What Version of The Bible Should I Use?

[TheSeekerOfTruth]

I've been debating in my head whether or not to use a specific bible to read. I like the word for word bibles more than the thought for thought ones. Mostly because I think having a English bible that's close to the original manuscripts is good. I'm stuck between wanting to make ESV my main or NKJV my main. Both are good but ESV uses modern manuscripts from the Dead Sea scrolls and uses more modern English.

NKJV is basically just an updated version of the same book that came out years ago. Since then we've found more manuscripts from the bible and have better ones. Also I discovered that the ESV has missing verses because they were originally not supposed to be there. So it kind of makes me kind of upset that they'd at something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place which is something you're not supposed to do to the bible.

Anyway the question is what bible should I consider being my main? Yes I know about the NASB and NIV which I think are okay. Also if this kind of topic isn't allowed please lock it.

 

[salt-n-light]

I personally have two main ones because some versions are more about precision of words, and others are more about getting the understanding of the message. So for me, I use the ESV for the understanding and KJV for the precision of words and just switch between the two. I don't really trust newer versions, and even the ESV I do with caution, but its whats been working for me. I would encourage not to feel pressured to use one version, but pick them with purpose and awareness and compare the text.

My favorite version though is the Geneva. The sidenotes are amazing.

I think also it helps to know the background of these versions to better understand how the makers intended to tailor it, as well as possible influences of such structure.

 

[High Fidelity]

Between the ESV and NKJV, ESV hands down.

If you can get one, the NASB.

 

[Tolworth John]

've been debating in my head whether or not to use a specific bible to read. I like the word for word bibles more than the thought for thought ones. Mostly because I think having a English bible that's close to the original manuscripts is good. I'm stuck between wanting to make ESV my main or NKJV my main. Both are good but ESV uses modern manuscripts from the Dead Sea scrolls and uses more modern English.

Try the biblegateway site there you have a choice of over 30 translations+paraphrase's versions of the bible.
It will let you read versions and help you decide hich one you prefer.

 

[Radagast]

I've been debating in my head whether or not to use a specific bible to read. I like the word for word bibles more than the thought for thought ones. Mostly because I think having a English bible that's close to the original manuscripts is good. I'm stuck between wanting to make ESV my main or NKJV my main.

The ESV would be the best (ahead of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, etc.).

Also I discovered that the ESV has missing verses because they were originally not supposed to be there. So it kind of makes me kind of upset that they'd at something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place which is something you're not supposed to do to the bible.

The ESV translates from older manuscripts. The verses that you say are "not supposed to be there" simply do not exist in those older manuscripts.

 

[Liza B.]

I've been debating in my head whether or not to use a specific bible to read. I like the word for word bibles more than the thought for thought ones. Mostly because I think having a English bible that's close to the original manuscripts is good. I'm stuck between wanting to make ESV my main or NKJV my main. Both are good but ESV uses modern manuscripts from the Dead Sea scrolls and uses more modern English.

NKJV is basically just an updated version of the same book that came out years ago. Since then we've found more manuscripts from the bible and have better ones. Also I discovered that the ESV has missing verses because they were originally not supposed to be there. So it kind of makes me kind of upset that they'd at something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place which is something you're not supposed to do to the bible.

Anyway the question is what bible should I consider being my main? Yes I know about the NASB and NIV which I think are okay. Also if this kind of topic isn't allowed please lock it.

ESV is my go-to Bible. Between the ESV and the NKJV I would say there's no contest. Additionally, my second choice is the NIV.

But if you can spring for one, I can't recommend enough that you get a good Study Bible. I have the ESV study Bible and I love it. There are notes on many, many verses, notes on every book, and copious volumes of just general information for any Christian. A really good investment.

God bless!

 

[Radagast]

I have the ESV study Bible and I love it.

I agree that the ESV Study Bible is great.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Here's a chart that shows the origins of the various translations... just click on the link below to get the PDF.

Bible Translation Origins.pdf

 

[Sabertooth]

I use a parallel Bible: KJV, NIV, NASB, AMP.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

God says His Word is living and active, so I'm not sure that even an error in translation can affect that, if we are willing to follow His Spirit in all circumstances. The challenge is that sometimes our theology gets in the way of God's Truth. He will let us know, if we are listening. The perfect example was Jesus and the constant encounters with the Jewish leaders where He said: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But, since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46-7)

Whichever version you choose--and it seems like you and many others have your preferences (and everyone obviously thinks they are right in their choice)--I would be sensitive to when you feel a check in your spirit that something isn't right. That happens with any translation. When you feel a check, I would go back to check the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) to see what the words meant. Alternatively, read through those 30 versions and see which one the Spirit tells you most correctly gets the point across that He was making. I would argue that even in the NKJV's attempt to make the language more modern, they have changed the conveyed meaning (maybe for the better, maybe for the worse) and that affects our understanding. It doesn't change God's Word (God will honor what He actually said); but, it could affect what we think He said, if we aren't listening to His Spirit leading us into all Truth.

I would also be very careful about believing the "older manuscripts" stuff. Even if we believe they are older, that doesn't mean they were the accepted ones across Christianity.

 

[Jonathan Leo]

I've been debating in my head whether or not to use a specific bible to read. I like the word for word bibles more than the thought for thought ones. Mostly because I think having a English bible that's close to the original manuscripts is good. I'm stuck between wanting to make ESV my main or NKJV my main. Both are good but ESV uses modern manuscripts from the Dead Sea scrolls and uses more modern English.

NKJV is basically just an updated version of the same book that came out years ago. Since then we've found more manuscripts from the bible and have better ones. Also I discovered that the ESV has missing verses because they were originally not supposed to be there. So it kind of makes me kind of upset that they'd at something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place which is something you're not supposed to do to the bible.

Anyway the question is what bible should I consider being my main? Yes I know about the NASB and NIV which I think are okay. Also if this kind of topic isn't allowed please lock it.

Which ever one is easier for you to understand.
They all talk about the king James, but honestly, I don’t speak like that. I was not taught to speak like that and I don’t want to speak like that.
I use N I V simply because I understand it better

 

[Lily of Valleys]

It has been said that NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) is the closest translation to the original Hebrew therefore best for the Old Testament. For New Testament, NASB (New American Standard Bible). I also use NKJV for both Old and New Testament for comparison.

On Biblegateway.com you can compare different translations of the same verse on the same page.

 

[Radagast]

It has been said that NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) is the closest translation to the original Hebrew therefore best for the Old Testament.

It's only Catholics who say that, obviously.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

It's only Catholics who say that, obviously.

I am not a Catholic and didn't know that was a Catholic translation (is it?) I got that information from someone who was a native Hebrew speaker. For a non-denominational translation, I would suggest NASB, cross referencing with NKJV.

 

[Radagast]

I am not a Catholic and didn't know that was a Catholic translation (is it?)

Yes -- it's produced by the US Catholic bishops.

I got that information from someone who was a native Hebrew speaker.

There are no native speakers of ancient Hebrew. And modern Hebrew is utterly different from ancient Hebrew.

For a non-denominational translation, I would suggest NASB, cross referencing with NKJV.

The NIV and ESV would both be better than those.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

The NIV and ESV would both be better than those.

I started off using NIV. It is easy to understand as it is written in simple English. But I prefer a literal translation that is closest to the original language, which seems like NASB is a better choice.

 

[Radagast]

I started off using NIV. It is easy to understand as it is written in simple English. But I prefer a literal translation that is closest to the original language, which seems like NASB is a better choice.

If you mean what I think you mean, the ESV is the best option.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The NIV and ESV would both be better than those.

I suggest looking at the PDF chart I posted in post #8 to see the origins of those translations and a bit about the men behind them.

 

[Radagast]

I suggest looking at the PDF chart I posted in post #8 to see the origins of those translations and a bit about the men behind them.

That chart is just nonsense, I'm afraid.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That chart is just nonsense, I'm afraid.

Because??
Please elaborate on which points you find in error. Thanx...