Bible versions

[JoeP222w]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;


1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.


2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

1. ESV, most commonly, but also NASB or Greek New Testament. I am wanting to get the Greek Septuagint, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
2. Sometimes, for study purposes.
3. Trying not to be nit-picky, but there is only one version of the Bible. Many translations, but only one version. Translations are for the most based on preference. No, I don't think any denomination should be tied to one certain translation. My problem would be those who claim (for example, the King James) that there translation is the only valid, authoritative translation, with no basis to say such a thing, other than tradition.
4. No, not necessarily.
5. There are bad translations. Although it is not really a translation, but really a bad paraphrase, The Message is a really bad source. RSV is not all that great either. The NIV is dangerous where it removes specific gender references.
6. The Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts. But again, I prefer the ESV, but it is simply a preference. The ESV has issues too.

 

[SeekerOfChrist94]

• What is your go-to Bible and why?

• Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?

• Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?

• Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?

• Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?

• In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

1. What is your go-to Bible and why? - I like the NKJV and the NIV. I grew up with the NKJV and like the poetic nature of it for study. I like the NIV because it's a bit easier to read for leisure.
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes? - I use the NKJV for study and general use, and I use the NIV for general use. I sometimes also use the ESV but very rarely.
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why? - I find the NIV and ESV usually fit non-denominational churches as they're the most used and the easiest to read. KJV is usually applied to Baptists because there are many KJV-only Baptists.
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why? - I think the NKJV does. Not sure why.
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why? - The Message. Because it's terrible.
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why? - I don't think there's a most accurate version. Some are more word-for-word but harder to read. Some are a little more thought-for-thought and easier to read. It all depends on what the person wants to get out of that translation.

 

[Cappadocious]

3. Trying not to be nit-picky, but there is only one version of the Bible.

But, there are indeed different versions.

 

[Teslafied]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

1. (The Holman Rainbow Study Bible: KJV Edition has a unique color-coding system that allows readers to identify quickly and easily twelve major themes of Scripture throughout the text: God, discipleship, love, faith, sin, evil, salvation, family, outreach, commandments, history, and prophecy. The system also underlines all words directly spoken b God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Other features of this Bible include 12 pages of color maps with index, a Bible reading calendar, concordance, subject guide, Table of Weights and Measures, “Know What God Says,” “100 Popular Passages,” and “365 Popular Bible Quotations for Memorization and Meditation.” )

2. I use KJV mainly and sometimes Geneva, but those are the only two I will ever feel comfortable with as to be quite honest I cannot trust any of the other versions; niv, nlt, etc.

3. Well...
Catholics; Latin vulgate or a Catholic edition bible including the 73 books.
LDS; AKJV lds edition + book of mormon.
JW; New World Translation + Watchtower mag.
SDA; Clear Word Translation + Adventist mag.
The list goes on... But at the end of the day we shouldn't feel the need to rely on other books, people, or means to translate our bibles, we don't need creeds, man made doctrines we just need good old common sense. God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.

4. I'm not looking for accommodation, but I do feel only two current versions that I know of can be trusted and that's good old King James and the Geneva bible.

5. Any version that cults use, any version that denies the diety of Christ, etc. I also would warn others to stay away from the niv because it robs Christ of His rightful divinity.

6. KJV / Geneva because unlike other versions they don't rob Christ of His deity.

 

[seeking.IAM]

5. Any version that cults use, any version that denies the diety of Christ, etc. I also would warn others to stay away from the niv because it robs Christ of His rightful divinity.

Please explain your thinking as to how NIV robs Christ of His divinity.

 

[Teslafied]

Please explain your thinking as to how NIV robs Christ of His divinity.

A quick lookup on google is key ...
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
.the niv omits complete verses and even changed words to where Christs deity is compromised.

 

[prodromos]

A quick lookup on google is key ...
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
.the niv omits complete verses and even changed words to where Christs deity is compromised.

If your understanding was limited to those few verses you would have an argument, but there are plenty of other verses which declare Christ's divinity. I'm personally not a fan of the NIV because of their eclectic choice of primary manuscript (just because it is older doesn't make it better. It survived because it was not used and was not used for a reason), other than that it reads quite well. For general reading it is quite good, but for in depth study you want to keep a few translations handy.

 

[hedrick]

This is a circular argument. If the KJV is right, the NIV omitted things. If the NIV is right the KJV (actually the manuscripts it used) added them. To accuse the NIV of omission you first have to know that the KJV is right. But having assumed that, you can't then argue that omissions are grounds for rejecting the NIV.

 

[Teslafied]

I guess I just can't trust any Bible that has verses omitted, afterall Revelations is enough to make me pass on the NIV.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I guess I just can't trust any Bible that has verses omitted, afterall Revelations is enough to make me pass on the NIV.

Well, you do use a Bible that has WHOLE BOOKS omitted so I don't see the big deal. Unless you have a real original as authorized by the king of England KJV that has all of the books.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I guess I just can't trust any Bible that has verses omitted, afterall Revelations is enough to make me pass on the NIV.

Hello Teslafied, and welcome to CF! I hope that you're blessed by being here.

I understand btw where you are coming from regarding the passage in Revelation, especially as neat and tidy as it all seems by being placed at the end of the last book of Scripture. But to be honest, looking into how Scripture came to be canonized, it is safer to realize that the warning has to do with THAT BOOK rather than all of Scripture.

But with that said, it's very reasonable to want as accurate a translation as possible. But as Prodromos said, it's much better to have an overall understanding of Truth. In this way, we won't be led astray by one or two verses that are incomplete when alone or ambiguous or come from a different point of view or whatever.

Chevyontheriver is also right that books were removed from the original canon several centuries ago.

 

[Radagast]

I guess I just can't trust any Bible that has verses omitted, afterall Revelations is enough to make me pass on the NIV.

The NIV does not omit verses; the KJV/TR added them. What does Revelation say about that?

And it doesn't really matter all that much if, for example, Matthew 18:11 is there or not, because both the NIV and KJV have those words at Luke 19:10 (it was copied from there into Matthew).

And yes, 1 John 5:7. That was certainly not in the original (true though the statement is). We know that it was added to the Greek manuscripts during the Middle Ages.

 

[Teslafied]

The NIV does not omit verses; the KJV/TR added them.

What does Revelation say about that?

Trust me I highly doubt the KJV added verses. I've done my research. And again were off topic I had a right to post my friend.

 

[Teslafied]

Well, you do use a Bible that has WHOLE BOOKS omitted so I don't see the big deal. Unless you have a real original as authorized by the king of England KJV that has all of the books.

It depends which books are we talking about?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It depends which books are we talking about?

The ones that were in the original KJV that were censored out later on.

 

[Radagast]

The ones that were in the original KJV that were censored out later on.

That would be these, printed in the 1611 KJV as an appendix to the OT?

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647)

 

[chevyontheriver]

That would be these, printed in the 1611 KJV as an appendix to the OT?

The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647)

Right. The books included in the original KJV (and the Geneva Bible), whose censorship began with the WCF, and are now lacking in so many modern translations.

 

[Radagast]

Right. The books included in the original KJV (and the Geneva Bible), whose censorship began with the WCF, and are now lacking in so many modern translations.

The ones printed in the 1611 KJV as an appendix to the OT (rather than being integrated with the OT) because the translators of the KJV did not see them as inspired? Those books?

 

[Teslafied]

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-proofs.htm

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/111-apocrypha-inspired-of-god-the

 

[chevyontheriver]

The ones printed in the 1611 KJV as an appendix to the OT (rather than being integrated with the OT) because the translators of the KJV did not see them as inspired? Those books?

The books between the covers of the original KJV that you don't have in your Bible. Those books.