Do most Baptist's use the NIV Bible?

[d0c markus]

d0c markus---my dad would kill for your icon to be a bumper sticker! haha,thats awsome!
--rich

You have no idea how many people love it. I've gotten pm's and rep points from more than 1 person. lol...

you should buy him the t-shirt

http://www.thoseshirts.com/face.html

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Do you all think the reason why most of these protestant denominations came about is because the bible kept changing?
I mean, if you look back in history when America was in its teen years, the KJV was widely used. Baptist and Luthern churches could have tent revivles because they were preaching out of the same bible. Now, with the enormous amount of bibles there are out there, its no wonder why people are so confused.
My church is a KJV only church. Independent Baptist. And...........and I no longer confused. Niether is the church, since we use the same bible.
GEL

 

[bleechers]

 

[OracleX]

*** Mod Hat On ***
If this thread turns in to another KJV thread it will be locked. Lets not debate versions and just simply answer the question.
*** Mod Hat Off ***

 

[Gold Dragon]

Do you all think the reason why most of these protestant denominations came about is because the bible kept changing?
I mean, if you look back in history when America was in its teen years, the KJV was widely used. Baptist and Luthern churches could have tent revivles because they were preaching out of the same bible. Now, with the enormous amount of bibles there are out there, its no wonder why people are so confused.
My church is a KJV only church. Independent Baptist. And...........and I no longer confused. Niether is the church, since we use the same bible.
GEL

Let's see what history has to say about this.

Denominations/Bibles (started)

Greek Septuagint (3rd century)
Latin Vulgate (405)
Roman Catholic Church (1054)
Eastern Orthodox (1054)
Wycliffe Bible (1382) - first English version
Protestant Reformation (1500s)
Textus Receptus (1516) - first non-Vulgate Greek NT used by the West
Lutheran (1519)
Reformed (1525)
Anabaptist (1525)
Anglican (1534)
Mennonite (1537)
Presbyterian (1560)
Baptist (1609)
King James Version (1611)
Quakers (1647)
Amish (1693)
Edwards and Whitefield Great Awakening (1730s)
Methodist (1738)
Campbell and Stone Restorationism (1820s)
Campbellites (1826)
Millerites (1830s)
7th Day Adventists (1863)
Salvation Army (1878)
Westcott and Hort (1881) - first challenge to Greek Textus Receptus
Pentecostal (1901)
Revised Standard Version (1901) - first "modern" English translation
Church of Christ (1906)
Disciples of Christ (1906)
United Church of Christ (1956)
Calvary Chapel (1965)
Word-of-Faith (1967)
New American Standard Bible (1971)
New International Version (1978)
New Revised Standard Version (1989)


I'm not sure which denominations or beliefs you believe were started because of modern translations but most of the major denominations existed before the modern translations came about.

 

[Preachin&Singin]

I only preach out of the King James. I refer to the NAS and the NIV when preparing. The KJV was good enough for my great great grandfather, my great grandfather, and my grandfather to preach from, and they saw 5 major wars, the great depression, and the great revival.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I love the NIV. That's what I used when I was Baptist, and I still use it some times today.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I only preach out of the King James. I refer to the NAS and the NIV when preparing. The KJV was good enough for my great great grandfather, my great grandfather, and my grandfather to preach from, and they saw 5 major wars, the great depression, and the great revival.

Amen Brother!

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Let's see what history has to say about this.

Denominations/Bibles (started)

Greek Septuagint (3rd century)
Latin Vulgate (405)
Roman Catholic Church (1054)
Eastern Orthodox (1054)
Wycliffe Bible (1382) - first English version
Protestant Reformation (1500s)
Textus Receptus (1516) - first non-Vulgate Greek NT used by the West
Lutheran (1519)
Reformed (1525)
Anabaptist (1525)
Anglican (1534)
Mennonite (1537)
Presbyterian (1560)
Baptist (1609)
King James Version (1611)
Quakers (1647)
Amish (1693)
Edwards and Whitefield Great Awakening (1730s)
Methodist (1738)
Campbell and Stone Restorationism (1820s)
Campellites (1826)
Adventists (1830s)
7th Day Adventists (1863)
Salvation Army (1878)
Westcott and Hort (1881) - first challenge to Greek Textus Receptus
Pentecostal (1901)
Revised Standard Version (1901) - first "modern" English translation
Church of Christ (1906)
Disciples of Christ (1906)
United Church of Christ (1956)
Calvary Chapel (1965)
Word-of-Faith (1967)
New American Standard Bible (1971)
New International Version (1978)
New Revised Standard Version (1989)


I'm not sure which denominations or beliefs you believe were started because of modern translations but most of the major denominations existed before the modern translations came about.

Also, for your own information and study I have a PDF book called "Where we got the Bible" that shows that there were other English bibles before Wycliffe in 1832. If you want, just PM me and I'll email it to you.

Jeff

 

[Cary.Melvin]

What Version do you use Cary?

I can't say that I am devoted to any one version right now. I have only been reading the Bible seriously for about a year and a half now. I did not grow up reading the Bible, so that probably impacted my tendencies toward particular Bible translations.

For someone in my position, I found the older translations like the Catholic Douay/Riems version (DRV) and the Protestant King James Version (KJV)extreamly difficult to read and comprehend.

So I started reading the New American Bible (NAB), which is the "official" Catholic English translation for the United States and is what is read in Church. It was O.k., not to hard to read and comprehend. My Priest at my parish, who is Irish, personally prefered the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), which is used in English speaking European countries. So I asked for the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) for Christmas last year and I got one from my parents.

So I started reading the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). For some reason, I liked it better than the New American Bible (NAB). It was a hard backed Bible which I prefered more than the floppy leather covered New American Bible that I had. I liked the solid feel of a hard backed Bible in my hands. Also the NJB only had one column of text per page which I think I like better. The NJB was also slightly easier to read than the NAB. And the Notes were far superior than the NAB.

But I also noticed the popularity of the New International Version (NIV). So I ordered a NIV Study Bible (Hard backed of course) and started reading it. I was quite impressed with it. It appears that the NIV Study Bible was constructed for someone like me. Someone who did not have a lot of experience with the Bible and that found it rather intimidating. It has real good notes and pictures to help you read the Bible. It was easy to read, but not overly dynamic. I would recomend it to anyone just starting with the Bible.

So right now, I am going between the New Jerusalem Bible and the New International Version of the Bible (and using the RSV and KJV as reference). In general, I am finding that the NIV is just slightly easier to read that the NJB.

 

[SumTinWong]

I can't say that I am devoted to any one version right now. I have only been reading the Bible seriously for about a year and a half now. I did not grow up reading the Bible, so that probably impacted my tendencies toward particular Bible translations.

Me neither, but i do like the NASB version I think the best. Have you ever tried the NET Bible? The download version is free here. If you like the NIV, you may like this one even better. Can't beat the price anyway Most of the versions of the Bible I have are on e-sword. There aren't many (if any) CC commentaries to go with it, but, it does have the KJV with Strongs numbers tha gives a great reference to what words really mean.

For someone in my position, I found the older translations like the Catholic Douay/Riems version (DRV) and the Protestant King James Version (KJV)extreamly difficult to read and comprehend.

Even in my position the KJV is a hard read. I have a Thompson Chain Reference KJV, and I use it mostly for reference. I just can't listen to it. Not knocking anyone who can, it is just a personal preference.

So I started reading the New American Bible (NAB), which is the "official" Catholic English translation for the United States and is what is read in Church. It was O.k., not to hard to read and comprehend. My Priest at my parish, who is Irish, personally prefered the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), which is used in English speaking European countries. So I asked for the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) for Christmas last year and I got one from my parents.

The NAB is available for free to read online here . The NJB is not available online though which is a bummer.

So I started reading the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). For some reason, I liked it better than the New American Bible (NAB). It was a hard backed Bible which I prefered more than the floppy leather covered New American Bible that I had. I liked the solid feel of a hard backed Bible in my hands. Also the NJB only had one column of text per page which I think I like better. The NJB was also slightly easier to read than the NAB. And the Notes were far superior than the NAB.

It sounds as if it is formatted like my New English Bible, that is full page instead of split page, and doesn't mark the verses. It is more like reading a book, which is one feature that keeps it on my shelf. My tastes switch from liking the feel of the leather (the top grain not bonded) to the hard backed versions. The hard backed are probably more durible in the long run, but nothing beats the feel of leather. What I don't like about the leather versions is most of them have pages that bleed through easily wheras the hard backs seem to have thicker paper.

But I also noticed the popularity of the New International Version (NIV). So I ordered a NIV Study Bible (Hard backed of course) and started reading it. I was quite impressed with it. It appears that the NIV Study Bible was constructed for someone like me. Someone who did not have a lot of experience with the Bible and that found it rather intimidating. It has real good notes and pictures to help you read the Bible. It was easy to read, but not overly dynamic. I would recomend it to anyone just starting with the Bible.

So right now, I am going between the New Jerusalem Bible and the New International Version of the Bible (and using the RSV and KJV as reference). In general, I am finding that the NIV is just slightly easier to read that the NJB.

Glad to see you like the NIV study Bible. I read here that the guy who reviewed the NJB liked it and thought it to be a good translation but did not think it to be good for someone just starting out reading it. The NIV is a good balance I think between paraphrase and literal, whereas the Interlinear might be too confusing for most people, and the Message Bible, well the Message Bible is just horrible.

Thanks for sharing Cary!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Also, for your own information and study I have a PDF book called "Where we got the Bible" that shows that there were other English bibles before Wycliffe in 1832. If you want, just PM me and I'll email it to you.

Jeff

Thanks for the document. It will make for some excellent reading.

To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time.

Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished. We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: 'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III).

It sounds like most of these are fragments of the bible in English or in precursor languages to English. But I agree that the claim that Wycliff was the first english bible is a tenuous one.

Here is a comprehensive chronology of the English bible. Link

 

[SumTinWong]

It sounds like most of these are fragments of the bible in English or in precursor languages to English. But I agree that the claim that Wycliff was the first english bible is a tenuous one.

Would the more accurate quote be that WYciff was the first to complete a full translation? I think I remember reading that Bede and the others had not completed a full version, but I could be wrong.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Would the more accurate quote be that WYciff was the first to complete a full translation? I think I remember reading that Bede and the others had not completed a full version, but I could be wrong.

That is primarily how I see it. At the very least it would be correct to say that Wycliff's Bible is the first full translation of the bible in middle English (as opposed to Old English) available to us that received wide-spread distribution.

Edit:Wyclif's was written in middle english not modern english.

 

[SumTinWong]

That is primarily how I see it. At the very least it would be correct to say that Wycliff's Bible is the first full translation of the bible in middle English (as opposed to Old English) available to us that received wide-spread distribution.

Edit:Wyclif's was written in middle english not modern english.

Yep, that is the way I see it as well. Thanks!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Selected entries in a Chronology of the English Bible

670. The herdsman Caedmon in northern Britain composes poems based on Biblical narratives in Old English
825. Vespasian Psalter gives interlinear Old English translation
900. Paris Psalter gives Old English version of the first fifty Psalms.
950. Aldred (Bishop of Durham) writes Old English between the lines of the Lindisfarne Gospels.
970. Faerman (Priest in Yorkshire) makes the first Old English version of the Gospel of Matthew in the Rushworth Gospels, based upon Aldred's gloss.
1000. Aelfric (Abbot in Oxfordshire) translates abridged Pentateuch and several other portions of Scripture into Old English. Wessex Gospels give first Old English version of all four gospels.
1200. Orm composes poetical paraphrase of Gospels and Acts in Middle English.
1300. Midland Psalter gives metrical version of the Psalms in Middle English.
1320. Richard Rolle's Middle English Psalter.
1360. Various gospel narratives translated into Middle English.
1382. Wyclif expelled from his teaching post at Oxford for heresy. Completes translation of Bible with help of his students.

 

[WiredSpirit]

When I visit my mom and go to her General Baptist church they use the CEV a lot in the sermons but they have NIV Bibles in the pews. The church we went to when I was growing up was Southern Baptist and they used the KJV. At the time I was under the impression all Southern Baptists used the KJV.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Me neither, but i do like the NASB version I think the best. Have you ever tried the NET Bible? The download version is free here. If you like the NIV, you may like this one even better. Can't beat the price anyway Most of the versions of the Bible I have are on e-sword. There aren't many (if any) CC commentaries to go with it, but, it does have the KJV with Strongs numbers tha gives a great reference to what words really mean.

I have E-sword as well. It is a great reference tool. I even spent the extra 20 bucks to get the NASB add-on. Now I don't have to lug around my Strong's Exhastive Concordance. But for some reason, I can't read the Bible on a computer screen. I guess I feel like I'm wasting electricity.

Even in my position the KJV is a hard read. I have a Thompson Chain Reference KJV, and I use it mostly for reference. I just can't listen to it. Not knocking anyone who can, it is just a personal preference.

Yeah, I agree. For some who is new to the Bible, I would not suggest the KJV. Now, if we could only get the Gideon's to replace those KJV Bibles they put in the nightstands at hotels with the NIV.

The NAB is available for free to read online here . The NJB is not available online though which is a bummer.

Its a pretty good Bible. But I am waiting for the American Bishop's to finish tinkering with it. It originaly came out in 1970. Then the Bishops decided that it was not literal enough and they have been revising ever since. The Revised New Testament came out in the mid-80's and the revised Psalms came out in the early-90's. The complete revised Bible should come out next year... maybe.

It sounds as if it is formatted like my New English Bible, that is full page instead of split page, and doesn't mark the verses. It is more like reading a book, which is one feature that keeps it on my shelf. My tastes switch from liking the feel of the leather (the top grain not bonded) to the hard backed versions. The hard backed are probably more durible in the long run, but nothing beats the feel of leather. What I don't like about the leather versions is most of them have pages that bleed through easily wheras the hard backs seem to have thicker paper.

Hard backed is the way to go for me. I don't like flemsy Bibles.

Glad to see you like the NIV study Bible. I read here that the guy who reviewed the NJB liked it and thought it to be a good translation but did not think it to be good for someone just starting out reading it. The NIV is a good balance I think between paraphrase and literal, whereas the Interlinear might be too confusing for most people, and the Message Bible, well the Message Bible is just horrible.

Thanks for sharing Cary!

Yeah, the there is a NJB version that does not have the notes (called the readers version). The notes reflect modern biblical scholarship which may disturb some conservative Protestants and Catholics. You just have to keep in mind that the notes in any Bible are not inspired like the Biblical text.

I still think that the NIV is a pretty good all around Bible. I just wish they would add the deuterocanical books (apocrapha) or publish a Catholic Edition like the RSV.

 

[SumTinWong]

I have E-sword as well. It is a great reference tool. I even spent the extra 20 bucks to get the NASB add-on. Now I don't have to lug around my Strong's Exhastive Concordance. But for some reason, I can't read the Bible on a computer screen. I guess I feel like I'm wasting electricity.

You could if you wanted to kill many flies at once with my "So exhaustive it is sick Strong's Concordance". It is like a phone book so I sympathize with you there...LOL You got the NASB eh? I thought of doing it, but like you I only use the e-Sword when I am doing stuff on the computer anyway. If I am doing my devotionals I have to sit and be comfortable in my chair, not in front of a terminal

Yeah, I agree. For some who is new to the Bible, I would not suggest the KJV. Now, if we could only get the Gideon's to replace those KJV Bibles they put in the nightstands at hotels with the NIV.

Well as i am sure you know they won't do that because the people who own the rights to the NIV would never allow it at the same rate that they are printing the KJV: Free.

Its a pretty good Bible. But I am waiting for the American Bishop's to finish tinkering with it. It originaly came out in 1970. Then the Bishops decided that it was not literal enough and they have been revising ever since. The Revised New Testament came out in the mid-80's and the revised Psalms came out in the early-90's. The complete revised Bible should come out next year... maybe.

It is easy enough to read allright. Do you have the Study Bible version? I was looking at it in the library. I think they really need to get more indepth like the NIV study Bible, before I would recommend it to a serious Bible reader.

Hard backed is the way to go for me. I don't like flemsy Bibles.

Hey here is a pet peeve that maybe you have seen. When the print of the Bible goes to deep into the spine, so that you cannot read the book without looking into the shadows?

Yeah, the there is a NJB version that does not have the notes (called the readers version). The notes reflect modern biblical scholarship which may disturb some conservative Protestants and Catholics. You just have to keep in mind that the notes in any Bible are not inspired like the Biblical text.

If you think that is disturbing try the Interpretors Bible. When i first read that I was like wow, did they really say that?

I still think that the NIV is a pretty good all around Bible. I just wish they would add the deuterocanical books (apocrapha) or publish a Catholic Edition like the RSV.

Well the NET Bible, (the free online version anyway)has Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. They are talking of doing them all, and am not sure if they plan on putting it into book form or not.

Have you ever seen the "Common Bible"? It is basically the RSV that was approved by the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Protestant community. The only one of its kind that I am aware of, anyway. It is basically the RSV with the deuterocanical books.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Have you guys checked out www.studylight.org? No need to pay for NASB, KJV interlined with 2 Hebrew and 3 Greek sources. It also includes Strongs, several commentaries, lexicons, dictionaries and more. Freely available all the time, wherever you can get online, without any downloads and linkable for things like message board quotes.