Bible Versions

[GreenMunchkin]

I mostly read the NIV because, truthfully, I tend to struggle with the language of the KJV. That being said, when reading the KJV, it feels much more spiritually alive and true. Just as an example:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (Cor 13:12 KJV)

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."(Cor 13:12 NIV)

Am a bit of a language geek anyway, and linguistically, the first example presses all the right buttons, but it really is more than that. It does just feel more siritually alive. Not sure how else to phrase it.

However, there are people who are staunch KJV-onlyists, and am just wondering why, given the Bible was originally Hebrew and Greek. I think the KJV is probably a far closer translation of the original texts, but it's still not an original text, so why is it *such* an issue for so many?

Would be grateful for any thoughts, cos am beginning to read the KJV more and more, but it's a spiritual thing, not an intellectual/historical thing

 

[rmw8855]

I tend to read the KJV. Like you it just spiritually clicks with me.

But I also dig into the greek/hebrew in the strongs corcordance and compare it to the NIV, message, or whatever version I need if I am doing a study where I want a fuller understanding.

 

[MrJim]

I do like the KJV for the NT, but when I get into the OT I find I'm lookin' up words a lot, so usually go to a NKJV.

 

[Tenebrae]

I use e-eword

I like the modern king james version and ASV

The modern king james is a bit easier to understand

 

[ContentInHim]

What is the ASV? Thanks!

 

[MrJim]

What is the ASV? Thanks!

American Standard Version; it's been updated a couple times, NASB is pretty common.

 

[MrJim]

I use e-eword

I like the modern king james version and ASV

The modern king james is a bit easier to understand

Yeah, I use macsword, mostly quote off KJV but do use the ESV on occasion...

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

The KJV doesn't "click" for me, and though I have a pretty fair collection of translations, I haven't yet picked up a KJV, though I likely will eventually. It's simply low priority, because for me the Elizabethan English is too much of an obstacle. I can understand it, but the extra effort to do so is distracting and breaks the flow. That, and I consider it less reliable than more recent versions due to translation errors. In King Jame's time, many important manuscripts hadn't yet been discovered, and Bible scholarship wasn't fully developed, so I understand why they couldn't do better, but I want the benefit of those developments. My personal favorite translation is the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible). Still, there are those who prefer the older (in time of discovery, that is) manuscripts upon which the KJV was based, the Textus Receptus. To them I commend the NKJV, which is also TR-based. I own a NKJV and use it often. It's a reasonably literal translation, but still reads pretty well to modern ears. I also often read the ESV and the NIV in hard copy. Most other translations, I consult online via the Bible Gateway site.

 

[edie19]

My personal use Bible is primarily NKJV.

I also reference NASB (which I've heard multiple theologians describe as "incredibly accurate"), NIV and NCV (New Century).

My reason for preferring the NKJV - it retains the poetry of the KJV and is (IMO) more readable.

I do read the ESV on Bible Gateway - and like it. However my next Bible purchase will most likely be:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00...TF8&coliid=I1K1F27255J6GS&colid=2EL0SCX3GS1ZK

A good friend who used to be manager at one of the local Christian bookstores has extremely positive things to say about Lamsa's translation.

edie

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'm more of a Net Bible dude but I do reference the NIV, NKJV and NLT

 

[ContentInHim]

Thanks, edie! That looks wonderful!

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Am surprised CC doesn't have any KJV-onlyists

 

[ReformedChapin]

Am surprised CC doesn't have any KJV-onlyists

it's cause their militant...that's why

 

[Nadiine]

it's cause their militant...that's why

 

[Lady Bug]

I don't know too much about the KJV translation. I tried the NKJV and could not click with it. It was too difficult to understand. So needless to say, I probably would know how I would feel about reading a KJV. Notwithstanding its impressive style of translation.

My first Bible was an ESV, and I got that Bible as a novice. Little did I know that this version would still be one that I find most elegant, articulate, and crisp in its translation, and that was long before I became more knowledgeable about my faith and got an NIV Study Bible and and NASB. I don't care for the NASB. Don't know why. I like its literalism but the personality of it seems wooden to me. The NIV is readable but it seems so "cozy" to read that nothing really sticks out. But I use it for study purposes.

I still feel like there might be another translation out there of interest to me. I heard that there's a Third Millenium Bible coming out next year but I don't remember what was said about its translation. I really want to look into it.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I have a "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" Bible. It's a Catholic Bible, that's easier to read than than a bible such as the KJV, but it still retains a dignified usage of the proper pronouns of "Thou, Thee, and thy." I have a KJV, but it's a bit awkward to read aloud, but is readable despite the Hieratic English being somewhat broken when read---in other words it doesn't flow that smoothly when reading, at least to the modern ears. I had an NIV. Didn't like it too much. It questioned the authenticity of parts of Scripture , like for example in Gospel of St. Mark, it cast the story of the Adulteress in doubt. -----That really bothered me. So, I donated it to an agnostic friend of mine.

 

[JimfromOhio]

My favorite translations are as follows:

1. NKJV
2. NIV
3. KJV

I have a bible study called Open Study Bible: First published in 1975 and the expanded editions in 1983, 1985, and 1990. This Study Bible is very popular among evangelicals of most denominations. This study is Objectively Oriented which means this New Open Bible is NOT a commentary but rather it is one of the few Bibles that use the Scriptures themselves to illuminate and clarify the text.

I love to get ESV The Reformation Study Bible (formerly called NEW GENEVA STUDY BIBLE)

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Do you mean, like having footnotes reference a scripture verse that's in New testament to where it's found in the Old Testament, or is it more extensive giving a lengthy note on the various arrayed passages of scripture and their meanings?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Do you mean, like having footnotes reference a scripture verse that's in New testament to where it's found in the Old Testament, or is it more extensive giving a lengthy note on the various arrayed passages of scripture and their meanings?

All of them. Its more of a complete Bible Study.

 

[sageoffools]

Personally, I only use the KJV. Although I don't know if I would consider myself a KJV-onlyist.
There are two reasons I use the KJV only:
1. Because I think it is the most reliably translated version, thus far
(BTW if other translations acknowledge that the verses they translate are God's Word, why do they copyright them? just curious)
2. Because it is the version that I have always used. It is the version of all of the verses that I have memorized.
I have actually tried to read other versions, but I often have a harder time with them, because they are different from what I am used to.
Again, I would not say I am a KJV-onlyist per se, because if another translation came out that held closely to the TR (NT) and MT (OT), but made the wording more modern, I would have no problem using a more modern version.