Which Bible is the Best

[msortwell]

Most of us are not Greek or Hebrew scholars and are therefore largely limited to the texts written in our primary language. I find Strongs and other original language tools useful, but have to keep in mind that my grasp of the use of the original language is rudimentary (which is an understatement).

Therefore, I make use of a number of English translations. However, I personally judge as "authoritative" those texts based upon the Received/Majority Text (KJV and others). I have a huge bias against the modern "bible" versions that are subject to change based upon whatever may be discovered in the most recent archeological find. I find that I cannot abide the practice of "updating" God's Word based upon more recent discoveries or theories. I know that may sound ignorant, but I simply do not trust the "logic" of those that believe they have a better understanding of what should be in the Bible than men ever had in the past.

Relative to the OT, I have found little difference of substance between serious translations.

Relative to the NT, I generally defer to the 1611 KJV. I also make significant use of a 6-way parallel NT put out by Still Waters Revival Books titled, "The English Hexapla." This NT parallel contains the following NT translations: KJV (1611), Rheims (1582), Geneva (1557), Cranmer (1539), Tyndale (1534), and the Wiclif (1380). They provide excellent insights regarding the traditional understanding of the proper translation/content of the NT text.

msortwell

 

[PaladinValer]

Majority Text? The "Minority Text" of today was the Major Text for the first 7 centuries of Christian history!

 

[msortwell]

Majority Text? The "Minority Text" of today was the Major Text for the first 7 centuries of Christian history!

Well, I might understand the claim you are making. I believe that what you are asserting is that the text often referred to as the "Received Text" and frequently called the "Majority Text" was not the text embraced by the church during the first 700 years.

If this isn't what you meant, please explain further.

If this is a reasonable interpretation of the point you were making. . . Please provide the basis upon which you have formed this conclusion.

By His Grace,

msortwell

 

[Thomas7]

The translation i like the best is NASB, but when studying i like to compare a few together.



JESUS ROCKS

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, I might understand the claim you are making. I believe that what you are asserting is that the text often referred to as the "Received Text" and frequently called the "Majority Text" was not the text embraced by the church during the first 700 years.

Um, the TR isn't even the same as the Majority Text. They differ too much.

If this is a reasonable interpretation of the point you were making. . . Please provide the basis upon which you have formed this conclusion.

I think the conclusion is quite obvious.

 

[johnd]

The one you will read.

 

[msortwell]

Um, the TR isn't even the same as the Majority Text. They differ too much.

I did not attempt to achieve scholarly precision. To do so would seem to be somewhat futile since it seems that scholars can't seem to agree upon what is or is not (the) Majority Text. And if I understand correctly, there is no single manuscript that is "the" Majority Text. Still, according to the International Bible Society (not necessarily big fans of the Majority Text or the Received Text) claims . . .

For the past three hundred years, the most widely used English translation of the Bible was the King James Version (1611). Its New Testament was based on the so-called Textus Receptus (“Received Text”), which is essentially the same as the Majority Text and the Byzantine text-type.​

See their article titled, "The NIV: The Making of A Contemporary Translation" at http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/4.php.

I think the conclusion is quite obvious.

And I am sorry, but your thinking that the conclusion is quite obvious doesn't make it so. So, If you would, an explanation (even a brief one), would be appreciated.

msortwell

 

[AngCath]

best bible? no such thing. unless you learn the original tongues you will have to find which translation will be best for your understanding. filosofer posted a great list of translations and finding one that suites you is what matters. after all, reading the Bible in any (reliable) translation is better than not reading it at all. I personally think parallel Bibles or using more than one translation is a good way to go.

 

[staugustine68]

I love ALL Bibles!

 

[Theophorus]

Generally, if you are going to stick to the KJV, you're going to have to account for the weakening of the English language over the years; for instance, the word 'Charity' in King James' time meant something much deeper than its modern counterpart. Where today it implies generous giving then it meant brotherly love, being the translated form of the well known greek term, 'agape'.

True but there are also instances when the "archaic" language is stronger. For example, the word "conversation" which is many times rendered as "manner of living". The latter phrase being weaker or less complete than the older phrase. Also the word "prince" or "princes" often rendered as "ruler" or "govenor" etc in modern versions brings into the context the concept of democracy, or other modern concepts foreign to the time of the reference, and loses the full meaning, power, and allegory of the expression.

 

[WannaWitness]

I like KJV and NKJV for their straightforwardness (these are the ones that are really the best, IMO). As for "modern" translations, I don't see anything wrong with The Living Bible, especially for ministering to youth and those new to Christianity.

Personally, I don't care at all for NIV (as popular as it is), but I'm not going to knock anyone for preferring that version.

 

[staugustine68]

I read the NLT version, but I only pray in "King James" because that is the only way The Lord will understand me.

 

[Rusticus]

...but I only pray in "King James" because that is the only way The Lord will understand me.

I am not sure I know what you mean.

Are you saying The Lord understands english the way it was written (but probably not spoken) 500 years ago....but does not understand the way we write and speak now?

 

[StAnselm]

Oh, I'm sure the good Lord understands other languages, it's just that they're not as reverent.

 

[Willo]

For study, I use KJV and also NKJV plus alot of other translations.

But for just reading I tend to lean more towards KJV

 

[linchen]

Well .... someone said that if the KJ was good
for the apostle should be good for us, too!

(Hope no one will take me seriously! )

 

[staugustine68]

Well .... someone said that if the KJ was good
for the apostle should be good for us, too!

(Hope no one will take me seriously! )

what apostle lived in 1611?

 

[Knight]

I am not sure I know what you mean.

Are you saying The Lord understands english the way it was written (but probably not spoken) 500 years ago....but does not understand the way we write and speak now?

I believe this was a joke. (Or an attempted one anyway... )

 

[Knight]

In my opinion the best translations are:

NASB - New American Standard Bible (1995 Update)
NIV - New International Version
NKJV - New King James Version
ESV - English Standard Version
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible

I am still trying to decide which one I like best. Each has plusses and minuses.
(I really wish I could come to a decision on this so any help would be appreciated.)

I like the KJV but not for regular reading as the language has changed in the last couple of hundred years. It is neat that this translation will soon be 400 years old.

I also did not include some of the more dynamic translations such as NLT, GW, NCV, GNT, and the Message because I personally prefer a more formal translation.

 

[Tenorvoice]

See the thing is that you will never get a consensious on which Bible is the "best" cause we all have opinions.

Most of the major translations that we have today are about 99% accurate with the original text. each one falters in areas that the other may not. This goes back because of the extent of the languages that was originally used was rich and vibrant. Very picturesk (excuse my spelling on that )

I still go back to waht I originally stated.



The "Best" translation is the one that is read! Use the one that you can understand.

but just remeber that it is "Thou before Thine except after The." jk y'all