Whats is your primary Bible version?

[AVBunyan]

I believe the 1611AV is the pure word of God without error - this is all I use.

 

[Follower of Christ]

How Important is The Bible TO YOU?

Every Christian is commanded to "STUDY" the Word of God according to 2 Timothy 2:15-- "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." However, this command is removed from every modern bible version on the market. Only the King James Bible has it! Now who do you suppose would be against a child of God giving himself to the STUDY of God's Word (Gen. 3:1)?

Modern King James Version

Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

(2Ti 2:15)

 

[Reader Nilus]

2 Timothy 2:15 in the New English Translation
Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.
Nothing in the text suggests the Bible, let alone the KJV. When St Paul wrote his 2 Letter to Timothy the New Testament did not exist and by no means did the KJV exist. As the note in the NET says accurately means "imparting it without deviation.” That is the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles.
One can be assured it has nothing to do with John Nelson Darby's and CI Scofield's dividing up the Bible into dispensations.
Jeff the Finn

 

[thekingster]

I agree with the Finn...the Greek makes no distinction of "study" as alluded to in the original text. Scripture, on the other hand, must be "cut" so it's laid straight. What is implied, however, is that to "not" properly understand Scripture should result in one being ashamed...VERY ashamed.

Steven King
The Kingster
A room without books is like a body without a soul. - Cicero.

 

[thekingster]

In my former post, I didn't answer the question asked by the poll:

I read the NIV - but like the NLT for its simplicity.

By the way, if you do not read Greek/Hebrew (the actually inspired languages) then do yourself a favor...always read multiple versions of the Bible, especially when you think you've found doctrine. And remember, if it's completely novel - you're probably wrong.

The three most important rules of biblical interpretation:

• context
• context
• context

Steven King
The Kingster
A room without books is like a body without a soul. - Cicero.

 

[clinzey]

I believe the 1611AV is the pure word of God without error - this is all I use.

How can you believe that even the italicized words are inspired? Don't the italicized words imply that the KJV is merely a translation of the Scripture texts, not the inspired text in and of itself?

 

[clinzey]

dislike the NIV , a paraphrase ... omits Mark 16.16-20

I would just like to point out that the NIV is not, in fact, a paraphrase. And if you read the NIV you would see that it does not, in fact, omit Mark 16:16-20. It fully includes those verses. What the NIV does do is point out that those particular verses are excluded from many old and reliable MSS. The NIV is not the only version to make such notes. I believe that many versions now include footnotes to this effect.

 

[FR0G]

I have, and use, a KJV, NIV, NASB and NLT. I read and compare, but the one I take to church is a KJV, and the one I take if I'm going to be in a waiting rom or when my daughter goes in the hospital is the NLT.

 

[clinzey]

I have, and use, a KJV, NIV, NASB and NLT. I read and compare

If you don't read Greek, then cross-reading like that is probably the next best thing. It's what I tell my church-goers when they study the Bible.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I would just like to point out that the NIV is not, in fact, a paraphrase. And if you read the NIV you would see that it does not, in fact, omit Mark 16:16-20. It fully includes those verses. What the NIV does do is point out that those particular verses are excluded from many old and reliable MSS. The NIV is not the only version to make such notes. I believe that many versions now include footnotes to this effect.

All of the modern versions include the disputed verses, they are bracketed or put in footnotes. Even the 1952 edition of the RSV had them but in italics and in the footnotes.
Jeff the Finn

 

[RhetorTheo]

I believe that the KJV contains voluminous errors and false doctrines, and it is not the word of God. I use a number of other translations, but not the KJV which is the product of sodomite King James.

 

[clinzey]

I believe that the KJV contains voluminous errors and false doctrines, and it is not the word of God. I use a number of other translations, but not the KJV which is the product of sodomite King James.

The KJV Bible, while bearing his name, was not translated by the king. You know that, right? Biblical scholars did it. And as for false doctrine, care to give an example? Even with the differences between the KJV and the other translations, there aren't any important doctrinal differences I know of. And I say this having a preference for the NIV (actually, I prefer my Greek, but the NIV is the English version I normally use).

 

[DLT]

Its interesting on how many diffrent opinions are on Biblical versions out there.


In Christ,

Hector

I use the Zondervan NIV study Bible primarily, but at times I also read the New English Bible, which presents Scripture in a very flowing manner. Recently, I've been made aware of a product called "iLumina", which is essentially a computerized Bible with study notes, concordance, and encyclopedia. It's recommended by Hank Hanegraaf (the bible answer man), whom I respect tremendously.
DLT

PS: For the Psalms and other "well-known" Bible verses, I always seem to go back to the KJV for its poetry.

 

[ChrisB]

I mainly use the NIV study Bible but occasionally read The Good News Bible

 

[CushBabylonian]

I personally would not use NIV. They change way to much. For example Numbers 12:10 (When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam- leprous, like snow..)

In my KJV it reads (And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow...)

NIV clearly takes away from orgins of Europeans and denies the fact that these persons are of color. KJV states clearly the power of God and what he could do to people who stand against him.

 

[clinzey]

I personally would not use NIV. They change way to much. For example Numbers 12:10 (When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam- leprous, like snow..)

In my KJV it reads (And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow...)

NIV clearly takes away from orgins of Europeans and denies the fact that these persons are of color. KJV states clearly the power of God and what he could do to people who stand against him.

Um, I really don't see how the NIV is denying that these are persons of color. The Bible makes it pretty clear that these are Middle Eastern peoples. You're upset because the KJV uses the word "white" and the NIV doesn't?

 

[CushBabylonian]

Um, I really don't see how the NIV is denying that these are persons of color. The Bible makes it pretty clear that these are Middle Eastern peoples. You're upset because the KJV uses the word "white" and the NIV doesn't?

Yes. that is an entire word and is a significant one. It shows how God's power as well as the origins of people of European descent. God turns people "white" else where in the Bible too as a consequence for being greedy (Ghazi I think was the name).

 

[clinzey]

Yes. that is an entire word and is a significant one. It shows how God's power as well as the origins of people of European descent. God turns people "white" else where in the Bible too as a consequence for being greedy (Ghazi I think was the name).

Wait, so you think that people of European descent are from the lineage of those people punished by God? You know that the Numbers passage you cited talked about her being stricken with disease, not forever changing the hue of her skin.

 

[CushBabylonian]

And that disease turns the skin pale and subject them to the effects of the sun rays leaving them with sunburns. This disease was common resulting in banishment (so others would not catch the disease) and migration north (to Europe where the sun was less intense and to avoid harsh treatment). God not only turned Miriam white, but also Ghazi (2 Kings 5:27) and Moses (Exodus 4:6-7) NIV bible version somehow leave this "white" part out even the Greek texts and such have it in. The people of the Bible were black (you can't turn a white person white!).
Using Logic & biology let’s trace back from Noah to his father, to his father’s father and so on:
AdamSethEnoshKenanMahalalelJaredEnochMethuselahLamechNoah Ham  Cush  Nimrod
These are Adam’s son’s. God created Adam in His own image, therefore...

 

[clinzey]

This disease was common resulting in banishment (so others would not catch the disease) and migration north (to Europe where the sun was less intense and to avoid harsh treatment). God not only turned Miriam white, but also Ghazi (2 Kings 5:27) and Moses (Exodus 4:6-7) NIV bible version somehow leave this "white" part out even the Greek texts and such have it in.

Actually, the Greek texts and the Hebrew texts do not have the word "white" in them. The Hebrew word for white is laban. It does not appear in any of the verses you cited. It does appear in verses such as Gen. 49:12, but not in the context you are speaking. The Greek word for white is leukos. This word also does not appear in any of the verses you cited (I've checked my Hebrew bible and my Greek Septuagint). The NIV is not in error when it omits the word "white" - the original texts do not contain it.

The people of the Bible were black (you can't turn a white person white!). Using Logic & biology let’s trace back from Noah to his father, to his father’s father and so on:
AdamSethEnoshKenanMahalalelJaredEnochMethuselahLamechNoah Ham  Cush  Nimrod
These are Adam’s son’s. God created Adam in His own image, therefore...

The people of the Bible were Middle Easterners. Brown people, yes, but not black as in African.