Which Bible do you use?

[Crosssword]

King James all the way for me. Why use the NIV?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm

They are also making a new one for homosexuals:

NIV 2011 ...the Feminist's Bible!

 

[Erie79]

I use NIV because the language is easier for me to understand. KJV is like every other version of the Bible, a translation. None, are the original. I use NIV because it is written in 20th century English, whereas KJV is written in 17th century English and I find the phrasing and concepts difficult to understand. All versions of the Bible have some degree of errors because they are translations. What is important is the core teachings of the Bible. Although I have a KJV Bible as well, I might look into getting a KJV study Bible.

The link you provided makes some a good points so I will do some further research..

Thanks!

Erie

 

[laconicstudent]

King James all the way for me. Why use the NIV?

Why Would Anyone Use the NIV?

They are also making a new one for homosexuals:

NIV 2011 ...the Feminist's Bible!

Jesus-is-savior.com is one of the more absurd abuses of telecommunications I've seen.

 

[Erie79]

LOL I've never considered myself to be reading a "perverted Bible." However, I do see that many people prefer KJV and feel it is a better translation. I read a Life Application Bible(NIV) because I feel the language is easier to understand and I feel I am getting a clearer historical details of that time period. When I am reading, I can almost imagine living in Biblical times!


Erie

 

[heymikey80]

1611KJV? Or later?

Translations are just that -- translations.

I'm partial to the ESV and NASB prior to 2000.

There are serious issues with grabbing an individual verse or so to establish a particular doctrine. Don't do it unless you have the support of someone who actually knows the underlying language, who can at least write (or say) whether the wording will support it.

If you're "into" languages or linguistics, it is one humbling, amazing ride to read Scripture. Your assumptions change. Some things about your theology change. Some things cut deeper to your heart when you read them in the words of a guy who saw, heard, handled the One from the Beginning.

The central doctrines of Christianity don't change, though. You're not gaining freedom in doing this. You're gaining depth.

 

[JasperJackson]

What don't I use more like it. I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NLT and even the Message. None are the perfect inspired word of God - they only exist in the original languages. So I try to read a variety of translations. I figure that way I'm more likely to get close to the original.

Jesus-is-savior.com is one of the more absurd abuses of telecommunications I've seen.

Isn't it weird how crack-pot websites always look the same: dark backgrounds, big slabs of text, and lots of different fonts and colours!

 

[Sketcher]

The arguments against the 1984 NIV just don't hold water. However, I don't like the politics associated with the 2010 NIV.

I use an NIV/KJV parallel myself.

 

[RemoveBeforeFlight]

NIV, because I could have only found NIV, even this is a miracle in such an area.
p.s. I was looking for a KJV, Old English version.

 

[JasperJackson]

NIV, because I could have only found NIV, even this is a miracle in such an area.
p.s. I was looking for a KJV, Old English version.

Do you have one in Turkish?

 

[Simonline]

King James all the way for me. Why use the NIV?

Why Would Anyone Use the NIV?

They are also making a new one for homosexuals:

NIV 2011 ...the Feminist's Bible!

Like all translations, the Authorized Version of 1611 is good but only in certain ways and only to a point. Like all translations it has both strengths and weaknesses.

Personally, I use multiple translations (including the Authorized Version, the NIV and the Complete Jewish Bible) which I usually cross-reference in order to try and get the best understanding of what YHWH through His Scriptures is communicating.

Simonline.

 

[Aibrean]

I use the ESV (I have the Lutheran Study Bible and then on my iPod I have the Crossway ESV (of course they did the translation so the LSB uses it). I would like to get a KJV 1611 edition just to have. I saw it at B&N and completely fell in love (like a straight scan of the original).

 

[TripleZ2]

I am not sure about the NIV but the KJ is a bit less harsh in It's translation of the Greek at places.


22 And thou shalt sayH559 untoH413 Pharaoh,H6547 ThusH3541 saithH559 the LORD,H3068 IsraelH3478 is my son,H1121 even my firstborn:H1060
22 Then you are to tell Pharaoh: 'Adonai says, "Isra'el is my firstborn son.
22 Then tell him that I have said, "Israel is my first-born son,
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
The top and bottom are KJV+ and KJV

The middle 3 are , the CJB CEV

How ever,please do not misunderstand there is nothing wrong with the KJV.

 

[RemoveBeforeFlight]

Do you have one in Turkish?

The one I have is both in Turkish and English.

 

[Simonline]

I use the ESV (I have the Lutheran Study Bible and then on my iPod I have the Crossway ESV (of course they did the translation so the LSB uses it). I would like to get a KJV 1611 edition just to have. I saw it at B&N and completely fell in love (like a straight scan of the original).

Actually, Martin Luther would probably prefer that you acquire a copy of the Geneva Bible of 1560 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible which is the Puritan Evangelical Protestant equivalent of James I's pro-Roman Catholic 'High Church' Anglican Authorized ['King James'] Version of 1611? It was the Geneva Bible that was the Bible of the Protestant Reformation.

Simonline.

 

[WannaWitness]

While I agree that there are a lot of weird "translations" around to watch out for, I don't think it's wrong to seek out other reputable translations, at least for use as a commentary if not as a "main" Bible. I'm a NKJV fan, myself. It's great for beginners, but seems to retain a straightforward, to-the-point, pulling-no-punches style. There are also some versions I am not comfortable with, so I personally stay away from them. But, who am I to judge one's walk with the Lord on the Bible translation he/she reads? After all, I have read somewhere that the KJV translators themselves (right in their preface) suggest that other versions could be used, as well. But if KJV is what one prefers (at least for the sake of being old-school), then that is what that person should use.

All that said, I see this the "New Christians" section of CF. In my opinion, new Christians are really not ready for the whole KJVO argument. The important thing is to get them into the Word, and God will convict each individual differently.

 

[Aibrean]

Actually, Martin Luther would probably prefer that you acquire a copy of the Geneva Bible of 1560 Geneva Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is the Puritan Evangelical Protestant equivalent of James I's pro-Roman Catholic 'High Church' Anglican Authorized ['King James'] Version of 1611? It was the Geneva Bible that was the Bible of the Protestant Reformation.

Simonline.

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.

 

[Peripatetic]

Please follks... let's not bring the bible translation debates into this forum. "For New Christians" is very important, and often provides a first impression for those who are just starting out or seeking. All of these mixed messages are liable to cause a person to just give up on the whole thing. All of the major Bible translations are used every day across the globe to enrich the lives of Christians and to spread the good news of the gospel.

 

[Crosssword]

I hope that no one is feeling that way. For we have crucified our old carnal selves and are new creatures in Christ. I should think the new Christian would want to find a good version. That is I read the articles and thought I would warn about the not so good versions.

 

[papaJP]

For personal reading I use the NRSV. However, I have over 80 different translations available including many in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and some of the lesser known languages that were used in the oldest text we have.

If you really want to get into a deep study get a good computer program like Bible Works version 8.

Do not completely rely on any translation. All have some differences. However, they will all give you a good meaning if you let the Holy Spirit of God reveal what you are to understand.

 

[Simonline]

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.

I know. What I meant was, if push came to shove Luther would have preferred you to read the Geneva Bible rather than the Authorized Version. (Ideally, he would have preferred you to read his own version).

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 know that too.

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

A bit difficult since none of the original manuscripts are now extant?!

The Concordia Lutheran Study Bible is compiled by Lutheran theologians who offer notes from a wholly Lutheran perspective.

Hardly surprizing really?

Simonline.