What Bible Version...

[faroukfarouk]

I grew up using the KJV. I still love it, but it can be very hard to understand. I also like the ESV and NIV. I just started reading the GNT and it's so easy to understand, I like it a lot.

Comparing versions can useful; and checking the meaning of words. Yes, I love the King James also.

Blessings.

 

[mikedsjr]

As for accuracy scholars believe the accuracy of what we have today to the autographs is approximately 99.5%. The "inaccuracies" involve no essential doctrines, and mostly minor nuances that don't change the meaning of the given text.

I use the NET and ESV. The original NIV was rather weak in areas for study, but I would use it for reading. What I don't get is people using the Message. It isn't a translation at all, in the proper use of the term.

 

[CS Gosdin]

I usually use KJV Study Bible or NKJV. We have other Bibles, but I was brought up believing the KJV is the Holy Bible

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

I really like the NLT. I think it's my favorite translation so far.

 

[Avid]

... I was brought up believing the KJV is the Holy Bible

I must say that I was NOT brought up this way, but actually found myself memorizing the KJV on certain verses, and being surprised that this is not what my RSV said. That is what was given to me as a child, and I would not dare to say what God cannot do - even with a Bible that is missing such significant elements of the truth.

I now am interested in learning more from God, and am not as bothered about what others might do, except as I may help them avoid pitfalls! I am hoping the LORD leads each person to what has the soundest record of what He has for us.

There is a good book on the subject of Archaic Words AND the KJV. There are really only a few that are truly archaic. Most are more understandable than what was used to replace them in newer versions. This is an excellent reference work, and I try to keep it handy.

Archaic Words and the Authorized Version
by Laurence M. Vance, AA, BD, ThM, ThD
1996
(about 600 pages long with over 5,000 footnotes)

In this book, many words are addressed, and their use in modern publications are more like the KJV, and, sometimes, almost NO ONE would use what the "modern versions" use in their place. I'll give just one example of this:

The word "Impotent" was avoided many times for a particular use we have today, but NOT ALWAYS. After changing it in some places to sick, without strength, helpless, or even disabled (to be politically correct,) the NSAB will change a different word to IMPOTENT. It had "Corrected" it 4 times before, but reinserted it where the KJV and all others had put feeble. This happens with many or all the hundreds of words in question.

Here is a modern publication that shows how it is NOT ARCHAIC to use this word. The Orange County Register, on page 24 of the June 20, 1993 issue, said this in an article titled, "Scientists Debate Whether to Kill Last Remaining Smallpox," by Lauran Neergaard.

"The CDC grew smallpox, separated its genes, rendered them impotent and cloned them."
​

That book gives this kind of treatment to just about every one of hundreds of "so-called" archaic words in the KJV. There is an hour-long video here that is from a radio broadcast. It seems rather good:

Archaic Words and the King James Bible (With Dr. Laurence Vance) - YouTube

 

[Avid]

... Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God...

Interesting how many of the same people who say you are not able to understand what God says in the KJV, are the ones who encourage you to learn Greek and Hebrew. They claim it is only then you will truly understand what God had written in His word.

I'll say this, that it is the complexity of discerning the corrupt manuscripts from the faithful ones that casts a cloud over the whole issue of Manuscript Criticism. Once they muddy the water that way, it would require someone as smart as Erasmus (that's not me,) to do all the work he did in order to confirm or correct his findings.

These same people have refused that work by simply stating that the older manuscripts, or some in better condition, are superior. This way they eliminate 95% of the work that Erasmus did in confirming the better ones from the corrupt ones.

.

 

[JM]

I raised my children on the AV and they seem to excel at reading and writing. We heard the AV preached from the pulpit and use/d it during our family devotional and Bible study times.

The AV has been a huge blessing to us.

 

[standingtall]

I raised my children on the AV and they seem to excel at reading and writing.

Would you agree that using the KJV is a personal choice, and not something that should be required for an English speaking Christian?

BTW, my children were not raised on the KJV and they definitely excel at reading and writing. I was not raised on the KJV and I excelled at reading and writing in school.

IMO, the KJV has nothing to do with scholastic accomplishments. It has more to do with support from the parents and the teachers' ability.

I'm glad the KJV has been a blessing to you, but folks can also be blessed by other bible versions.

 

[ALoveDivine]

KJV-only folks tend to be very adverse to reason, so trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility. From what I've read from them they tend to be very suspicious of any kind of intellectual engagement at all, so even trying to discuss their views with them is a dead-end. I think they've vindicated this by ignoring all contrary evidence we've given and just regurgitating Steven Anderson's claims.

The KJV is an excellent translation and I use it myself sometimes. But some people quite frankly can't understand it, and that's why simpler bible versions in contemporary English are absolutely necessary for evangelism and discipleship.

 

[mikedsjr]

Kjv-onlyists, so when you read John 21, What does Jesus ask Peter?

 

[mikedsjr]

Alovedivine, I'm not sure I would agree simpler versions are what people need, but I could be taking your statement to literal. I would never recommend the Living translation ever. I'm reluctant to recommend the NIV. If someone can't comprehend the ESV then they have learning disabilities and that's a different issue. The ESV balances between readability and word-for-word translating very well. The issue with the KJV is people dont talk like that anymore. It's rediculous to hear a person pray in KJV speech when they don't talk that way normally. It's like speaking a foreign language.

 

[JM]

Would you agree that using the KJV is a personal choice, and not something that should be required for an English speaking Christian?

Of course. I wouldn't force anyone to do anything except leave me alone.

BTW, my children were not raised on the KJV and they definitely excel at reading and writing. I was not raised on the KJV and I excelled at reading and writing in school.

Good for you buddy. I see replying on my iPhone is causing you to feel a little self righteous. Forgive me for feeding the fire.

IMO, the KJV has nothing to do with scholastic accomplishments. It has more to do with support from the parents and the teachers' ability.

Good thing I asked.

I'm glad the KJV has been a blessing to you, but folks can also be blessed by other bible versions.

Where did I say they could not? Why the chip on your shoulder.

jm

 

[Bluelion]

You know at some point you just have to trust The Holy Spirit, and trust that he blessed these translations and if something is wrong or you get mislead That The Holy Spirit will show you the truth.

Take the new world bible or JW bible, they do not believe Jesus is God, so they change what was written as in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God to the word was A God. making Jesus out to be a seprate God so there are two Gods.

I believe in giving people a chance so i studied with the JW, i had to break it off when they started saying all other denominations were heresies and of the devil and basically they were the only true church. When someone says they are the only true way that is usually a cult.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed for review.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[ImaginaryDay]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a major clean-up and is being re-opened. If you find that your post is missing, it was removed as part of that clean-up. Please refrain from suggesting that any bible version is "satanic" or that "KJV-Onlyism" is a cult, or any other sort of demeaning discussion. Let's stay on topic. Thank you.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[lost999]

MOD HAT ON This thread has undergone a major clean-up and is being re-opened. If you find that your post is missing, it was removed as part of that clean-up. Please refrain from suggesting that any bible version is "satanic" or that "KJV-Onlyism" is a cult, or any other sort of demeaning discussion. Let's stay on topic. Thank you. MOD HAT OFF

Respect

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Several hundred English translations of the Bible have been made, most of them since 1950, and more than one hundred of them are currently available in bookstores or for download on the internet. Some of them were translated to meet the needs of a particular class of persons:

• Children
• People who are deaf
• People who have poor reading skills
• People who are in a hurry
• People who have an excellent education
• People who desire a translation based upon the very finest up-to-date biblical scholarship

Other translations of the Bible were made to promote a particular sect or doctrine. Still other translations of the Bible were probably made for financial gain. Some translations of the Bible are ultraconservative theologically; some other translations of the Bible are on the opposite end of the theological spectrum.

I am not deaf, I have good reading skills, I am not in a hurry, I have a good education, and I desire an English translation of the Bible based upon the very finest up-to-date biblical scholarship. There is only one translation that meets all of these criteria—and as an extra bonus, it is translated into impeccable English. That translation is the New Revised Standard Version.

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

I've been using the NIV lately. I bounce from one translation to another sometimes, so I never really stick to any one Bible. But if I had to choose, I'd probably choose the NIV.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I have become very fond of the YLT...most excellent read...

 

[beaverpond]

I was raised reading and understanding the KJV. There was one church we attended that used a very specific type of KJV so that the Pastor would tell you what page to turn to in your Bible. But we left that church when we moved and we are now at a church that uses the NKJV which is not a huge deal in my book. We are teaching our daughter how to read and understand the KJV. The curriculum in our Awana Program is also NKJV as are all the Bibles we give away.

Some people say that other translations are easier to understand. My opinion is that other translations lose something when they make it easier to understand by changing the words around not to mention the more you water it down by making it easier to understand the loser the language gets. The closer you stay to the original text, the less things get watered down...again just my opinion.