Which Bible?

[Xanthus]

I'm going to reserve my meager debating skills for a thread where people maintain some thin semblance of actually listening to each other, lol.

: )

Maxwell, perhaps you yourself could display some small semblance of listening by quoting the person you are referring to so that we can hope to find the relevance and make sense of what you are trying to say?

ChurchAuthority's comment about the Deuterocanonical Books is a valid one.

In historical perspective I see a mindless revolutionary who despite his obvious native intelligence, make an emotionally based decision to break from The Church for the crime of not being perfect and then toss out the books in Scripture that contain content that makes his emotional reaction plainly in the wrong.

Then he has the audacity to proclaim "Sola Scriptura" when it is obvious that he really means "Sola the Scriptura that *I* like".

(my 2 cents...)

 

[ChristReconcilesAll]

I've read several versions, but these days I read the Concordant Version exclusively because, although no translation is perfect, I've found it to be the most accurate. I also use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer for reference. It contains the Concordant Greek Text, an ultra-literal translation, and three versions for comparison, the Concordant Version, the King James Version, and Young's Literal Translation. You can get the Concordant Version and the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer free on the Concordant website. I published the Concordant Version of Paul's epistles on YouTube for folks who are illiterate, blind, or deaf. I was a die hard King James fan for years, but there really is a benefit to reading a translation that is literal and concordant. I know some folks consider their King James Version sacred, but it is just one translation of the true sacred text of the ancient manuscripts. Sadly some of those manuscripts have even been adulterated to conform to church doctrine. I don't conform to church doctrine, just the doctrine of the sacred scriptures. I'm not here to debate church doctrine or the King James Version, just to recommend the Concordant Version as my personal preference for daily inspiration through the word of God. If you seek the truth, God will reveal it to you.

 

[ladylynn]

I began with the Scofield KJV then got a NAS Ryrie then Amplified,. The last 2yrs I have used the King James and the Amplified for personal reading.

 

[maxwel]

Maxwell, perhaps you yourself could display some small semblance of listening by quoting the person you are referring to so that we can hope to find the relevance and make sense of what you are trying to say?

ChurchAuthority's comment about the Deuterocanonical Books is a valid one.

In historical perspective I see a mindless revolutionary who despite his obvious native intelligence, make an emotionally based decision to break from The Church for the crime of not being perfect and then toss out the books in Scripture that contain content that makes his emotional reaction plainly in the wrong.

Then he has the audacity to proclaim "Sola Scriptura" when it is obvious that he really means "Sola the Scriptura that *I* like".

(my 2 cents...)

Xanthus,
I was just making a joke about how frenzied this topic gets.

As soon as you mention "bible version" around here,
it's like sprinkling blood over shark infested waters.

I think discussing doctrine, and church history, and manuscript evidence is all great.
Truly.
I just don't feel like losing any limbs today.


God Bless

 

[Tintin]

Also, it would be great to stay on topic, for once. Word for word and though for thought translations are both important. A balanced translation is probably best for study and reading. After all, the Word of God is the spirit of the message, not the writing style/words being used.

 

[von1]

I use the The Life Application Study Bible (NIV). It has alot of helpful footnotes, study guides, and cross reference. I also have a King James Rainbow study bible. I find the NIV alot easier to read and use it most of the time. I do like the King James version of the 23 Psalm better. The main thing is find a bible you feel comfortable with and read daily.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

the new international version is probably the most convenient...it has a good balance of accuracy and readability...although i think i slightly prefer the 1984 edition over the 2011 revision...

the holman christian standard bible gives possibly even a better balance of literal accuracy and readability...but there are a few places where it almost seems 'out of character'...for example there is a passage where a king refers to a prophet as a 'guy'...

if literal accuracy is your primary concern then the english standard version is the bible for you...and the even more literal renderings provided in the footnotes go further still...however to me the grammatical issues in the ESV become grating after a while...

the new american standard bible is also very accurate...right now it is my favorite...it preserves the feature from the king james version of having words added for clarity by the translators in italics...and it adds another feature that shows even more faithfulness to the original text...every verb that is present tense in the original greek but rendered as past tense in the english for stylistic reasons is indicated by a star...

the new king james version is good if you like the cadence of the king james version but have trouble with the vocabulary and archaisms...i really like the way the gospels were translated... the NKJV is also one of the few modern bible translations to be based on the textus receptus...which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your textual critical perspective...

the new living translation is another one of my favorites...it is even easier to read than the NIV...though sometimes accuracy is sacrificed for the sake of clarity...

i also have a copy of the contemporary english version...which is probably the most easy to read of all...it goes a little further than i would be willing to go in terms of paraphrasing though...you would probably want a more literal translation to compare it with...

the new english translation or NET bible has some really interesting and useful features...most importantly the translators explain all of their textual and translation decisions in detail in the footnotes...it is also uncopyrighted so you can use it however you want... but on the negative side i have issues with the way they translate some messianic prophecies...though they do openly state their translation principles and why they did it that way... overall i think the NET bible is ahead of its time and a step in the right direction towards incorporating the production values of the internet age...

the new century version is a good one for children...the vocabulary is more on their level...but it is easily acceptable for adults too...

the message is the only bible translation i really don't like...its new age allusions are offputting and totally uncalled for in a bible translation...

finally the king james version is a classic...though it has not aged well in terms of readability...to the point that people nowdays come up with false doctrines based on nothing more than misunderstanding of the grammar or vocabulary of the KJV... one advantage the KJV still has over the more modern versions is that the classic word study references are based on it...such as strong's exhaustive concordance...the brown driver briggs hebrew and english lexicon...and thayer's greek english lexicon of the new testament...

 

[oOfallen_angelOo]

NIV - I heard it is the best translation because a lot more people from different nationalities came together to ensure it's revisal or something like that?

Idk.

An accurate Bible keeps all it's prophecy in line; If your reading a Bible in which the prophecies don't add up, then it's definitely not an accurate Bible.

I think the argument is majorly about OT and NT; like some Bible don't have NT but that breaks up the prophecy because a lot of OT prophecy is only fulfilled in the NT.

Rev 22:7

If your blessed by keeping the prophecy and hearing the words of prophecy, then a Bible that doesn't have the full prophecy, doesn't carry this blessing.

 

[Angela53510]

I was raised on the KJV because I think that was the only version available in those long ago ages. When I got saved, I was reading a Catholic version, NAB with Apocrypha, which I never read till a few years ago for New Testament Survey. Those books are not inspired, because of numerous fictions. Even the Catholic church did not accept them till the Council of Trent from 1545-1563.

After I got saved I had a beloved NASB which I wore out, and then I started reading Holman's. When I started reading the UBS Greek, I switched to ESV, because the grammar and vocabulary is usually, though not always closest to the original languages. I also have an MT (Masoretic Text), and I am working my way through the Psalms. I love the NT in Greek, too. Once you read the Bible in the original languages, it becomes quite addictive.

I also read the Message for fun, and Eugene Peterson has a very good way of saying things in a modern way, but usually capturing the intent of the passage.

Good topic!

 

[Tintin]

New Age allusions in The Message, really? I haven't seen them. Anyway...
What's the NASB like for readability?

the new american standard bible is also very accurate...right now it is my favorite...it preserves the feature from the king james version of having words added for clarity by the translators in italics...and it adds another feature that shows even more faithfulness to the original text...every verb that is present tense in the original greek but rendered as past tense in the english for stylistic reasons is indicated by a star...

the message is the only bible translation i really don't like...its new age allusions are offputting and totally uncalled for in a bible translation...

 

[RedTent]

I downloaded e-Sword, a free bible program. I have six bible translation on it, the CJB, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NRSV, and the KJV with Strong's. That way I can compare if the meaning of a verse is not clear.

I usually find Holman's the best. I seldom use the Message, but it is fun. I use the King James when I am studying with others, so many people use it. I find the Complete Jewish Bible quite accurate and it makes me feel as if I can understand the times it writes about, but there are so many words and names in the original language that makes it difficult. I find the The New Revised Standard is a reliable good translation.

Having the King James with Strong's so simple to use on this program has been an absolute blessing.

 

[Tintin]

How do you work e-Sword? I've downloaded the program before but I don't understand it. Thanks.

 

[Earlmayknowornot]

The one that the Holy Spirit leads you in. Just make sure it is the Holy Spirit and remember the Holy Spirit will always point you to Christ and not self works. Not that works are bad, but, works that are produced by our faith in the work of the cross. Okay, I have to elaborate, if our faith is placed in the cross, the Holy Spirit will produce in us good works.

 

[Cobus]

The Bible is given in by God, and since HE is the ONLY one that can reveal Scripture and Truth to us, I have to sgree that Earl has something of Truth here... However, Earl, God aid this.... Thou shall know hte Truth and the Truth shall amke you free... AND Jesus prayed and said... FATHER sanctify them THROUGH thy Truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH...


Now again the verse of 2 Peter 1:21... Is it truth that HOLY MEN of God spake... or MEN OF GOD? Tintin, cannot see the difference but I CAN..... A holy man of God, is a MAN MOVED BY HOLY SPIRIT... Do you se that he man is MOVED (doing some actions as THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTS IT DONE?.... And a man of God, CANNOT be moved by the Holy Spirit because HE IS NOT HOLY!!!! He moves himself... and thus FAILS GOD!

Only the Holy Spirit can please God... Jesus said so Himself... That He ONLY did what is pleasing to God... no man can do this, But no HOLY MAN cannot do this...

Man cannot please God, Holy man cannot displease God... The two are OPPOSITES... So whould we teach that HOLY MEN OF GOD SPOKE, or MEN OF GOD? We should teach HOLY MEN OF GOD... All God's will done on earth is THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT... And THROUGH HOLY MEN...

That is how important it is to teach from ONE BIBLE! And since 2 Peter 1:21 just proved KJV is one that has that verse right, we should go to othr and test verses to God's teachings, and see of other Bibles fail God's MESSAGE!

Some Bibles leave out Acts 8:37... If thou believest with thou whole heart Jesus is... The churches that baptized infants had to leave this verse out... AN INFANT cannot believe with his whole heart... It was people that changed the Bibles to suit their doctrines... Why is there so many churches, if God teach in ALL the Bibles that we should be of ONE MIND, ONE TONGUE, ONE SPIRIT, ONE BODY, ONE BAPTISM, ONE SOUL, ONE TEACHING, ONE DOCTRINE, ONE RELIGION, ONE FATHER, ONE TRUTH, ONE SHEPHERD, ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE ACCORD, ONE VOICE, ONE HEART,


The ONENESS of GOD is what God establish with the ONE BAPTISM OF THE ONE SPIRIT, FROM THE ONE FATHER IN HIS ONE WORD/TRUTH/SON/LIFE.

If we use different Bibles God will have to remove the differences before we could be perfectly one... John 17... I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

New Age allusions in The Message, really? I haven't seen them. Anyway...
What's the NASB like for readability?

well the most obvious new age allusion in 'the message' is in peterson's rendering of the lord's prayer...'as above so below' is a phrasing that comes from hermeticism and is popular in wiccan prayers and blessings...

i think the NASB is pretty readable...

 

[Porthos]

well the most obvious new age allusion in 'the message' is in peterson's rendering of the lord's prayer...'as above so below' is a phrasing that comes from hermeticism and is popular in wiccan prayers and blessings...

i think the NASB is pretty readable...

Just because something is worded the same as a 'heresy' once was, doesn't mean it's the same heresy. The point of the message is, well, to give you the message. Which is, 'be it on earth as it is in heaven'.

The word in hebrew and greek for heaven means 'heights', 'enlightenment' or in context can mean 'above'. Like when Jesus says 'I am from above'. They're the same thing.

And below the above is Earth. the message is; be it here as it is in heaven. The Message Bible uses a hyphen, adjoining two phrases:

''Do what's best - as above, so below'.

I don't see an issue with this, at all.

 

[vic1980]

To me it just something about the KJV that caught my attention in and i enjoy reading 16 century english

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It was Just trully something about reading those verse that made me stay with the KJV

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Just because something is worded the same as a 'heresy' once was, doesn't mean it's the same heresy. The point of the message is, well, to give you the message. Which is, 'be it on earth as it is in heaven'.

The word in hebrew and greek for heaven means 'heights', 'enlightenment' or in context can mean 'above'. Like when Jesus says 'I am from above'. They're the same thing.

And below the above is Earth. the message is; be it here as it is in heaven. The Message Bible uses a hyphen, adjoining two phrases:

''Do what's best - as above, so below'.

I don't see an issue with this, at all.

using that particular word choice is suspicious...especially because it is not the only place where this kind of thing occurs...this match with hermeticism and wicca is not the exception but the rule...there is a -pattern- of new age references in 'the message'

 

[Bookreader]

I prefer, though it's VERY far from perfect, the NKJV at present though I did just buy a New English Bible and think it has merit so far.

I've not read the Deuterocanonical books yet, as they are, by definition of the word of "a second canon"
Though I have read the extra Daniel verses and liked them very much.

 

[Porthos]

using that particular word choice is suspicious...especially because it is not the only place where this kind of thing occurs...this match with hermeticism and wicca is not the exception but the rule...there is a -pattern- of new age references in 'the message'

To be honest, seems like a stretch to me. Maybe the terms are just a good way of explaining? Maybe Peterson had read a novel about hermeticism a few weeks previous to writing the message and the terms bleeded out into the text he was writing?

It happens all the time when I'm writing.

Any number of coincidences. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to discount something as a heretic new-age thing that you need to avoid simply because it uses a common English phrase in its translation.