Preferred Bible that you use?

[seagullplayer]

I am not "King James only", but the KJV is the one I read/study and teach from the most.

I like the NLT and spent a year with it as my daily reading Bible.

I have a NKJV at work that I have been doing my "lunch time" reading from. I like it better than I thought I might.
I have a few others around the house that I have read from, but none that I consult on a regular basis.

I find that because the language of the KJV is so unique to today's speech, that I find it a bit easier to comment to memory?

 

[farouk]

I am not "King James only", but the KJV is the one I read/study and teach from the most.

I like the NLT and spent a year with it as my daily reading Bible.

I have a NKJV at work that I have been doing my "lunch time" reading from. I like it better than I thought I might.
I have a few others around the house that I have read from, but none that I consult on a regular basis.

I find that because the language of the KJV is so unique to today's speech, that I find it a bit easier to comment to memory?

Yes, re. the highlighted words, I would say similarly.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

New American Standard (I have a "Key Word" edition that is the best bible study tool I've ever owned)
English Standard Version.

Those, in my opinion, are the two most accurate English translations available.

 

[seagullplayer]

New American Standard (I have a "Key Word" edition that is the best bible study tool I've ever owned)
English Standard Version.

Those, in my opinion, are the two most accurate English translations available.

On that note, E-Sword is the best study tool I have ever found. I use it everyday and have it on every computer I own.
Just do a search if you are not familiar, it is free and well worth the download.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

On that note, E-Sword is the best study tool I have ever found. I use it everyday and have it on every computer I own.
Just do a search if you are not familiar, it is free and well worth the download.

The Key Word Study Bible has a complete concordance and the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons in the back of the Bible, and the whole thing is only an inch and half thick, and you can still read the print. Virtually every verse in the Bible has at least one key word denoted, with the Strong's number referenced for easy look-up. The best thing about it is, I don't need internet access to use it.

 

[Carolyn]

I use NKJV but compare with NASV and the New Testament an expanded translation by Kenneth s. Wuest. The latter makes me think about
what I am reading.

 

[farouk]

I use NKJV but compare with NASV and the New Testament an expanded translation by Kenneth s. Wuest. The latter makes me think about
what I am reading.

Carolyn:

Yes, the NKJV is very, very popular.

(Would you be able to say in a few words why you prefer the NKJV to the King James?)

Blessings.

 

[Jamesone5]

I also mainly use the NKJV, but refer to the NLT in the Life Application Bible version for the children's Sunday Class that I teach and also for a number of people I write to [mainly prisoners] who I write out Bible Lessons. I think for me in the choice for the NKJV for personal study is partially because I grew up in a church that was "KJ only" and the newer translation is familiar and certainly much easier to read

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I use NIV.
Always have.
I keep other versions on hand, but only for reference.

 

[Slider]

I go with the KJV. No other versions for my studying and reading and discussion. I'm open to others using other versions and will deal with them and there version (I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds), but I stick to one version.

 

[farouk]

I go with the KJV. No other versions for my studying and reading and discussion. I'm open to others using other versions and will deal with them and there version (I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds), but I stick to one version.

Slider: Yes, well a lot of the helps and study aids and commentaries have been traditionally based on the King James. While I do look at other versions sometimes, I've seen no reason to move to another version completely.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I go with the KJV. No other versions for my studying and reading and discussion. I'm open to others using other versions and will deal with them and there version (I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds), but I stick to one version.

I understand this, for the same reasons farouk has mentioned. But are you aware that there are some utterly enthralling studies available for the NASB? The NASB is an incredible Bible, the most efficient, thorough and accurate translation available. I like the KJV, too, because of its poetic rendering of God's word. The problems with the limited number of transcripts available to Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus, however, make some of their renderings inaccurate, but not so as to change the base meaning of the passages in question. Still, because of the number of transcripts available 350 years later, and the accuracy of the translation, the meaning of the original autographs is (I believe) much more accurately captured in the NASB. This isn't to start an argument, and if you don't wish to study out of the NASB, no problem. Just a comment on the thread is all.

 

[Vanguard]

NASB-NIV parallel

Supported by...

Strong's Concordance
NASB-NIV-KJV-AMP parallel
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible
Vulgata Latin to 1611 KJV English Bible
www.biblegateway.com

 

[enlightened]

Because bibles differ and even disagree (a troubling thing, for it seems much like the days of Babel where no one can agree), and, because it is seems rational to believe that if GOD wanted to hold us to a Standard of TRUTH, then HE should have to provide at least ONE that was absolutley accurate, i have desided to put my faith in ONE SOURCE, ONE RECORD, which is the orignal KJV. IT has stood the test of time (+400 years), and has been evangelized the world. Using multiple translations seems to add to the confusion.

Did you know that most bibles differ from the KJV in the very first verse? So which is right and which is wrong? This you must decide for yourself, but only the LORD"S Sheep will know his voice when HE calls.

 

[Vanguard]

...HE should have to provide at least ONE that was absolutley accurate, i have desided to put my faith in ONE SOURCE, ONE RECORD, which is the orignal KJV.

But it's not absolutely 100% accurate. It is close, as far as a formal equivalent translation goes, but far from 100%. The Dead Sea scrolls have shown that. If you want pure accuracy, become fluent in Classical Hebrew for the OT and Koine Greek for the NT.

Did you know that most bibles differ from the KJV in the very first verse? So which is right and which is wrong?

KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NASB: In the beginning <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>God <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>created the heavens and the earth.
NKJV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
NIV: In the beginning<SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP> God created<SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP> the heavens<SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP> and the earth.
ESV: In the <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
OJB: In the beginning Elohim [God] created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth). [Orthodox Jewish Bible]

Here's the interesting part. The ONLY difference is the addition of the letter 's' to the word 'heaven.' In the KJV it is singular. In all the rest it is plural. It would seem that the KJV is at odds (by 1 letter) with the rest, including a Jewish account of the OT! Furthermore, the verse is not referring to "Heaven," but rather the sky/universe (in case anyone wanted to argue that there is only one "heaven").

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the KJV. I still use it as a resource. But outside of the original languages, there's not a translation out there that is "100%."

 

[farouk]

I use the written NKJV. I usually read the NIV online with a paralleled reading of the KJV. For general reading I do not think it is super critical which version it is because we rely upon the Holy Spirit for illumination. The important thing is to read it.

E: the NKJV can be useful to take to a church service. It's fairly formal for public reading.

 

[farouk]

That's what I carry when I go out and about to Church (which is not very often). I have a large one with big type that's easy to read with no glasses. I like paralleled reading with a regular KJV for in depth studies as well but actually use the written KJV less and less because my copies are near falling apart now.

E: I think there is a lot to be said to hear the Word of God being read in the company of other Christians, actually.

I guess if your copies are falling apart, it goes to show how much they have been read...

 

[tohelp]

I would advice all of you to study about the evils of the modern translations. If you do these studies that the modern versions are corrupt version. That means that the NIV, ESV, GNB, NKJV and others too come under this category. They are all corrupt. Only the KJV is the most accurate translation in English. Don't take my word for it. Do your research.

You need to study the pure word of God if you need to get as close to Him as possible.

 

[farouk]

tohelp: I like the King James a lot, too; it is of course a translation, and not necessarily the only way to translate. But yes, it's a version that has been greatly used and blessed.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... then HE should have to provide at least ONE that was absolutley accurate ...

He did, but not in English. He provided the original Hebrew text, which was meticulously preserved by scribes down through the ages, who went to the extent of counting every single letter, jot and tittle, putting a mark at the exact center of a book, and counting forwards and backwards to make sure there were an equal number of characters. If there weren't, no matter that, with texts such as Jeremiah or Isaiah, it took weeks to copy, the slightest error resulted in them casting the scroll out and burning it.

He provided over 5,000 copies of the New Testament books, spanning over 900 years, giving translators the opportunity to make comparisons across the centuries -- and finding that the variations are minimal, at worst -- and thereby making exceptionally accurate translations in the modern versions. The KJV is an excellent translation also, but in the New Testament has over 4,000 to errors, due to Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus having access to only 400 manuscripts, and nothing from the last eight chapters of The Revelation. Therefore, no one can claim any version is "perfect" or "inspired" and to do so is to worship the translation, not God. All the versions in English are imperfect, and to claim that the KJV is inspired is to ignore the fact that God had the same message for people who spoke other languages. There are no "inspired translations," only good ones or bad ones. Most of the ones discussed on this thread are good, but none are perfect.