By Ed Vasicek on
Forum category
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
Topic tags
Bible version
Featured Poll

IMO, every Bible version has its pros and cons.

This is your chance to express your level of contentment with the version you use. And, even if you are very content, you can list things you don’t like about your version. I guess this is a complaint forum for less than perfection!

While commenting, you can mention which version you use. Maybe a revision committee will see our gripes, or maybe you will find comfort in not being alone.

You are also free to share what you like about the version you use, and other versions you might prefer for personal use.

Poll Results

How satisfied are you with the Bible you use for ministry?

I am very satisfied with my ministry Bible version. Votes: 8
I am somewhat satisfied with my ministry Bible version. Votes: 3
I am OK with my ministry Bible version. Votes: 2
I am not sure, not crazy about it but, at the same time, like other aspects. Votes: 0
I am not all that crazy with my ministry Bible version. Votes: 0
I really don’t like my ministry Bible version all that much. Votes: 0
I do not have a specific ministry Bible version. Votes: 1
Other Votes: 0

(Migrated poll)

N/A
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 0

Discussion

Thu, 07/22/21

I use the ESV, and I think it is ridiculous that they use the word “corn” for grain. To Americans, corn is maize. And I don’t like that the use the term “saints” for believers. Even “set apart ones” would be less confusing. And I don’t like “Abandon me not” in Psalm 86 (just one example) instead of “Do not abandon me.”

All in all, it is a good version. If the NASB and CSB were more broadly accepted, I might prefer them. But they have their own issues, too.

"The Midrash Detective"

Thu, 07/22/21

https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism/the-kjv-and-the-changing-use-of-wor…

did the KJV translators make a mistake here? No. It’s just that the English language changes. The word “corn” simply meant “grain.” In some places in the English speaking world, it is still used that way. Any grain, whether wheat, barley, or oats, would all have been known as “corn” then exactly as they are all known as “grain” now.

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Thu, 07/22/21

Jim, that the KJV uses corn is understandable; I am aware that corn still technically means grain. Before the New World was discovered, there was no corn (maize) in the old world, including Israel. Maize, barley, wheat, oats, etc. can all be referred to as “corn.” But the ESV is a modern translation. The word “corn” almost always means maize to an American. Brits tend to use the term “maize” for “maize.” So if the ESV was done for British readers, I would not gripe about this. To me, this is ridiculous.

"The Midrash Detective"

Fri, 07/23/21

I recently picked up a new copy from Evangelical Bible, a really beautiful edition. I’ve been using the NASB (1995) for close to twenty years now. There are a few places where I question a vocabulary choice, but not many.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sun, 07/25/21

I use the New King James for the most part, but occasionally preach from the CSB or my own translation. My biggest complaint about the NKJV also applies to every major English version: the insistence on using LORD or GOD in place of translating YHWH is confusing and unnecessary, imo.

Sun, 07/25/21

It does sometimes, but it’s inconsistent. On the score, it is an improvement over most other major versions. Sadly, the CSB reverted back to using LORD and GOD.

Mon, 07/26/21

pvawter wrote:

My biggest complaint about the NKJV also applies to every major English version: the insistence on using LORD or GOD in place of translating YHWH is confusing and unnecessary, imo.

I am with you on this, glad the CSB uses it on at least some occasions (I didn’t know that it used it at all). One big disgrace is that millions of Christians worship Yahweh and don’t even know His Name, especially when He has clearly revealed it. Why we CONCEAL what God has revealed beats me. God has many titles, but only one Personal Name, Yahweh (or however we pronounce YHWH, some might say, “Yahveh”). The Jews used Adonai in order to build a fence around the third commandment (not to misuse God’s Name). In Christ, one would think we are free from Rabbinic fences. And, additionally, most of us would say that misusing one of God’s titles is also violating the third commandment.

Not using Yahweh, to me, is even worse than the ESV continuing to use “corn” instead of the common American English word “grain.”

"The Midrash Detective"

Mon, 07/26/21

After decades of preaching from the KJV, I’ve been preaching from the ESV for the last 10+ years and I’m comfortable with it. what I’ve noticed is that, when I preach in churches that use something other than the ESV and I use a set of notes I have already, I don’t have to change anything.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Mon, 07/26/21

I also searched the ESV for “corn’ in Bibleworks and couldn’t find an occurance of the word.

Mon, 07/26/21

Aha, you are right. I stand corrected. It is the ESVUK that has corn! I must have been using the wrong version.

I stand corrected!

Thanks for pointing this out to me.

I don’t have any trouble with the word “corn” being used in the UK where they do, in fact, understand it as grain.

Thank you!

"The Midrash Detective"

Tue, 07/27/21

Bibles I appreciate and use (even the KJV)

  • ESV (nice IPhone app)
  • NET (The notes!) (nice IPhone app)
  • CSB (nice IPhone app)
  • NKJV
  • NIV (reading through it now)
  • KJV (not so much anymore but really appreciate - especially the Psalms)

Typically use Biblegateway.com at home … apps out of the house

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 07/27/21

I have been using the NASB for quite some time. I can see where the criticism that it is “wooden” is accurate but I’m familiar enough with it now that it’s a non-issue.

Married an ESV user so we use that for our family Bible time. I’m enjoying hearing a different translation as we work through Romans.

Tue, 07/27/21

the insistence on using LORD or GOD in place of translating YHWH is confusing and unnecessary, imo.

I assume you mean “transliterate” rather than “translate,” but I confess that I have never understood this objection. YHWH is the name, but we don’t hold the same objection to El, or Elohim, or Adonai, or one of the other names of God. So why YHWH? I think every English translation makes it clear when YHWH is the underlying word. The only difficult part to me is that we don’t have a way to say “Lord in all capitals,” so if that is the objection, I can understand that. But what’s a better idea? YHWH is a Hebrew word that would have less meaning than “Lord” probably.

Tue, 07/27/21

Larry wrote:

YHWH is the name, but we don’t hold the same objection to El, or Elohim, or Adonai, or one of the other names of God.

El, Elohim, Adonai, etc., are titles for God and should be translated. Yahweh is His One Personal Name. Translated, we might elaborate (as it says in Revelation), “He Who Was, Is, and Is to Come.” Or, perhaps more concisely, “The One Who Is.” But the meaning of the Name is not the same as the Name. God’s Name is Yahweh. It is not Elohim or Adonai. Larry is your name, not “a man” or “a Christian.” Those are titles and descriptors.

Verse after verse reminds us that “Yahweh is His Name.” Can we really exalt a Name many Christians do not even know? I suppose so, but it seems more straightforward, IMO, to use the Name if we are supposed to exalt.

"The Midrash Detective"

Wed, 07/28/21

[Larry]

the insistence on using LORD or GOD in place of translating YHWH is confusing and unnecessary, imo.

I assume you mean “transliterate” rather than “translate,” but I confess that I have never understood this objection. YHWH is the name, but we don’t hold the same objection to El, or Elohim, or Adonai, or one of the other names of God. So why YHWH? I think every English translation makes it clear when YHWH is the underlying word. The only difficult part to me is that we don’t have a way to say “Lord in all capitals,” so if that is the objection, I can understand that. But what’s a better idea? YHWH is a Hebrew word that would have less meaning than “Lord” probably.

Transliterate, sure. Translators could treat it like they do other names in the Bible instead of obscuring it behind an unrelated English term. My objection would be weakened if they were consistent, but they’re not. There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the way the name and titles of God are treated by different translations and even within the same version in different texts. This is especially true when they appear in combination.

Wed, 07/28/21

But the meaning of the Name is not the same as the Name. God’s Name is Yahweh. It is not Elohim or Adonai. Larry is your name, not “a man” or “a Christian.” Those are titles and descriptors.

That’s slicing it a little thin, IMO. I don’t think there is a lot of mileage to be gained there. Even if you are correct, there is no basis to transliterate the Hebrew. “The LORD” is just as much as a name as YHWH. And everyone should know what it is. Perhaps our preaching is that bad but generally I think even weak preachers get that one right.

It does seem odd that charge that Christians have historically failed to exalt the LORD because we called him “LORD” instead of “YHWH.”

To me, trying to a change a centuries old tradition in English needs more warrant than this.

Translators could treat it like they do other names in the Bible instead of obscuring it behind an unrelated English term.My objection would be weakened if they were consistent, but they’re not. There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the way the name and titles of God are treated by different translations and even within the same version in different texts. This is especially true when they appear in combination.

How is it being obscured and how is it inconsistent? So far I know, historically, English versions are consistent in using all caps (LORD) for it. I would expect perhaps different translations to do it differently, but I am not aware of inconsistency in a given translation (aside from someone above mentioning that the CSB or something is inconsistent).

Thu, 07/29/21

I challenge you to go to Bible Gateway and type in Name LORD and see how often God states that His Names is the LORD (Yahweh). “Lord” (or LORD) in English means Master. That is not what Yahweh means. If you must translate it rather than transliterate it (as we do for Jesus, for example, although incorrectly), then the translation could be “I Am” or “The One Who Is.” But that is not a single-word name, which is why transliteration is better.

To say the difference between a title and the Name is “thin” is a judgment with which I disagree. Anyone who knows me knows there is nothing thin about me (I wish there was!). :)

Blessing the Name of Yahweh means just that. We bless His Name, which He has revealed.

Do the Bible gateway thing. Start with Exodus 3:14-15 and keep scrolling. The sheer quantity is a loud statement.

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

"The Midrash Detective"

Thu, 07/29/21

My take on the “Yahweh” / “LORD” kerfuffle

  • I’ve known for 50 years that when the KJV has “LORD” in all caps that it’s “YHWH”
  • Some pastor told me
  • I did have some confusion about the pronunciation of the same
  • But there has been a historical debate about the pronunciation
  • My feeling about the “Yahweh”-onliests is that to be consistent the Tetragrammaton should be untranslated altogether.

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Fri, 07/30/21

the KJV when I’m using an English text. As I view it as the version of record in English. And the Russian Synodical Version when I need to deal with Russian.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Fri, 07/30/21

To say the difference between a title and the Name is “thin” is a judgment with which I disagree.

I didn’t say that the difference between a name and title is thin. I think the whole argument it thin in the sense that there is not much bang for the buck here. “LORD” is his name. The text consistently says so. Whether or not it is connected to “to be” in some way is a matter of dispute though I think it is connected. But I don’t think “YHWH” helps any more than “LORD” does. Neither gives the meaning. The LXX translates YHWH as kurios. My main point isn’t that it should be “LORD” instead of YHWH. It is that there isn’t much of a reason to try to overturn millenia of Christian practice. There just isn’t enough reason to do it and there are much more important things to try to change, IMO.

Fri, 07/30/21

Larry wrote:

The LXX translates YHWH as kurios. My main point isn’t that it should be “LORD” instead of YHWH.

Of course it does. The Septuagint is a Jewish work, and by the time it was done the rabbis had long established a tradition of not pronouncing God’s Name for fear of misusing it. They often refer to God as “Ha Shem”, meaning, “The Name” as in “The Name of Yahweh.” When they read a text aloud in Hebrew, where “Yahweh” is found, they say “Adonai” (Lord) instead, hence the beginning of a ridiculous tradition that Christians have perpetuated. WE should not be directed by “fences” the rabbis constructed around the commandments, just the commandments themselves.

As far as uncertainty in pronouncing it, this is true of Hebrew words in general. It wasn’t until well after the time of Jesus that the rabbis added marks (“points”) to indicate vowels. Thus “Yahweh” is a likely but not absolute. But, if wrong, it is close (unlike the poor attempt at transliteration, “Jehovah”).

"The Midrash Detective"

Sat, 07/31/21

It means that when most English speakers (at least those in the UK, Commonwealth (former and current), and North America) hear the KJV they think Bible.

[Jim]
Rob Fall wrote:

the KJV when I’m using an English text. As I view it as the version of record in English.

What does this even mean?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Sat, 07/31/21

No. But the RSV is the version used by my translators when I am preaching or teaching in an EC-B church.

[josh p]

Are you fluent in Russian?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Sat, 07/31/21

[Rob Fall]

No. But the RSV is the version used by my translators when I am preaching or teaching in an EC-B church.

josh p wrote:

Are you fluent in Russian?

I see. I remembered that you were at a Russian church but I didn’t realize you had translators.

Sat, 07/31/21

[Rob Fall]

It means that when most English speakers (at least those in the UK, Commonwealth (former and current), and North America) hear the KJV they think Bible.

This makes sense to me. I do the NYT crossword every day. They often have clues pointing to “Biblical” English, ie, the KJV. Despite the usefulness of modern versions and the controversies among Christians over them, for many outside the loop, the KJV is the standard.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sat, 07/31/21

I tell folks that when I go through the front gate of the house of prayer, there is an invisible sign “You are leaving the American Zone of Occupation.”

[josh p]
Rob Fall wrote:

No. But the RSV is the version used by my translators when I am preaching or teaching in an EC-B church.

josh p wrote:

Are you fluent in Russian?

I see. I remembered that you were at a Russian church but I didn’t realize you had translators.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Sun, 08/01/21

Just comparing the use of the name of God in Ps. 140:7 & 141:8 reveals that translations can be inconsistent. The text reads “Yahweh adona” and the versions are all over the map in rendering this is English.

CSB - LORD, my Lord

HCSB - Lord GOD

KJV - GOD the Lord

NASB - GOD the Lord

NIV - Sovereign LORD

ESV - LORD, my Lord (140:7) & GOD, my Lord (141:8)

There is no such thing as an agreed-upon standard when it comes to English versions, and some are not even consistent internally.

Mon, 08/02/21

When they read a text aloud in Hebrew, where “Yahweh” is found, they say “Adonai” (Lord) instead, hence the beginning of a ridiculous tradition that Christians have perpetuated. WE should not be directed by “fences” the rabbis constructed around the commandments, just the commandments themselves.

Ridiculous tradition? I am not sure I would go so far as to say that desiring to reverence the name of YHWH is a ridiculous tradition. And I don’t think we need to be bound by fences of rabbis. My point is that (1) “LORD” is his name so that requirement is met and (2) there are millennia of practice that would have to be overcome for no real gain that I can see.

As far as uncertainty in pronouncing it, this is true of Hebrew words in general.

The uncertainty in pronunciation depends on who you learned Hebrew from and at the same school different profs might teach it differently This is a non issue that someone else raised, not me. My point was the uncertainty of the derivation or meaning of it.