>>701044
The following are some quotes from former threads I've copy&pasted for my own use.
ESV is not bad but it lacks the poetry added back in some of the more dynamic translations. NKJV or RSV will be more beautiful.
ESV, NKJV and RSV are all popular non-equivalent translations, but interesting is the fact that they don't agree with each other in certain places. For instance, the ESV removed Acts 8:37, but the NKJV keeps it. Also the ESV removes the words "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22 and removes the words "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24. This is just one of the many choices you will have to make when choosing between non-equivalent translations, like deciding whether Jesus said the words "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22, or whether Acts 8:37 or Mark 16:9-20 is actual scripture or not, and that really makes a big difference in what you believe. So choose carefully because it's more than mere stylistic differences.
The RSV was avoided by conservatives because of one verse: Is 7:14 following MT "young woman" as opposed to LXX's "virgin". Because of this ONE verse, it was shunned as being "too liberal". Ironically, it's the much favored version of "conservative" Catholics and is used commonly by Catholic apologists.
NRSV is excessively gender-inclusive (see Ps 1:1), though is commonly used in seminaries, liturgy, and with progressive mainline Protestants. It is probably the most ecumenical of the modern versions.
The NASB is supposedly the most faithful translation to the original Greek/Hebrew and is used by scholars. The flipside is that the language is often a bit stilted because they're trying to fit the square peg of English into the round hole of Greek grammar.
The main problem I have with the NASB is the fact it uses corrupt sources (and calls them "the most reliable") to get entirely new readings that no one had until sometime after 1860 with the first discovery and publication of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
But even beyond the crucial fact that it is a translation of a different/wrong document, the NASB isn't even that great when it comes to translation methodology. For instance, as an example they just blatantly inserted the word "merely" into 1 Peter 3:3 to "soften it up" a bit.
But this completely changes its intended meaning and turns it into a green light to do those things, as long as they aren't merely doing them only. Even the other modern translations don't do this in 1 Peter 3:3, only the NASB (and NKJV) do. This is just blatant corruption by the translators.
>KJV: Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
>NASB: Your adornment must not be merely external– braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
Let me know if you find a modernized KJ translation that doesn't deviate much. I've seen several that try, but they still manage to somehow insert some corruptions. For example the WEB still removes the word "diligently" from Hebrews 11:6, it still cuts off part of Jesus' statement in Revelation 1:11, and it changes Acts 2:47 to say "being saved" instead of "be saved" and has other random changes too, like changing the angel to an eagle in Revelation 8:13.
And another one, the MEV, has its own problems. The MEV reverses the meaning of Philippians 2:6 from the KJV, and it tells you that being divisive is bad in Titus 3:10, yet see what Jesus said in Luke 12:51. And I could still go on about various word choices it makes that exculpate sodomites in Jude 1:7, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Kings 15:12, or word choices that blur the connection to prophecy like in Genesis 22:17 saying "their" enemies instead of what it should say "his" enemies (see Galatians 3:16), or where the MEV says "being saved" instead of "are saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18. The list of major differences here is still long, if you really want to get into it. So I'd like to see a translation that doesn't change these major doctrines which the Authorized Bible consistently depicts in very clear language. From looking closely at these translations, the difference is not a matter of merely changed grammar, as far as I'm concerned. Oh and of course, the NKJV is yet worse than the ones I just mentioned, if such things can be quantified.
From what I see a version called the King James Clarified and the American King James seem to be the most faithful to the original KJ wording.
Reject literally any “Bible” which mistranslates Luke 1:28 (kecharitomene). In KJV Mary is "highly favoured" rather than "full of grace".