Which Bible do you use?

[heron]

Please follks... let's not bring the bible translation debates into this forum.

I agree. If you go to studylight.org, you can read a lot of versions at once!

 

[kenwsmith]

I suspect this thread is aimed primarily at the minority of Christian who read English. Given that -- I read (in English) the NIV, NASB, The Message....

I can't read the KJV -- it is too archaic (for me) and has too many associations with legalistic churches of my youth.

Best answer: read the version that encourages *you* to read! If Version A sits on the shelf and collects dust while Version B follows you around in your car and is something you find easy to read over the lunch break, then version B is the best one!

 

[Rora]

I read NIV and the Message.

I love both! I have no interest in KJV. Just personal preference.

 

[emily_elizabeth]

I use NIV and NASB translations.

 

[Aibrean]

Personally I wouldn't recommend The Message for new Christians and if one was to ever read The Message, to never read it alone but keep it paired with a more established translation that wasn't taken so liberally. I test translations and it fails for me. Nothing is close to the original language or meaning. Personally it's so watered down and distorted, it ceases to be a Bible.

 

[JasperJackson]

Personally I wouldn't recommend The Message for new Christians and if one was to ever read The Message, to never read it alone but keep it paired with a more established translation that wasn't taken so liberally. I test translations and it fails for me. Nothing is close to the original language or meaning. Personally it's so watered down and distorted, it ceases to be a Bible.

Even though I do read the Message myself I'm still giving this a because I agree with it all.

 

[Brother Chris]

I just wanted to add, I don't recommend the NLT (New Living Translation). There are certain words that are taken out in the NLT which change the overall meaning of a verse. For example, in the NLT in Ephesian 2:8-9, it does not state that faith is a gift from God. The NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, all have the verse "faith-and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." This is an important part of the doctrine of eternal security and election, that faith is a gift from God, and we can not self-manufacture it. You want to read the translations that are true to the Gospel message of salvation and doctrines and teachings, even if these doctrines or teachings are disturbing, they are still biblical.

 

[Crosssword]

I will stick with KJV.

QUESTION:

I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.​

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.

It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.

It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

 

[papaJP]

Funny you would know what Martin Luther preferred. In fact, you have your dates and Bible a little confused. Martin Luther (with the help of other writers) translated his own version of the Bible and it was published in 1543.

The Geneva Bible was not Luther's Bible. The Geneva Bible was, in fact, compiled by Calvinists. Calvinism and Lutheranism is certainly not similar, nor entirely compatible.

I am sure Luther, by basis of the Book of Concord, would agree that any translation should be tested against the original text.

The Concordia Lutheran Study Bible is compiled by Lutheran theologians who offer notes from a wholly Lutheran perspective. by Aibrean
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Luther did not start the church that bears his name. He was a devoted Roman Catholic and even after excommunication was not against the RCC.

He was for trying to correct the errors in the RCC but could not.

As for Lutherans and Calvinist not being compatible that is a man derived doctrine problem.

To follow any church and buy all the doctrines they have is not completely compatable with God and the truth. All have some of the truth but none have all the truth.

 

[vespasia]

King James was a stuart who inherited all the mess of the violent social and political upheaval of the Tudor monarchy. You would have to have a good grasp of the sheer violence of the times to understand the ramifications here. He did not just restrict religious persecution for Catholics he also went for none conformists. He really was not a nice bloke; very few English absolute monarchs were who excercised 'the divine rights of monarchs'.

He did commission the KJV and it is the biblical scholars who provided the epic jacobean poetic prose to the hebrew and greek that we have today.

As for me- I prefer e-sword [g-sword is availble for ubuntu operating systems] as you can open and parallel read many versions of the bible inc the origional texts. It can also operate through various daisy systems as most paper versions are not user friendly if your sight is impaired. Its a lot lighter than my friends braille bible too.

 

[laconicstudent]

I will stick with KJV.

Who cares if King James was a homosexual?

 

[silent_wolf]

I was bible schooled since 3rd grade up to 6th grade and the bible version used by the school was Today's English Version or maybe known today as Good News Translation. But I have also been reading King James Version for authenticity...

 

[Aibrean]

Luther did not start the church that bears his name. He was a devoted Roman Catholic and even after excommunication was not against the RCC.
He was for trying to correct the errors in the RCC but could not.
As for Lutherans and Calvinist not being compatible that is a man derived doctrine problem.
To follow any church and buy all the doctrines they have is not completely compatable with God and the truth. All have some of the truth but none have all the truth.

Calling him devout is a bit of a stretch. If he was devout he wouldn't have gotten married, he wouldn't have called the pope the "very Anti-Christ". Yes, he did want to correct the errors in the RCC. He was against the errors and the corruption in the RCC. However I still will stand by the fact that the theology between Lutherans (at least Orthodox ones) and Calvinists are not compatible. All you have to do is dissect TULIP to realize that.

I follow the church of God, what is written in the Bible. From what I see, Lutherans fit as close as there is to the truth I know.

 

[heron]

Remember that the subforum is New Christians and the OP is requesting our versions for their benefit (I assume), not to hear debates. Some interesting information has come up in the process, but more courtesy could be exercised.

 

[Aibrean]

Agreed Heron, at least this time, the side-track wasn't started by me I just can't let mis-information stay posted. It's more of a history lesson than debate.