-:-KJV or NIV-:-

[MorphRC]

oh, so you're against KJV becos you are Catholic (as your profile states).

Does the DRV version contain the 'extra' RC books?

Of course why would i use a bible that was made by a heretic ??

There not the RC books..the Orthodox use them as well.

And there not extra books..the bible scripts that King James and the rest of the misguided translators got were frauds or total misinterpretations.

The " extra books " as you call them were originally in the bible in the 500-400 BC's then in early centuries before Christ..the Hebrews translated it into Greek..then they translated it back to Hebrew..incase they lost the original lanaguge script..during this translation they left out 7 books..and that is the copy of the OT that Prots use..

 

[MorphRC]

NASB ..hmm..

 

[FR0G]

Leviathan that is an awesome price. Thanks!

 

[RevKidd]

Leviathan that is an awesome price. Thanks!

It's an awesome price. I've been procrastinating in getting one...
I'm sure that I will wait to long. But my daughter's birthday is this month and then Christmas next....

 

[Ben_Hur]

Another thing to keep in mind are the methods of translation used for each version. For instance some are translated by phrase or sentence, while others are translated word for word.

NIV and New Living Translation are translated by sentence or phrase. This pretty much means the translators inserted their own "commentaries" right into the text. While I use these occasionally, I like to keep this in mind. Specifically, for example, the NIV will talk about the "sinful nature" when the actual translation is "flesh". The word "flesh" is a bit more meaningful to me that "sinful nature."

The KJV, NKJV, NASV are all word-for-word translations. This means some of the word order is a bit the same as it would have been in the original language. It is a little more difficult to read, but at least you have a bit better confidence in the words actually printed. One great thing about the KJV (if you can read it) is that it is so well used that all the errors are well known (usually in italics or footnotes).

Of course, nothing would be better than learning Hebrew and Greek and reading them in the native language. I won't be doing that

 

[Bayhawks83]

so the answer is kjv

 

[Ben_Hur]

so the answer is kjv

If you can read it I use the NKJV. The king's english is difficult for me to understand.

 

[He put me back together]

It is insane to believe that there is a "holy" translation of documents written in a foreign language--if you're going to have a "true scriptures" complex, read the Greek and Hebrew. Sorry to inform anyone of this, but the King James version is not void of errors, or additions. As a matter of fact, our entire view of the grave and Gehenna has been corrupted over the centuries, because the KJV used the same word for both of them (in addition to other things). As for myself, I don't think the NIV is that bad, though it too is not flawless.
I got my favorite translation from a congregation of Messianic Jews, from the Institution for Scripture Research. These guys form the most literal, word-for-word translations I've found (while still keeping the sentence structure of English). The names of people, places, and God are preserved, although the names are people and places are not so important to me, if I don't know the English translation of what they mean. In addition, the translation never uses the word "hell." When it's talking about the grave, it says "the grave." (well, in the OT it says "Sheoul," but at any rate...) When it's talking about Gehenna, it says Gehenna. It might not be the greatest for new believers, but I think for people who want to look deeply into the scriptures, it's the best I've found. I can't say that I always agree with their motivations for preserving the names of God, or the places, but I can definitely say that their zeal for doing so certainly helps my studies.

Blessings.

 

[Lee]

I am studying biblical Greek grammar. It is hard. But the closest English-written Bible to the Greek text is the New American Standard Bible. Try to get that Bible version. It is more clear if you want to have your own personal study.

 

[Ben_Hur]

It is insane to believe that there is a "holy" translation of documents written in a foreign language--if you're going to have a "true scriptures" complex, read the Greek and Hebrew. Sorry to inform anyone of this, but the King James version is not void of errors, or additions. As a matter of fact, our entire view of the grave and Gehenna has been corrupted over the centuries, because the KJV used the same word for both of them (in addition to other things). As for myself, I don't think the NIV is that bad, though it too is not flawless.
I got my favorite translation from a congregation of Messianic Jews, from the Institution for Scripture Research. These guys form the most literal, word-for-word translations I've found (while still keeping the sentence structure of English). The names of people, places, and God are preserved, although the names are people and places are not so important to me, if I don't know the English translation of what they mean. In addition, the translation never uses the word "hell." When it's talking about the grave, it says "the grave." (well, in the OT it says "Sheoul," but at any rate...) When it's talking about Gehenna, it says Gehenna. It might not be the greatest for new believers, but I think for people who want to look deeply into the scriptures, it's the best I've found. I can't say that I always agree with their motivations for preserving the names of God, or the places, but I can definitely say that their zeal for doing so certainly helps my studies.

Blessings.

So what is the name of that translation you use?

 

[Knight]

The KJV for example was made by a King that murdered Catholics priests for celebrating the mass..and if they celebrated it in a Church the church was burnt down and the ashes ****ed on. Real good role model for a bible eh?

Just a point here. King James sponsored this translation but had no actual hand in translating.

 

[He put me back together]

So what is the name of that translation you use?

The translation itself really doesn't have a name--I suppose it goes by the guys who published it. The Institute for Scripture Research. I'm sure they're on the web; maybe I could do a google search and keep you posted.

Lee--yeah, the NASB is a pretty good idea, although I think it does have some influence from the old European Christian viewpoint--(not that it's easy to find one that doesn't.) I think the Amplified is also a nice expansion on the same idea--list the preferred translation, then list all of the other possible translations in parenthesis. In my personal opinion, though, nobody has been more literal, and just simply frank with their translations than the Institute for Scripture Research. That is my taste--I prefer to read what the people in the Bible were actually literally saying, and then try to relate it to my own culture myself. There's nothing wrong with (I'll use a sterile example) the King James referring to bottles rather than skins--that's what the people of that time could relate to. But I myself prefer the actual words--then the significance of those words can be found out.

 

[He put me back together]

herewego--you can get a copy from these guys by clicking a link on this page--http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/bottomindex.htm

it's 30 bucks for a hardback, 20 for a paperback, and 10 for a cd with a bunch of pdf files (sigh--why can't they just cut REAL cd's? ) In America, a small price to pay to give this translation a chance I guess--in addition if you enter "Institute for Scripture Research" in the "exact phrase" search field of www.google.com, you'll find a large list of links, if you wanna read up on them.
In my google search I also stumbled upon this site--http://www.litvonline.com/litv/gen.htm Looks pretty interesting, if not promising.

 

[themuzicman]

Each translation has it's strong points.

The KJV is still pretty good, although it doesn't have the benefit of later textual criticism.

The NASB is a more literal translation similar to the KJV, but with the benefit of textual citicism.

The NEB and NIV are what they call dynamic-equivilents, in which they stay fairly literal, but try to untwist some of the idioms and odd greekisms into more understandable translations. These are better for general reading, since they pretty much keep the same translation.

the NLT, Message, Amplified, etc, are interpretations. They can be read, but it should be understood that they do not claim to hold to the inspired text, but reflect the author's opinion about what the text means. I will read these occasionally to get the author's opinion, but I NEVER rely on them to be THE WORD.

I also know just enough greek to be dangerous (mostly to myself), but I'm taking a class to improve those skills, too. Hebrew will commence in about 2 years. If you're really interested in getting into the Word, go to a seminary and take their complete track on greek and hebrew.

Michael

 

[Krazeekkc]

KJV!!!

 

[Bayhawks83]

KJV!!!

 

[Andrew]

As long as we are NIV+, KJV+, NAV+, NKJV+...

and not HIV+.

 

[Iddie4him]

Personally I use both the KJV and the NIV. I use both because of the way that verses are worded, The NIV tends to use newer language.
A verse for example is:
NIV -Rev 6:12 says that I watched as he opened the sixth seal and there was a great earthquake. The sun turned black as sackcloth of goat hair, and the moon turned blood red.
KJV- Rev 6:12 says that I beheld as he opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood.

There is a difference in the wording of the 2 versions. This is why I use them both, I get more understanding out of the KJV, But, It is easier to read the NIV.

 

[Lee]

Lee--yeah, the NASB is a pretty good idea, although I think it does have some influence from the old European Christian viewpoint

Yes. It is an awesome translation. Through the English version is a new translation that just came out. Some of my friends like that one.

 

[Bayhawks83]

http://www.concernedmembers.com/library.htm#hit

this link comes from the church of christ which i think is evil, but it does give arguements for the kjv.