Whats is your primary Bible version?

[J.A.I]

I own KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT Bibles.. I primarily use my NIV ones.. I have Study Bibles. As far as the NLT, there was a scipture my dad asked me to look up once, and I grabbed my NLT to look it up and it had left out a significant part of the verse. I looked in my KJV and NIV and the whole scipture was in those.. so after that, I have my NLT and KJV Bibles open together while studying. As far as the brands...

NIV Bibles
---
Women of Faith Study Bible
Zondervan Study Bible

KJV
---
Holy Bible

NLT
---
Life Application (very good w/the footnotes)

NKV
---
Woman Thou Art Loosed Bible

 

[Isaiah 53]

NIV for me.

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[clinzey]

As far as the NLT, there was a scipture my dad asked me to look up once, and I grabbed my NLT to look it up and it had left out a significant part of the verse. I looked in my KJV and NIV and the whole scipture was in those...

Just for the sake of curiosity, what was the verse that the NLT did not have but the KJV and NIV did have?

 

[CushBabylonian]

They people where not brown until after Alexander the Great and his conquests of the north African continent. Alex and crew started to "blend" with the black Africans and thus today we have the "brown" Arabs. Why did Alex go back to Egypt?...because that's where the Greeks learned their stuff and wanted to conquer the region. He even ruined the great Sphinx with his army as if to condemn the black African peoples. Even today our Western civilization contributes all their knowledge to Greek culture, but Greek culture owes their knowledge to Egyptian culture, and the Egyptian culture owes their knowledge to the Ethiopian (Cushitic)culture. Genesis 10:5-9 shows that Nimrod and his crew the Cush-ites (Ethiopians) was the first great culture of the world.

P.S. I had to hypenate Cush-ites since this server for some reason puts ***** in it's place. Any reason to why that is?

 

[clinzey]

They people where not brown until after Alexander the Great and his conquests of the north African continent. Alex and crew started to "blend" with the black Africans and thus today we have the "brown" Arabs. Why did Alex go back to Egypt?...because that's where the Greeks learned their stuff and wanted to conquer the region. He even ruined the great Sphinx with his army as if to condemn the black African peoples. Even today our Western civilization contributes all their knowledge to Greek culture, but Greek culture owes their knowledge to Egyptian culture, and the Egyptian culture owes their knowledge to the Ethiopian (Cushitic)culture. Genesis 10:5-9 shows that Nimrod his crew the Cush-ites, a Cush-ites(Ethiopian) was the first great culture of the world.

P.S. I had to hypenate Cush-ites since this server for some reason puts ***** in it's place. Any reason to why that is?

You never addressed my post about the absence of "white" in the Bible. And where do you get your historical data from? As much as the Jews hated marriage outside of the group and strove for ethnic purity, what makes you think they were ever black and inter-married to brown?

p.p.s. I think the server edits you post because in the middle of your word is a certain 4 letter word....

 

[CushBabylonian]

What makes me think they were ever black? My information comes mostly from my professor at Rice University as well as a few books on ancient Egypt and one called Black Athena (you can even catch some documentaries on the history channel. If you look up the word Cush in a dictionary or www.dictionary.com, it is confirmed that the Cush-ites were indeed black Africans known as Ethiopians (actually the Ethiopians took over the Cush empire).

As to answer you question...I am not literate in other languages so I will give you a nod for correcting me. I was merely stating the fact that, according to the Bibles I've read, the word "white" plays a significant part in God's power and the NIV excludes this (but it does now make me curious as to why KJV and others would add this word if it's not in the original texts.)

This is one of the problems I have in the American education system (which I'm actively trying to change). There's way too much emphasis slavery of blacks.
Our school system never seems to talk about anything before slavery/slave trade..on top of that, students have to learn about slavery almost every year since middle school...what's that about? I don't like the way math is taught either, but that's a different forum topic.

 

[KristianJ]

The church I go to uses the ESV, which took me a bit of time to get used to, but mainly in personal study I use my NIV Study Bible.

 

[sobresaliente]

I am addicted to the King James.

 

[barefoot and dancing]

NASV

 

[LongRunner]

I use different translations as it helps me get a better understanding of some somewhat difficult passages.

When reading it is important for me that:
- I may read smothly the text,
- understand every word,
- understand what is said, in order to assimilate it better.
- get a good picture that I can apply in my own life.

I've found I particularly like some translations like the NIV, NKJV, haven't read much other translations, and prefer to read them in contemporary language.

Hope this helps.

 

[mametz]

Hi

It's the New King James for me.

 

[Imagine9718]

Whats the difference between all the different Catholic Translations?

 

[kitkat60]

OK, maybe I am opening up a can of worms here, but I am a little confused on the NKJV. In the book How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, they state that both KJV and NKJV are not the best translations because they are based on the older texts. And then we have entire other schools of thought where only the KJV is good because of that same thing. So, leaving the KJV out of this please, with respect to the NKJV, is it a comparable translation to, say, the NASB? I have read it online, and it seems very similar. Or is it indeed the KJV updated for language?

And along the same lines, is the book I am referring to a good resource?

 

[Reader Nilus]

The NASB is based on the Nestle/Aland Critical Greek Text which takes into account the vast textual finds since the KJV was translated. What Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart are getting at is that the KJV and NKJV are not based on the best available texts as the other modern versions are like the English Standard Version, the New English Translation and the New Revised Standard Version among others. The New King James does have what the Nestle/Aland texts witness to in the footnotes however, so it is better than the KJV.
Jeff the Finn

 

[filosofer]

... with respect to the NKJV, is it a comparable translation to, say, the NASB? I have read it online, and it seems very similar. Or is it indeed the KJV updated for language?

And along the same lines, is the book I am referring to a good resource?

Despite the differences in textual bases, the translation philosophy of the NKJV is the same as the NAS, and KJV, ESV, RSV. If I were limited to two translations that follow the formal equivalence method of translation, I would choose NAS95 and NKJV. Both are better translations than ESV. (I think I have written elsewhere on this board about the problems with the ESV.) As jeffthefinn noted, the NKJV also notes when the textual base is different - one of the few that does this rather well, even in some of the pew Bibles. Overall, NKJV is an excellent translation.

As for the Stuart/Fee book, it is a good one. I had considered it as one of three texts when I taught the course, Introduction to Interpretation.

 

[kitkat60]

Thank you both. Very informative and helps to clarify it for me.

 

[PaladinValer]

Mine is the NRSV, but it isn't on the poll.

 

[verismo]

The Jerusalem Bible.

 

[filosofer]

Whats the difference between all the different Catholic Translations?

The Roman Catholic supported translations (as opposed to RCC-approved translations) follow the same basic principles of translation. Some would be considered Formal Equivalent (similar to NAS/NKJV), and others Dynamic Equivalent [or Meaning Based] (similar to NIV/NLT, etc.).

For instance, NAB (New American Bible) and Douay-Rheims would be closer to a Formal Equivalent translation.

Jeruslaem Bible (1966)/New Jerusalem (1986) would be similar to NIV or better the NEB/REB.

There are several RCC-approved translations include: NRSV, RSV, REB, TEV.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Vulgate!