Which translation do you use and why?

[StaySalty]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.) Is one more accurate (or better) than another? I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it? Do you think it is it inspired by God?

 

[StaySalty]

For the record, I've grown up on NIV.

 

[Philip]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.)

RSV-E, KJV, NKJV.

I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

Protestant Bibles do not include some of the books Catholics consider Scripture. Orthodox Bibles have even more books.

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it?

The Ethiopian Church considers it Scripture.

Do you think it is it inspired by God?

It is not Scripture.

 

[Believer-in-Christ]

I use the the new international version because It's easier for me to read, basically. Yeah.

 

[rejectreality]

I like the Jesus study bible. It's easy to understand and makes things relevent in foot notes and explanations of certain verses. Hope you find what you're looking for.
God bless

 

[Edial]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.)

I use mostly NIV then NASB and research the questionable areas by Strong's.

Is one more accurate (or better) than another?

There is no translation that is supremely better from others. Ususally translations are separated into 3 groups - the literal translation, the dynamic equivalent and the paraphrase.
I ignore the paraphrase. NIV is a dynamic equivalent and NASB is a literal translations.
I use NIV to study, since there are many more software (tools) that are adapted to NIV than to any other translation, except maybe KJV.
I personally avoid the KJV because of the following 3 reasons.
1. Although it is a literal translation and is very good, in some places it has significant errors in translation. The Revelation, for example was translated from very inadequate manuscripts.
2. I simply find it hard to understand due to older English.
3. It and the NKJV are the only English transpations that I know of that were translated from the later sets of manuscrips, which arew less reliable than the earlier manuscripts.

I compensate for all this by referring to lexicons and looking up words by Strong's numbers.
Since I teach, lexicons and computer software are important tools for me.

(I am very impressed with the old time Christians that knew and taught the Bible prior the Strong's numbering system, concordances, computers).

I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

The Catholic Church decided to insert these book and pronounce them "inspired of God" after Martin Luther questioned their decision to pray for the dead and asked for Scriptural references. Since their only reference is found in one of these book (the Maccabees) and the revenue from masses was to be lost they decided to elevate these books to a level of "divine inspiration" despite of plain and glaring historical errors that appear in these books.
(One of the tests for the inclusion in the divine inspirations was an absolute absence of any historical errors. There are othere tests, of course)
(Some traditional churches also have these books inserted, but only the Catholics elevated them to the God-breathed level).

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it? Do you think it is it inspired by God?

Enoch is not inspired by God because it contradicts the inspired books in some areas. However, the Bible refers to it and certain other books as a reading material.
I have the book of the Enoch some other books that were a popular reading material of the old, such as "The shepherd" (I forgot the exact title), that consistes of dreams and visions. Interesting reading.
The book of Enoch blew me away at first because of such an incredible details concerning the judgement of the angels after their acts of disobedience.
It is very easy to conclude that this is a myth however, the Bible refers to Enoch.
So, I take it as an accurate description of spiritual events, yet accept that there are errors within them which I would probably never find. Therefore, I cannot put trust in the Book of Enoch, although I would readily recommend it to all, since the Bible recommends it.
The Bible, on the other hand, I believe, since it is divinely inspired and it is so proven by the fact that no one in the 3000 years was able to prove the Bible wrong, yet many great minds tried. (And some even became Christians after they failed).
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Philip]

The Catholic Church decided to insert these book and pronounce them "inspired of God" after Martin Luther questioned their decision to pray for the dead and asked for Scriptural references.

How, then, did these books get into Orthodox Bibles?

 

[Albion]

How, then, did these books get into Orthodox Bibles?

Of the four Orthodox Eastern Churches I have attended at one time or another, ALL OF THEM used the same King James version as in any Anglican church.

 

[Philip]

Of the four Orthodox Eastern Churches I have attended at one time or another, ALL OF THEM used the same King James version as in any Anglican church.

There has yet to be an Orthodox translation into English of the Scriptures. We have relied on other translations 'til now. But that does not change the fact that the we consider all the books in the 'Catholic' Bible to be Scriptures, as well as some others.

 

[Brother Matt]

I use NIV most of the time because, as someone said above, I grew up with it... but I keep my KJV handy as well.

And I have no doubt in my mind that it is the inspired word of God... unfortunatly we have to rely on someone's translation of those words, but books like the KJV have stood the test of time and are as close to accurate as you are going to get, IMHO.

 

[Albion]

There has yet to be an Orthodox translation into English of the Scriptures. We have relied on other translations 'til now. But that does not change the fact that the we consider all the books in the 'Catholic' Bible to be Scriptures, as well as some others.

Well, that's interesting information. I would think that a church of such renowned attention to detail and aware of continuity would have done something along these lines before.

However, the reason she has not done so MUST mean that she finds nothing wrong with the Bible we use. Otherwise, she would be using a false Bible, which I don't think she would allow herself to be doing. So why is it worrying you?

 

[Edial]

How, then, did these books get into Orthodox Bibles?

It was a popular reading.
Yet the Orthodox churches do not claim that these are inspired of God, divine.
In other words, they do not claim that these are errorless and "spotless".
The Catholics do claim this.
And I do agree that the Orthodox should not have inserted these, since many do not know the difference between the fact that some are inspired and some are not. And this will dilute the entire Bible.
I know one priest that agreed with me, but that's another conversation.

I might not know this concerning all the Orthodox churches, but I know conserning the Armenian Orthodox (I am Armenian by nationality), Russian Orhodox (I was born there) and Greek Orthodox (I spoke to some concerning them).
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

There has yet to be an Orthodox translation into English of the Scriptures. We have relied on other translations 'til now. But that does not change the fact that the we consider all the books in the 'Catholic' Bible to be Scriptures, as well as some others.

That is news to me.
What Orthodox church are you from?
Ed

 

[Edial]

I use NIV most of the time because, as someone said above, I grew up with it... but I keep my KJV handy as well.

And I have no doubt in my mind that it is the inspired word of God... unfortunatly we have to rely on someone's translation of those words, but books like the KJV have stood the test of time and are as close to accurate as you are going to get, IMHO.

Absolutely.
KJV is one of the very good and literal translation.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Kripost]

Of the four Orthodox Eastern Churches I have attended at one time or another, ALL OF THEM used the same King James version as in any Anglican church.

The main reason why King James Version is preferred is that it is closest to the Byzantine Manuscripts, which are still read in Koine Greek anyway.

 

[Agricola]

Finnish translations, NIV and Nestle-Aland (Greek).

 

[Philip]

That is news to me.
What Orthodox church are you from?
Ed

I am Antiochian.

Yet the Orthodox churches do not claim that these are inspired of God, divine.

You are incorrect. If you doubt me, stop by TAW and ask for yourself.

And I do agree that the Orthodox should not have inserted these,

And when, exactly did we insert these?

since many do not know the difference between the fact that some are inspired and some are not.

Again, we consider them inspired.

I might not know this concerning all the Orthodox churches, but I know conserning the Armenian Orthodox (I am Armenian by nationality),
Russian Orhodox (I was born there) and Greek Orthodox (I spoke to some concerning them).
Thanks,
Ed

It is likely you have misunderstood.

Here is the position of the OCA, a daughter of the Church of Russia.

You can check the position of GOAA here.

Unfortunately, the Antiochian does not comment on the matter. You will just have to take my word that we do receive them as inspired.

 

[Edial]

It is likely you have misunderstood.

Here is the position of the OCA, a daughter of the Church of Russia.

You can check the position of GOAA here.

Unfortunately, the Antiochian does not comment on the matter. You will just have to take my word that we do receive them as inspired.

This is very interesting concerning the Greek Orthodox Church. I did not know that.
But from what I read (and I appreciate your links) I found it very interesting that there is no mentions that the Scriptures (in which they include these books) are inerrant.
Whoever follows the 66 books are immediate in their approach to claim the these are inerrant. (There can be exceptions of course due to simple omission).
My questions is - do the Orthodox churches that DO accept these additional books as Scriptures consider them inerrant?
Thanks,
Ed

 

[Philip]

My questions is - do the Orthodox churches that DO accept these additional books as Scriptures consider them inerrant?

Could you clarify what you mean by inerrant? (It's not a trick question, just means different things to different people.)

 

[Edial]

Could you clarify what you mean by inerrant? (It's not a trick question, just means different things to different people.)

By inerrant it is meant that historical events, as an example, actually occurred.