What Bible do you use?

[Cody2]

What Bible version do you use and why?

 

[BereanTodd]

I preach almost exclusively out of the NASB. I study out of a combination of the NASB and NKJV. Why? Because I believe them to be by far the best translations of the Scriptures. I have studied Greek so I also go to that at times.

I have heard very good things about the ESV and though I've referenced it in the past I decided to get one for Christmas (well, ask for one, the wife bought it). I have been doing my devotionals from it, and I really, really enjoy it so far. For teaching/preaching though the NASB will remain my main for now.

 

[DD2008]

I use the RSV-CE, ESV, Douay Rheims, King James, NASB, NAB, NIV.

I use the RSV as my main Bible for now. I plan to switch to the ESV later.

I don't like ideas like The Message, The Living Bible, The Good News, The Book etc. I think they detract from the scriptures.


Interesting Thread.

 

[the particular baptist]

I have heard very good things about the ESV and though I've referenced it in the past I decided to get one for Christmas (well, ask for one, the wife bought it). I have been doing my devotionals from it, and I really, really enjoy it so far.

I changed to the ESV from NKJV and quickly came to love it. My pastor preaches from the ESV as well but will at times reference other versions. I own a copy of the original authorized version, the 1599 Geneva, for the reformers notes. My first language is Romanian so I have a couple Romanian/English bibles (side by side columns, English-Romanian).

flavio

 

[HumbleServant94]

I use the KJV.

 

[Epiphoskei]

NASB usually. Sometimes I break into my Greek New Testament.

 

[JerryL]

My version of choice is the NASB. I use the NIV on occasion for reading.

 

[TwistTim]

For Daily Reading: ESV, and I'm also trying to read though the MacArthur Study Bible NKJV

for reference: Every available bible there is for E-Sword in English and Spanish... yes, I know only a little Spanish, but I figure, the Bible is the best way to learn more.... though, until I get a new laptop, I don't have all of those handy... so I use Bible Gateway....

and every now and again, I will look though my Evidence Bible (Comfort-able KJV) for something on apologetics and witnessing....

But the best answer to this question is.....

The Bible I use is the one that I have ease of access to, understanding of, and changes me - mentally, and actionwise.... not that it's my power making the changes, it's all God doing it, but I need to understand who I'm to become ---- Therefore, I need to read The Book He gave me.

 

[arunma]

I use the English Standard Version, because I believe that it is the only translation of the Bible that God has protected from Satanic influence. As it says,

Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens. (Psalm 119:89)

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
​

God has promised to protect his words forever. But all of these Greek manuscripts and various translations say different things. In fact, some translations even show their Satanic influence by teaching against the deity of Christ. The ESV says,

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)
​

But the KJV says,

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1)
​

The ESV clearly asserts the deity of Christ more strongly than the KJV, and is therefore the only true Bible in which God has preserved his words. And it is no surprise, since King James hated the Puritans and believed in baptizing infants. He was also an Anglican, and look at the mass apostasy that has occured in the liberal wing of today's Anglican church!

Obviously this entire post is a joke (though the ESV really is the Bible I use most frequently). But hopefully it will spark some fruitful discourse.

 

[trinityisunity]

I mainly use the NLT 2 for devotionals and general reading but for in depth study I use the NASB. I like the NLT for its readability and its accuracy. The NASB is a great literal translation for studies.

 

[arunma]

Hello Cody, I read your message, and I visited the website that you referenced (for everyone else, the address is http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ESV_Foundation.html). Because you posted to my CF page, which is publically viewable, I assume that you don't mind if I respond to you on this thread. If you would prefer to continue this discussion via PMs, just let me know.

First, I would like to call to your attention a problem with this page. It quotes the following out of the ESV preface:

“Would you believe it took nearly 500 years to translate the ESV Bible? That’s because the ESV builds on the great translations of the past—including William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.”
(Preface, ESV)
​

I just skimmed the preface of my ESV, and I can't find this passage of text. It would appear that the authors of this website are misrepresenting the ESV translators. This is common among people who preach heresy. Deception and outright lying are very common among those who are not committed to the truth. Now I am not saying that you are here to intentionally deceive anyone or that you have any malicious intent. On the contrary, you like many other KJV-onlyists I've met on this forum seem to have completely pure motives. But I say this to warn you as a concerned friend that KJV-onlyism is usually supported by irrational arguments, and this necessitates deception on the part of its stronger proponents. I only ask that you read KJV-only materials with a critical eye, and that you base your conclusions on logical interpretation of Scripture. Remember that Scripture will never teach any doctrine that is irrational, because this would be outside of God's character.

Now onto the rest of this web page. Though I intended for my previous post to be jocular in nature, I did have a salient point which I hope was clear. My point is that KJV-onlyism is a purely arbitrary doctrine. This doctrine asserts that the KJV is the only inspired Bible, but it doesn't base this belief on anything. I could just as well say that the ESV Bible is the only inspired Bible.

The author of this page forcefully states that there are no autographs of the Bible (i.e. documents penned by the inspired writers of Scripture). Indeed, this is true of every ancient text of the Bible's age. By God's providence the Bible has been preserved better than any other ancient document of its age. Nonetheless, no one here would assert that we have original texts penned by the apostles or prophets. The ESV, and other modern Bibles, are translated based on manuscript copies which are not as old as the original documents. Many of the ancient New Testament manuscripts date back to times between 200 and 500 AD, and most are far newer.

But here's the problem: the King James Version suffers from the same inadequacy. It was translated from the Textus Receptus, which was compiled from several Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These manuscripts are also "copies of copies," as the author of the web page would say. So we need to ask whether or not there is a compelling reason to believe that the KJV is any more faithful to the original Biblical texts than modern translations. The reason supplied by KJV-onlyists is the notion of special inspiration. KJV-onlyists believe that God specially inspired the translation of the KJV so that it would be perfectly faithful to the original manuscripts. No one on the Baptist forum would deny that God, who calls into existence the things that do not exist, is fully capable of doing such a deed. His omnipotence is not at issue here, but whether or not he really has specially inspired the KJV translation. It says,

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
​

Therefore we are not compelled to believe the testimony of the KJV-onlyists at face value. Their doctrine has to agree with Scripture. Indeed, the KJV-onlyists have cited Scripture to defend their doctrine. Curiously they cited Matthew 24:35, which I also cited in jest to defend the special inspiration of the ESV. Therein lies the problem. There are many verses in Scripture in which God has promised to preserve his word, and KJV-onlyists cite these in order to suggest that the KJV is the fulfillment of God's promise. But all of those verses are also in my ESV Bible. So why is my claim to special inspiration of the ESV any less valid than the KJV-onlyist claim?

The only advantage a KJV-onlyist would have over an ESV-onlyist is that the KJV translators have all died and are now at Abraham's side, whereas the ESV translator are still here in this world running their race. We can inquire of the latter, and they can audibly deny special inspiration of the ESV. Maybe in forty years ESV-onlyism might become a more plausible doctrine. Indeed, I cited an eight year old translation in order to demonstrate the absurdity of claiming that any individual translation is specially inspired by God.

Anyway Cody, I know what the website says, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter. I hope that we can have a fruitful discussion and seek the truth, as the truth is in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[BereanTodd]

Here is another problem that I PMed back to Cody with the KJOists doctrine: the authors of the NT did not have the same thinking as they do.

What do I mean by that? The basic core of the KVO message is this: God must have preserved one complete copy of His word. Well the authors of the NT will quote alternatingly from the Septuigant and the Masoretic text when quoting the OT. The problem here is that there are differences and discrepancies between the two. So which one actually IS God's word in the OT? If God must have preserved only one perfect KJV, should/would He not have done the same with the Torah, the OT? Why then the quotes from both sources?

 

[JerryL]

After looking at all of our profiles,(responders of this thread) I notice we all got a visitor message with a link that counters our respective versions of choice. I always treated the visitor messages at someone's profile page as a place to post a nice, uplifting message, not a place to post an agenda. Private PM's would be a good place for that. I have a lot of repsect for the KJV Bible, although I don't think it's the only written version of God's word, or even the best.

 

[Ave Maria]

I use the KJV.

 

[Boazonfire]

I use the KJV.

I use KJV and NIV.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I compare different versions, to get a more complete perspective. Among my favorites are the NKJV and the HCSB, but I use the NIV when I desire a measure of simplicity. Versions such as the CEV are a bit *too* basic for me, but I see no reason to stick to a version written in any archaic language that is not used in daily life by anyone alive.

And please don't send me links saying why I shouldn't use any version but the KJV. Medieval English isn't any more inspired than any other language. If Christ had designated only one acceptable version of His written word, I don't believe He would have attached the name of an earthly king to it. Instead there would be a Jesus Christ version.

 

[edie19]

NASB - because it's incredibly accurate

NKJV - because it is available in the Reformation Study Bible

ESV - same reason as NKJV (just got this translation about 1 month ago, am really appreciating the translation


I also have both the NIV & NCV, but rarely use them

 

[ChrisJ1968]

I use ONLY the KJV. I believe that it was translated from the actual greek manuscripts

 

[Epiphoskei]

How do you mean it was translated from the actual greek manuscripts? Scholarship has collected thousands of greek manuscripts, and all major Bibles are translated from Greek.

 

[ChrisJ1968]

if my memory serves, the greek manuscripts were found in Spain somewhere and King James being the ruthless guy he was, had 9 scholars in groups of 3 I believe and threatened that if they wrongly interpreted the manuscripts wrongly they faced death.

my pastor told me something about the KJV bible being the "textus receptus" the most accepted interpretation. the NIV came from I learned from the alexandrious(spelling?) texts and he despised the deity of GOD.