What Bible do you use?

[trentlogain2]

I only use the Scofields Reference King James Bible. None other compares as well for me.

Same here.

Though sometimes I'll read out of a non-commentary KJV Bible when I want to avoid seeing someone elses take before actually reading the text.

 

[jentalanus]

If you're not raised in the KJV, it's not recognizable. Fornication and adultery mean the same thing, but people actually know what adultery means. Where I come from, we call spades shovels so people know what we're talking about.
Except that's not really English anymore.

That's sad that English-speaking people don't know what thou and ye mean anymore.
It's like they make you stop using your brains, and say "The Bible is written in the street language". That's not true. The point is not in translation, but in being prepared to read it.
I am not KJV only, but I think the KJV deserves to be the standard version.

 

[Kilrathi827]

The problem is that to many English speaking folk the more archaic early modern english terms are rather difficult to grasp. The rules on how to use them differ radically from more modern similar pronouns, possessive adjectives, etc. As a result unless folks are regularly exposed to them it will often present a bit of difficulty. I'm personally a political science and literature buff, so I don't have an issue with them. But I know many folks who read Shakespeare or the KJV for the first time who do. In addition, puncuation rules and sentence structuring is radically different....in many ways its a true dialect of English rather than the same language. You get used to it though if you read it on a quasi regular basis though.

 

[edie19]

It's like they make you stop using your brains, and say "The Bible is written in the street language". That's not true.

actually it is true - the Bible was written in the street language the Latin Vulgate or common language (the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people) because God wanted everyday folks to understand it. I don't believe that's changed in 2000 years.

 

[ImmersionX]

WOW....well it's been a while, and I come back and the 2nd thread I read is the ole bible translation thread.(no bust on the OP).
Seems it's been hijacked a bit as usual with the entire KJV only crowd vs the rest of the intelligent world. That gets so tiring so I'm done commenting on that.

I use the NKJV at church because that is my pastor's choice to preach from.
I use the NKJV/NASB/ESV at home for study.

I have a copy of the KJV but my eyes are going and the type is too small.

Peace.

 

[Caedmon]

The problem is that to many English speaking folk the more archaic early modern english terms are rather difficult to grasp. The rules on how to use them differ radically from more modern similar pronouns, possessive adjectives, etc. As a result unless folks are regularly exposed to them it will often present a bit of difficulty. I'm personally a political science and literature buff, so I don't have an issue with them. But I know many folks who read Shakespeare or the KJV for the first time who do. In addition, puncuation rules and sentence structuring is radically different....in many ways its a true dialect of English rather than the same language. You get used to it though if you read it on a quasi regular basis though.

Another big problem with medieval and early modern dialects is false cognates. Words that would mean one thing in today's English might mean something different in early modern.

 

[JerryL]

That's sad that English-speaking people don't know what thou and ye mean anymore.

I don't know why I should want to know about 400+ year old English. I've never spoke it and it has never been part of my thinking when it comes to vocabulary.

 

[joeblogg]

King James Version

 

[Benefactor]

I use the NIV in Church. At home I also use the NKJV, NASV, NLT, Greek/English/NIV interlinear - and others on line and Bible software.

 

[AtheistOpinion]

I have several old russian bibles and a few King James laying around. I also have New Internation/Russian bible, it has the english on one page then on the next it's in Russian.

 

[Rhamiel]

I use the NAB when I want to study the Bible
but if i am reading Bible as a form of prayer, like the psalms, i read the Douay Rheims translation

 

[Southern-Baptist]

KJV only. Some versions change the Bible which is a Sin.

 

[RedLioness]

I use the KJV and the NIV when I don't understand the KJV.

 

[Epiphoskei]

KJV only. Some versions change the Bible which is a Sin.

What is "the Bible"?

Outside of cultic translations like the JW bible, these "changes" are attempts to be more faithful to the more reliable texts.

 

[dies-l]

I try to use a large variety of translations, but most commonly:

NIV -- because that is what we use in church.
NRSV -- for my day-to-day Bible reading and for reading large passages, because I can the flow of the language better.
NVI (Spanish version of NIV) -- because our church does a lot of missions work in Nicaragua and this is the translation we provide for our sister church.

 

[Kilrathi827]

What is "the Bible"?

Outside of cultic translations like the JW bible, these "changes" are attempts to be more faithful to the more reliable texts.

I agree with you for the most part. As I had said before, I largely use the KJV for my own personal study, memorization, etc. I do have copies of the NIV and RSV at home as well. My personal preference is for a Bible that is descended from the Textus Receptus documents, but I still believe that the Word of God is the Word, and that it will still have its power regardless of what version its translated to in English. I think dictating which version you have to read to be a true Christian is slipping over towards legalism. Except for the several heretical translations, as you pointed out, many of the translations were good faith attempts to gain a fuller appreciation of the original intent, and a closer interpretation of the original Greek and Hebrew. Very few of the modern interpretations are "translations of a translation".

 

[JacobHall86]

KJV only. Some versions change the Bible which is a Sin.

Please change your name if you are going to make ignorant statements like that. The rest of us don't want people thinking we are ignorant because of what you post.

 

[JacobHall86]

I use hte ESV almost exclusively. But thats because of several different versions. I have the pocket version that i keep in my pocket, the thin line I use in staff meeting and Church, and I study from my Reformation Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible, which can beat up your study Bible.

BTW, all you King James Only fools (I only say it because its true), the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which was compiled (thats right, put together) by Erasmus of Rotterdam. A CATHOLIC apologist and humanist (different humanist from today however). When he was compiling the list and did not have the greek texts he needed, HE TRANSLATED THE LATIN VULGATE INTO GREEK. What the junk. If you ignore the history to hold to your holier than thou view of Bible translation you are in league with a Catholic Apologist that opposed Luther.

When you defend the KJV, you defend the Catholic Church as well.

 

[dies-l]

KJV only. Some versions change the Bible which is a Sin.

Of course, you do realize that others might be reasonably tempted to use the same reasoning to completely dismiss the KJV. Right?

 

[Benefactor]

All of them: The eclectic text translations have their greatest appeal because they take into consideration all the manuscripts from all traditions, as I understand it. I believe once a believer studies how we received Scripture and the process of canonization it gives one the overwhelming confidence that we have an extra ordinary book, the Holy Bible.



New American Standard, NIV-Interlinear Greek/English NT