Preferred Bible that you use?

[evenifigoalone]

I'm used to the KJV, so that's what I use.

 

[farouk]

I'm used to the KJV, so that's what I use.

questdriven:

Me too. It's basically a very sound version, a bit 'churchy' in some of the words used in the New Testament ('church' instead of 'assembly/congregation', 'bishop' instead of 'overseer' and so forth). The King James is very memorable, and a lot of the commentaries are based on it.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Jim: It's good to strive for accuracy, too; since it's God's Who speaks through His Word.

Blessings.

 

[tohelp]

The attitude of "inclusiveness" is not a right one. Christianity is an exclusive faith. Salvation is only through Jesus. Jesus is the only mediator between man and God. Some people tend to think that being inclusive is the right way to be. That is why they miss out on certain vital truths. I am not a KJV worshiper, but I am a Jesus worshiper. If Bible is an inspired work of God, then why can't the translations be so. Some translations are inspired. In English it is the KJV. There are reasons to believe that it is an inspired translation.

• The modern versions especially the NIV has a different reading from that of the KJV. There is nothing wrong with having a different reading, but those different readings are stripping God either of His respect, or of His divinity. If you do not believe me compare the texts and see for yourselves.
• Then there are verses missing. Again those verses are some very key ones.
• Also studies have shown that the among the translators panel for many of the modern versions especially NIV, there were unbelievers and sinners.

These are facts about the modern translations. If we love our LORD then, when we know that these versions have such evil, intentional errors we should just reject them.

Some claim that there are errors in the KJV. Yes but those are not major errors affecting the doctrine. But the ones in the modern versions does damage the doctrine.

 

[Mountainshield]

Well I'm not in favor of political correctness over the word of God.

I usually stick too King James Bible

But if I don't understand something I usually ask my wife who studied bible theology and been a youth minister for 5 years for answers, she uses her spanish bible, not sure what version it is. But she is well versed in the entire context of the verses too. if not I may use newer versions or direct translations from hebrew if its old testament.

 

[Paul1965]

I believe that God is not in anyone's box of "correctness" or "rightness" but is free and omniscient and omnipotent and Spiritually Powerful enough to transcend any erroneous presentations of His Word and work His will. He looks much more on the intentions of the heart than the letter of the law.

I agree with JimJib, language has changed throughout history. Translation is open to.......well....translation. The version of the NLT I use has annotations which reference "Deliberately or evil intentioned" omissions. When I read His word my heart is focused on what i believe He wants me to understand. If i still don't get it, I either a)pray for His guidance b) go online to check other versions or c) google the passage and find what scholars of His word have to say about it.
God knows I am not a bible scholar. I know that He is pleased that I've handed my life and heart over to His will and Grace through the versions of the bible I've read (3 and counting).

When talking about translations, one only has to look at the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each has a different author writing about our Lord and saviour and the time they spent with Him. Yet their wording and style of writing is individual. The fact that they are different does not detract from their obvious devotion to Jesus and their reporting of His teachings, miracles and earthly life. What each of them wrote was their interpretation of what occurred with some differences. Were any of them wrong in what they wrote or how they wrote it? Not as far as anyone who was not there can know until we are called to judgement.

 

[reba]

When talking about translations, one only has to look at the gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each has a different author writing about our Lord
and saviour and the time they spent with Him. Yet their wording and style of
writing is individual. The fact that they are different does not detract from
their obvious devotion to Jesus and their reporting of His teachings, miracles
and earthly life. What each of them wrote was their interpretation of what
occurred with some differences. Were any of them wrong in what they wrote or how
they wrote it? Not as far as anyone who was not there can know until we are
called to judgement.

 

[farouk]

Another fact about modern translations is that they have the benefit of having the capability of being MORE correct due to the IGNORANCE of earlier versions, like the KJV; ignorance of the sub sequentially discovered Dead Sea Scrolls and other early copies of the original manuscripts. Earlier versions, such as the KJV, had the incapability of being able to refer DIRECTLY to the early copies of the original manuscripts and original manuscripts themselves, which the modern translations DID have. The KJV, for example, had to go through eleven translations just to have its connection to the early copies of original manuscripts. Translations made before the enabling powers of our higher tech analyzations compiled naturally with the guidance of the Holy Spirit are capable of arriving at a more "right" or correct understanding of the original intent of God's Word.

Granted, I am NOT saying that all modern translations ARE more correct or right, only that they ARE capable of being so.

Jim:

One can also lose something with some modern scholarship. For example, some of the more modern, paraphrastic/dynamic Bible translations strive to be so 'user-friendly', supposedly, that a proportion of the meaning and content is lost: the application of E A Nida's redundancy theory (derived from engineering, and applied dubiously to translation) has meant that some translators feel free to ignore a significant proportion of the meaning and content of the original. Some versions score highly when it comes to readability, but for concentrated, word by word and verse by verse Bible study, they may be less effective.

 

[P31Woman]

Living Bible for my personal devotion. Study/teach mode is a differant story

 

[King James]

KJV is my favorite. For the base texts, translation, and interpretation. Also for the latinized old english. Much more entertaining for me to read than modern language. I've had many different bibles, some obscure, and ended up using the KJV only for reading it in book form and mp3 form. On the internet I'll be looking at over a dozen versions. After that not in order:

NKJV
YLT
KJ3

 

[farouk]

Living Bible for my personal devotion. Study/teach mode is a differant story

Hi P31Woman: So do you teach someplace? I use the KJV.

 

[P31Woman]

Hi P31Woman: So do you teach someplace? I use the KJV.

Church

 

[tohelp]

JimJib
Another fact about modern translations is that they have the benefit of having the capability of being MORE correct due to the IGNORANCE of earlier versions, like the KJV;

God does not need the help of more manuscripts or more human intelligence to inspire an accurate translation. Are you not underestimating His power?

Paul1965
The fact that they are different does not detract from their obvious devotion to Jesus and their reporting of His teachings, miracles and earthly life.

But the modern translation do detract people from Jesus. They tamper with core doctrines. It is so. Those versions steal Jesus' honor from Him. Do you think it is okay to do so?

 

[huntm282]

I have used a nlt and niv,kjv,nkjv but i mostly use the kjv and the only issue i have with the niv is that it removes the end of the lords prayer and sticks it in the footenotes. I like to use two in order to better understand the text

 

[Vanguard]

I never said modern translations are more correct. I said that they have the possibility to be as they are better facilitated for deriving such. Some are more correct, I believe, and others aren't. I merely stated that the potential is there for better accuracy in the modern translation than ones like KJV. That is absolutely undeniable.

If you were going to teach someone about astronomy, would you use a textbook from 1611 or 2011?

A lot has been discovered in the last 400 years.

 

[farouk]

If you were going to teach someone about astronomy, would you use a textbook from 1611 or 2011?

A lot has been discovered in the last 400 years.

...and where the Old Testament speaks about the 'circle of the earth' (Isaiah 40.22), this was ridiculed for hundreds of years by experts who taught that the earth was flat.

 

[Paul1965]

But the modern translation do detract people from Jesus. They tamper with core doctrines. It is so. Those versions steal Jesus' honor from Him. Do you think it is okay to do so?

If you are going to quote me, kindly quote in full context and do not misrepresent what I said.
the full context is below.

When talking about translations, one only has to look at the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each has a different author writing about our Lord and saviour and the time they spent with Him. Yet their wording and style of writing is individual. The fact that they are different does not detract from their obvious devotion to Jesus and their reporting of His teachings, miracles and earthly life. What each of them wrote was their interpretation of what occurred with some differences. Were any of them wrong in what they wrote or how they wrote it? Not as far as anyone who was not there can know until we are called to judgement.

Talking about the authors and their translation or witnessing of events and their writing style. NOT a translation. Do you think any of those four men wished to steal honour from their friend, God and Saviour.?

 

[King James]

I don't like how new bibles will take 5+ sources, then pick and choose what wording they like better to create each verse. Especially when it is latin vulgate or the septuagint since they are translations of translations and as Vanguard says 400 years. The dead sea scrolls are also used a lot which I call questionable when you look at some of the other writtings housed there. Also in the footnotes explaining what other versions had in them. It creates impropriety as to the confidence that you are reading valid scripture. I guess this way, they have been able to come with their choice reading in the text, and you can choose if you prefer the meaning in the footnotes. These are basically frankenstein bibles.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I don't like how new bibles will take 5+ sources, then pick and choose what wording they like better to create each verse.

That's not what they do, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.

Especially when it is latin vulgate or the septuagint since they are translations of translations and as Vanguard says 400 years.

I'm not sure about the NIV translators, since they don't do a direct word-for-word translation but a "thought-for-thought" rendering, but the NASB, ESV, Holman and others do a direct translation from the original Greek, not "picking and choosing" anything, but using the most common rendering of the texts available. They don't use preferences from the Vulgate or the LXX, though they often offer alternate renderings in the footnotes from these sources.

The dead sea scrolls are also used a lot which I call questionable when you look at some of the other writtings housed there.

Can you please provide specific examples of what you speak of that make you suspicious?

Also in the footnotes explaining what other versions had in them. It creates impropriety as to the confidence that you are reading valid scripture.

Incorrect. Those footnotes actually strengthen the confidence you can have by offering what can properly be called alternate renderings but which support, not detract, from the rendering that has been preferred in the main text.

I guess this way, they have been able to come with their choice reading in the text, and you can choose if you prefer the meaning in the footnotes.

You make it sound as if these footnotes disagree with the main text, and that simply is not true. Here's an example of the kind of thing you are talking about:

Luke 12 NASB
49 I *have come to cast fire upon the earth, and *how I wish it were already kindled!
​

The asterisks represent the superscripts references to footnotes on the page for that verse. Here, the NASB offers the word "came" in place of "have come" which, though you will probably argue the point, does nothing to change the meaning. Also, it offers the alternative of " ... how I wish ... " as a question: " ... what do I wish, that it were already kindled?" Either rendering produces the passion Christ was feeling at the moment, though in our own vernacular and syntax, we are more comfortable with " ... how I wish ... " but there is nothing wrong with the second choice, either. This example has nothing to do with the way in which it is rendered differently in various manuscripts, because they all read exactly the same. It has to do with the fact that there is no way to tell exactly in what mood the original Greek was actually written, but the most common mood dictates the first. By the way, the KJV renders it in more or less the second rendering, which is how the vernacular and syntax of 1611 English dictated it be rendered. If you doubt that, read Shakespeare. You will see the same kind of mood in his writings as you see here. Neither our preferred mood nor that of 1611 likely applies to Jesus and His audience.

These are basically frankenstein bibles.

That's ridiculous, and not even original. It is the most-often rendered phrase concerning the newer translation when some of the most rabid and radical KJV Only adherents express their opinion. You obviously hold an unjustifiable prejudice that colors your perceptions.

 

[tohelp]

I never said modern translations are more correct. I said that they have the possibility to be as they are better facilitated for deriving such. Some are more correct, I believe, and others aren't. I merely stated that the potential is there for better accuracy in the modern translation than ones like KJV. That is absolutely undeniable.

But I am saying that modern versions have more possibility of being wrong as Satan is better equipped to deceive people today than in the past. More manuscripts could also mean more opportunity to confuse translators.