Testament for example, they might find new examples of that word in ancient 1st century documents discovered in an archaeological discovery. This might shed light on how that word was used in everyday language in the 1st century and be the catalyst for why that word might need slight modification.

I think of the word didaskein (may not be the exact spelling) in 1 Tim 2:12. Maybe this word would be better translated as Correct, but it is translated as Teach right now. If there were cases where it was found to be used in the context of correcting someone in other literature from the 1st century that might be a reason to change it to the word Correct. Now some would have a problem with changing it because it has been Teach all this time but the facts are that the Greek word didaskein is very much a mystery to many scholars and a great volume of discussion has been devoted to it through church history.

There is a need for more examples of the use of that word. Hopefully some 1st century Greek literature will confirm what the most common use of that word was when Paul wrote 1 Tim. Meanwhile I find that the word is probably explained by the phrase "or usurp authority over the man" as if he were to say. "Let me explain what kind of teaching I am talking about, I am talking about Correcting a man like you are speaking to him condescendingly or are superior in knowledge to him, like your going to teach him a lesson, or correct him?" A disrespectful attitude. That is probably what the word means but we use the word "Teach" for several different Greek words and yet the word "Teach" can mean different things in different contexts. Does it mean "Teach the Bible"? Probably not. It probably means Correct a man, and I base that on the context.

There are reasons why we should edit an English word if we discover that the Greek is better translated with a different English word.

Keep an open mind and learn about the challenges or translation from Greek to English or ancient Hebrew to English rather than taking a stand against a translation that has more edits in its history than others. Edits might be a good sign that it is a better Greek to English translation.

There’s similar challenges in all language translations. It’s normally impossible to create a perfect translation from one language to another without getting a bit creative. That’s why it’s necessary to accept that some translations are going to be based on the interpretation of the translator.

 

[Krasimir]

I started with Matthew 1 with NKJV. I have some stuggle with "bear a son" or "brought forth" , since they are not so often used today (maybe), but I checked KJV and it uses more familiar words. Will continue to read

 

[oyster67]

I checked KJV and it uses more familiar words.

Well then go for it! You will end up talkin' pritty fancy-like, but KJV is my favorite also.