Dose it really matter what version of the Bible I read

[casper]

I'm reading the NLT version of the bible however people have been telling me that King James is the only real authentic bible, Is this the case and dose it really matter surly the NLT version must be close to the source just made simpler.

 

[farouk]

The King James is a translation.

Having said that, it has a reputation for accuracy.

Some of the English Bible versions are less translations than paraphrases. But in the King James - and certain other translations, too - one can be more sure that the passage is directly following the original.

 

[lamplady]

I'm reading the NLT version of the bible however people have been telling me that King James is the only real authentic bible, Is this the case and dose it really matter surly the NLT version must be close to the source just made simpler.

If you read around the book it should tell you how it's formed. Reading a modern bible is fine. After all the KJ VERSION is said to be a translation of scriptures for it's time.

 

[stovebolts]

You may enjoy this comparison.
The New Living Translation - A Critical Review

Personally, I use the NIV, but I always cross reference with my ASV or KJV and here is what I've found. Often, the NIV won't support an accurate view which is found and supported in the original Greek or Hebrew and it can be frustrating if your doing an in-depth study where you want to maintain some accuracy so the right "picture" is painted. here, let me show you by way of example the latest one I just found last week.

kjv: 1 Samuel 1:24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7237">niv 24</sup> After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh.

nlt <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-7212">24</sup> When the child was weaned, Hannah took him to the Tabernacle in Shiloh. They brought along a three-year-old bull for the sacrifice and a basket of flour and some wine.

This may seem insignificant but it changes the dynamics of what occurred dramatically. First off, there is a whole lot more meat with 3 bulls than there is with one bull and when you take into consideration that most of the sacrificial offerings were eaten it shows how many people would have been present for this celebration.

Also, a three year old bull could not have been offered as as a sin offering either for the priest or for the people because it had to be a "young bull". That being said, it could have been offered as a peace offering.

Now then, if you study the first 9 chapters of Leviticus, you'll find that the peace offering (with a vow) would have been laid on top of the burnt offering and the burn offering would be split in two with the first half burned in the morning and the second half in the evening.

So, with three bulls, we see that Hannah could have provided
1. The burnt offering for the day
2. The sin offering for the people (so they could enjoy the peace offering)
3. The peace offering which would have been enjoyed by the community while she vowed her son Samual to the Lord.

Like I said, the NLT or NIV from first glance seem 'ok', but when you go to study it, if you want an accurate picture, don't rely on either...

Oh... and when you look at what was to accompany the bull (offering) as far as the grain offering and the drink offering... the NLT and NIV are way off...

An ephah of flour is about 20 quarts and about 2 quarts would be used with the peace offering, and about 2.5 quarts of wine for the drink offering which would have been mandatory with the peace offering..

 

[Dennyh]

Don't listen to people who tell you there is only one authentic translation unless they are referring to Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. Otherwise just compare a few different ones. No one English translation got everything correct.

My favorite resource for this is E-sword.net it is a free Bible study software with several translations, including a literal word-for-word translation of the NT which I enjoy. I used KJV for years but have recently made the switch to NIV while working with youth. They seem to understand it better.

 

[Theofilus]

Personally, I use the NIV, but I always cross reference with my ASV or KJV and here is what I've found. Often, the NIV won't support an accurate view which is found and supported in the original Greek or Hebrew and it can be frustrating if your doing an in-depth study where you want to maintain some accuracy so the right "picture" is painted. here, let me show you by way of example the latest one I just found last week.

kjv: 1 Samuel 1:24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

The statement about three bulls is probably accurate, but I'm not sure about the "bottle of wine" part. Even in the New Testament, they still kept wine in skins, not bottles. (new wine in new wineskins). No translation is perfect. You can compare any two translations and find some things more accurate in one and others more accurate in the other. If you want to know what the bible really says, you should use more than one translation. But when it comes to picking one particular translation that you use most often, I think the best advice I've ever heard is this:

The best translation is the one you read.​

Some people find the archaic language of the KJV difficult to understand and they give up trying to read it. For them, it would be better to use a more modern translation. Others don't have a problem understanding the language and feel that the newer translations take something away from the sacredness of the King James English. They just feel wrong reading verses where people refer to God as "you" and not "thou". For them, the KJV is the best.

Check out the different versions available, for example at BibleGateway.com and pick a translation that you would be comfortable with reading regularly. Then use other translations for comparison if you want to get a clearer picture of certain passages.

 

[farouk]

There are a lot of Web resources for quoting Bible passages.

Godrules (google it) has various versions in an easy to access site.

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Theo,
The example of the wine is a great reminder that a translation doesn't always line up with the original language, especially in Hebrew. However, in all I've found the KJV very, very close to how the Jews themselves would translate into Hebrew.

BTW, I'll even cross with a known Jewish version at times... I figure it's their native tongue and given their pedantic stance toward scripture, it's got to be the closest to the original intent... Here is how they translate that verse.

Shmuel I - Chapter 1 - I Samuel - Torah - Bible
24. And she brought him with her when she had weaned him, with three bulls, and one ephah of meal, and an earthenware jug of wine, and she brought him to the house of the Lord, to Shiloh, and the child was young.

Rashi, a well respected Rabbi comments as such: and an earthenware jug of wine:: for a drink offering. והנער נער and the child was young (after Jonathan).

When you take into consideration the wine offering, we're not talking about a pint sized Daniel Boon wine skin. In all probability we're talking about a pretty big jug and from a pedantic point of view, there is a huge difference between a earthenware jug and a wineskin made from animals. Is it a salvation issue? ... Not at all, but it does paint a different picture if you enjoy the minutia.

But anyway, as far as your comment The best translation is the one you read. I used to think that way, and to an extent I agree. However, if one has a choice between the NLT, the Message or the NIV.... I wouldn't hesitate to steer anyone away from the NLT or Message.

Ohh, and I can't stand reading the KJV... yuk. But I do value it for quick cross referencing. If I see something that sticks out like a sore thumb, I know to dig deeper.

 

[handy]

Don't listen to people who tell you there is only one authentic translation unless they are referring to Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. Otherwise just compare a few different ones. No one English translation got everything correct.

:nod I agree wholeheartedly. There are some KJV only groups out there which are achieving cult status. If the folks telling you that "that King James is the only real authentic bible" are doing so because they want to steer you to a tried and true translation (which the KJV is) then that's fine, although there are several very good translations out there besides the KJV. But, if they are saying, as are some "KJV only" types that using any other version of the Bible marks one as not a Christian or that the KJV is ALONE the only true Word of God, then steer clear of them. (For one thing, keep in mind that Christ and Christ Alone is the One true Word of God. The translations of the Scriptures, KJV included, are exactly that: translations.)

I became a Christian reading The Living Bible, which is a paraphrase more than an actual translation. This shows that the Holy Spirit can use even paraphrases. But, Theo hit the nail on the head with this:

The best translation is the one you read.

​

 

[farouk]

:nod I agree wholeheartedly. There are some KJV only groups out there which are achieving cult status. If the folks telling you that "that King James is the only real authentic bible" are doing so because they want to steer you to a tried and true translation (which the KJV is) then that's fine, although there are several very good translations out there besides the KJV. But, if they are saying, as are some "KJV only" types that using any other version of the Bible marks one as not a Christian or that the KJV is ALONE the only true Word of God, then steer clear of them. (For one thing, keep in mind that Christ and Christ Alone is the One true Word of God. The translations of the Scriptures, KJV included, are exactly that: translations.)

I became a Christian reading The Living Bible, which is a paraphrase more than an actual translation. This shows that the Holy Spirit can use even paraphrases. But, Theo hit the nail on the head with this:

The best translation is the one you read.

​

handy:

Oh yes I'm sure the Lord can use paraphrases, too.

And I don't agree with the King James only cult-like discourse (though I do appreciate the King James).

In all matters a sense of balance is good.

 

[craigmn3]

No, with one caveat. The NLT is NOT a study bible, it is a paraphrased reading bible. It conveys the basic truth. But if want strict translation for study stick to a KJV, NKJV NIV, NAS all of the basic translation bibles.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, I think the KJV has served very well personally, and from a guy who primarily reads the NIV, I trust the KJV over the NIV, and I trust the NIV over the NLT and I trust the NLT over the Message..

All this is to say that the KJV has it's place and when it comes to deep diving into your studies, it's invaluable as a quick reference. Every time I've found differences between the KJV and the NIV, the KJV was always closer to the original language.

 

[farouk]

...I trust the KJV over the NIV, and I trust the NIV over the NLT and I trust the NLT over the Message..

...

SB:

Hi, yes, I think that your assessment is very fair, there.

Fact is, some of the more modern translations haven't been translated with the same view of keeping close to the original.

 

[casper]

Ok thanks for that, I might try KJV or a NIV is it better to get one where Jesus words are high lighted, whitch type dose this?

 

[Nick]

Ok thanks for that, I might try KJV or a NIV is it better to get one where Jesus words are high lighted, whitch type dose this?

Most do. It'll say on the cover whether it does or not, or you can just take a look inside the Bible. It's not special to any particular version. I've seen KJV, ESV, NIV, NLT and even The Message with it.

 

[stovebolts]

Casper,
Your welcome and I like the "red bits" in my bible

Always keep in mind that a servant isn't above it's master and in this case, the master is the original language and the servant is the translation.

 

[craigmn3]

Ok thanks for that, I might try KJV or a NIV is it better to get one where Jesus words are high lighted, whitch type dose this?

I would go with a NEW King James version or NIV....no need to have your mind translate from old english to modern english while your trying to understand the word of God.

The red lettering is helpful and most that do this will be marked so on the spine

 

[barelohim]

You may enjoy this comparison.
The New Living Translation - A Critical Review

Personally, I use the NIV, but I always cross reference with my ASV or KJV and here is what I've found. Often, the NIV won't support an accurate view which is found and supported in the original Greek or Hebrew and it can be frustrating if your doing an in-depth study where you want to maintain some accuracy so the right "picture" is painted. here, let me show you by way of example the latest one I just found last week.

kjv: 1 Samuel 1:24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7237">niv 24</sup> After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh.

nlt <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-7212">24</sup> When the child was weaned, Hannah took him to the Tabernacle in Shiloh. They brought along a three-year-old bull for the sacrifice and a basket of flour and some wine.

This may seem insignificant but it changes the dynamics of what occurred dramatically. First off, there is a whole lot more meat with 3 bulls than there is with one bull and when you take into consideration that most of the sacrificial offerings were eaten it shows how many people would have been present for this celebration.

Also, a three year old bull could not have been offered as as a sin offering either for the priest or for the people because it had to be a "young bull". That being said, it could have been offered as a peace offering.

Now then, if you study the first 9 chapters of Leviticus, you'll find that the peace offering (with a vow) would have been laid on top of the burnt offering and the burn offering would be split in two with the first half burned in the morning and the second half in the evening.

So, with three bulls, we see that Hannah could have provided
1. The burnt offering for the day
2. The sin offering for the people (so they could enjoy the peace offering)
3. The peace offering which would have been enjoyed by the community while she vowed her son Samual to the Lord.

Like I said, the NLT or NIV from first glance seem 'ok', but when you go to study it, if you want an accurate picture, don't rely on either...

Oh... and when you look at what was to accompany the bull (offering) as far as the grain offering and the drink offering... the NLT and NIV are way off...

An ephah of flour is about 20 quarts and about 2 quarts would be used with the peace offering, and about 2.5 quarts of wine for the drink offering which would have been mandatory with the peace offering..

Beware of straining out gnats, and swallowing camels...

Was He hung on a tree, or a cross? Does it matter what He was hung on, or WHY!

In Him
Bar.

 

[stovebolts]

While I appreciate your concern son of God, I am by no means straining gnats or swallowing camels.

Why is as important as the what and both work together to form a complete picture, because the what holds significance and as far as a tree is concerned by way of your example, a man was not to be hung on a tree over night by the command of the Law by Moses and it was so in the case of Jesus... in accordance that no man would say there was any corruption within Him.

In the example that I gave which you quoted, for those like myself that love the story, and live more within the story of the biblical texts than within doctrines, the more accurate the picture, the richer the story becomes as it blooms and flowers into a beautiful story which dances within my head, living and active.

God bless.

 

[barelohim]

While I appreciate your concern son of God, I am by no means straining gnats or swallowing camels.

Why is as important as the what and both work together to form a complete picture, because the what holds significance and as far as a tree is concerned by way of your example, a man was not to be hung on a tree over night by the command of the Law by Moses and it was so in the case of Jesus... in accordance that no man would say there was any corruption within Him.

In the example that I gave which you quoted, for those like myself that love the story, and live more within the story of the biblical texts than within doctrines, the more accurate the picture, the richer the story becomes as it blooms and flowers into a beautiful story which dances within my head, living and active.

God bless.

While studying Leviticus, with the tabernacle and all its trappings, pins, planks, cloths, etc,etc, etc. I found it quite a sluggish study, until the Lord said, " your too close to the details, come up here and get a higher perspective!"

Like looking at a tapestry so closely and intently, that you don't see the picture...

We are called to be of the same mind, and the same accord, which is why discussion is so relevant. But being of the same mind and accord of Christ is the goal, the mark of the high calling one has in Christ Jesus.

We don't just study to gain knowledge of the bible texts, we study to have Jesus revealed in His Word...

Its all about Him, would you agree?

In Him
bar.

PS. In the gospels there are two demon possessed men in the Gadarenes, and in another writing we have only one. Does it matter if there are two mentioned in the one writing, and only one in another?