Daily Light in NASB

We have come across Daily Light in the old version of the NASB here. See this other article on Daily Light.

Why I Prefer the NKJV

I've been asked about my preference for the NKJV, so I thought I'd put the answer in an actual post. Here are my reasons for preferring the NKJV:

1. I believe that the Traditional Text (a.k.a. the Byzantine textual stream, close, but not quite the same as the Textus Receptus) is the family of texts that God has providentially preserved to be handed-down from generation to generation. I find the arguments for the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type unconvincing, and therefore why should I reject what has been handed-down? Only the AV and NKJV use this as their underlying NT text, however the advantage of the NKJV is that it also gives the alternative textual readings, such as the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, which tries to basically capture the statistical majority reading for any variant.

2. I believe in accurate translation that tries as much as possible to communicate the text in the words that the Spirit has given, rather than dumping important words like 'propitiation' because we aren't used to it in modern language. Therefore I don't use the NIV as my primary translation. (The NIV is nonetheless one of the better translations and beats my favorites at times.)

3. I believe in using good, modern vocabulary and good, modern sentence structure that isn't awkward. Therefore I don't use the AV as my primary translation.

4. I don't believe in proliferating versions ad infinitum, esp. if it isn't adding any value in my opinion. Was the ESV necessary, when the NASV already existed? I long for the days when one version was used everywhere. The words of Scripture would be more deeply embedded in our minds.

5. I believe that it is wrong to unite with unbelievers in translating the Bible (or any other unequal yoking). Therefore I don't trust the RSV, esp. when a Rabbi translates Isaiah 7:14 as the following: "Therefore The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [as opposed to virgin] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

My order of preference is thus as follows:

1. NKJV
2. NASV
3. ESV
4= AV/ NIV/ RSV

All of the above are substantially good translations.

Let's not even mention the Good News Bible, the New Century Version, the Message or the Living Bible. Please don't fill me with thoughts of despair!

I wouldn't be without a Thompson Chain Reference either!

See these previous posts.

John 1:3 in my Top 3 Translations

NKJV: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

ESV: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

NASB: "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Literal: "All things through Him came into being, and without Him came into being not even one [thing] that came into being."

Note that the NKJV sounds the best, but loses the "ex nihilo" naunce of the original Greek; the ESV loses it as well, but is more awkward than the NKJV; and the NASB is closest to the original, but sounds very awkward.

P.S. I have found that the OT in the ESV flows better than the NT, and that the Gospels seem to have the most awkward readings.

Isn't the ESV a Bit Wooden?

Is it just me, or is the ESV unnecessarily wooden? Take my reading this morning from Matthew 14 as a random example: verse 20 says, “And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.” Who would ever speak that way in normal life? “And they took up twelve baskets full of the left-over pieces” (or “left-overs” or even “left-over fragments”) would be better English and closer to the original word ordering. (They’re not even being over-accurate!) I have come across this woodenness time and time again in the ESV.

The ESV has become very fashionable of late, particularly in Reformed and Evangelical Anglican circles. It seems everywhere I go, every young person carries one with them, and increasingly it is the version of choice when quoting from a more accurate translation than the NIV. Having tasted this translation over a period, I can’t quite see why this should be, when translations like the NASV and NKJV have been around for a while. Probably it is because the ESV has been very well marketed, it has been well-circulated, and it has a very cool-but-sophisticated cover! Regretably, there may be a certain element of fashion! I think part of it is also the attitudes of some towards the best available modern translations.

The NASV is seen by non-Americans as an American translation, so there is a certain prejudice against it. It also doesn’t have the marketing power of Harper Collins behind it (and given that it is based on the RSV, Collins are probably happy about getting their hands on the profits of the ESV, now that the RSV is seen as a relic of the mid-20^th Century and little-bought, and people are more aware that it was an ecumenical and inter-faith production). A third factor with the NASV is the opinion that it is a wooden translation. I find this claim quite ridiculous, having read it for some time after being an NIV-reader. I think what has happened is that the wooden reputation of the ASV has been transferred to the NASV through Chinese whispers (and maybe in a few places it has been too wooden, but not as much as the ESV in my opinion).

The NKJV has been popular for a while among Reformed Christians, but there was always the niggling concern among theological students that the NT translation is based on the Textus Receptus – shock, horror! I disagree with this disparagement of the Byzantine texts underlying the Textus Receptus, and the exaltation of the Alexandrian texts, but that’s for another day! I use the NKJV because I think that some of the arguments for the greater reliability of the Byzantine texts are convincing, and the arguments for the superiority of the Alexandrian texts are unconvincing. (I was brought up with the RSV for half my childhood, the NIV for the other half, the KJV for a year to try it out, and the NASB for my university days, so I’ve seen them all and have no prejudiced inclinations to any of them.) Also, what is the problem, when the Nestle-Aland/UBS text is given in the margin of the NKJV?

Non-AV'ers in the Reformed community were also beginning to admit that maybe the NIV wasn’t as good a translation as we would like: it dumped technical terms like “LORD of hosts” and “propitiation”, and added words not found in any original text, etc. In general, there wasn't sufficient respect for the actual words that the Holy Spirit chose to use, and these took second-place at times to modern sensibilities.

Some thought they needed an accurate translation that was largely based on Alexandrian NT texts, but didn't have “American” in the title, and had more marketing muscle behind it. Lovers of the RSV in the Evangelical Anglican community, and the likes of Wheaton College and Trinity Divinity School, decided now was the time for the ESV!

"Why the outburst about the ESV?" you may ask. Well, once upon a time, there was one translation that was read in the pulpits, was read at home and was quoted in all the books: the AV. This was very helpful in engraving the Words of Scripture in the minds of believers. ("Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You." Psa. 119:11)

When the British churches covenanted together for reformation in 1643 using the Solemn League and Covenant, they swore "to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechising". They didn't need to mention uniformity in Bible version, because they already were united in using the AV! [Please note Crawford's comments on this.]

If only we had this concensus again, how useful it would be! Just when the English-speaking, Reformed churches could have united around the NKJV, which was accurate, well-written and allayed the concerns that some Textus Receptus advocates had with the NASB and NIV (although some AV'ers will never change to a modern version), along comes the ESV!

Was it really necessary? Was it profitable? Do we really need another translation to add to the available plethora? To top it all off, it is wooden and awkward in too many places! Is this really the version to unite the Church? (Or am I one of the few remaining British Reformed Christians who still aspires to the principles of our National Covenants?)

I ask ESV'ers: examine the ESV objectively; isn't too wooden, and if so, then is this really what we want to be the majority translation in the English-speaking, Reformed churches? (Doesn't it really duplicate what the NASV has already done since the 1960's?)

If only the Church took control of Bible translation like it used to, instead of leaving it up to publishing houses!

P.S. Please don't take this article out of proportion. The ESV is still my number 3 choice, with the NKJV first and the NASB second. I just question the wisdom of another translation when the NASB seems to already be doing the job for Alexandrian types, esp. as it appears to me to be more wooden than the NASB.