Which Bible?

[hattiebod]

Just to affirm, I do believe God will get His Word out to those who earnestly & prayerfully seek Him in many ways, so I pray this will be edifying and not just an avenue for ' KJV only' to display their passion I am interested in what different Bibles are loved by you all and that you would recommend & why. In anticipation.....Thank you, <><

 

[Tintin]

I'm partial to the New Living Translation. This year I bought a New Revised Standard Version for reading and study and I'm really enjoying it. The Message is great for a conversational paraphrase, although some Americanisms really weird me out/confuse me. I grew up with the Good News, CEV and NIV translations.

 

[halogrl47]

I prefer the KJV myself, its what I use daily. I feel its more on the foundation of faith. More inspiring for me personally.

 

[Cobus]

I am all for the Truth, and I see that the Afrikaans old translation and the OLD King James are so alike even though it was two sets of Scholars that translated it from the original languages... So I guess the English scholars and the Afrikaans, Dutch and international scholars that the Bible institute of Holland and South Africa used were all very alike in the translations...


One vrse that stands out particulary in both Afrikaans old translation, and the KJV that is different than most other Bibles are 2 Peter 1:21... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Many Bible exclude the red holy.. and I asked one of the Bible community professors why it was left out in the Afrikaans NEW translation... And his answer was REALLY feeble... Actually quite ridicilous...

If you think it is not a big issue, continue to persude and follow the men of God, and just ignore the HOLY men of God.

The difference between a HOLY man of God and a "man of God" (which I doubt you get) is Christ Jesus. You see the holiness in a HOLY MAN of God is Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit.... No man can be holy without the Holy Spirit that FILLS the man.. And MOVES the man, even speak through the man.... A man of God does not exist. God does not have men, He has HOLY MEN.


To leave out ONE word is as bad and fatal as I just explained.... Do not mess with the Word of God... It is given in BY HIM, not the scholars or translators... It is the evil false teachers that always want to improve on God's Word, because their forerunner scholars were monkeys in their eyes... I think the new scholars are the monkeys... Just leave the Word of God as it is, and just live up to that word... It is FAULTLESS!!! Let God reveal Scripture for you, it will be EXACTLY like God wanted it. As in the Canon scrolls.

 

[Tintin]

Ugh. Cobus, we don't want another debate. Just answer the question. You enjoy the KJV. Next person...

 

[gb9]

I use the new King James version. sometimes the NIV.

 

[Fenner]

I use the NIV . Honestly because it's the easiest for me to interpret.

 

[Photoss]

I like the New King James Version, which has the flow and poetics of the KJV, but the clarity of a modern translation. If you're looking for a Bible that's really understandable & readable (a thought-for-thought translation), the New Living Translation Tintin mentioned is a good choice; if you're looking for something literal (a word-for-word translation), the New American Standard Bible is a solid avenue. Finally, if you're looking for a translation that is super-duper literal, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and The Concordant Greek Text are excellent, but tough to 'read'.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I use different translations at times. I have read the KJV three times through. I have read the NIV 2011 once through. I am half way through the NKJV. Paraphrases are of the Devil. Jesus and the apostles used literal Bibles. They formed doctrine based on word for word, even tense and plurality. For example, Jesus said that God said, "I Am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (present tense), to say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were still alive in spirit. Paul said the promise was to Abraham's "seed" not seeds as unto many. When you deviate from the original text like a paraphrase you do what the Devil did with Adam and Eve and Jesus.

 

[gospelofchrist]

I use the KJV, but I also prefer using the NLT, I think it breaks down better for understanding.

 

[JesusChica1991]

For personal use, I prefer the NIV; but when writing exegetical papers, I use a Greek and Hebrew Bible and The Message and the ESV. I use one of each kind to see the original language, the word for word, and thought for thought The more the better! Oh dear, my bible College nerdy self is coming out of me. RUN PEOPLE!

 

[Xanthus]

One vrse that stands out particulary in both Afrikaans old translation, and the KJV that is different than most other Bibles are 2 Peter 1:21... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Many Bible exclude the red holy.. and I asked one of the Bible community professors why it was left out in the Afrikaans NEW translation... And his answer was REALLY feeble... Actually quite ridicilous...

If you think it is not a big issue, continue to persude and follow the men of God, and just ignore the HOLY men of God.

The difference between a HOLY man of God and a "man of God" (which I doubt you get) is Christ Jesus. You see the holiness in a HOLY MAN of God is Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit.... No man can be holy without the Holy Spirit that FILLS the man.. And MOVES the man, even speak through the man.... A man of God does not exist. God does not have men, He has HOLY MEN.

When questions like this come up I like to go to Unbound Bible and check the Young's Literal version and the Greek textus receptus;

"for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake."

"ου γαρ θεληματι ανθρωπου ηνεχθη ποτε προφητεια αλλ υπο πνευματος αγιου φερομενοι ελαλησαν {VAR1: οι } αγιοι θεου ανθρωποι"

Hagio Theo Anthropoi... in other words it looks to me like it really does say "Holy Men of God"

So why did "holy" get dropped? Good question. When I read books on the politics behind Greek, Latin and Hebrew translation it gets pretty thick real fast.
It makes me see what a futile concept "Sola Scriptura" is. I understand that so many people have a desperate need for certainty, but it really isn't to be in this world, imho.

 

[hattiebod]

For personal use, I prefer the NIV; but when writing exegetical papers, I use a Greek and Hebrew Bible and The Message and the ESV. I use one of each kind to see the original language, the word for word, and thought for thought The more the better! Oh dear, my bible College nerdy self is coming out of me. RUN PEOPLE!

I have a few different Bibles...lots! But I have an ESV I have been dipping into, what is it you particularly like about this one? <><

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Any version that omits the Deuterocanonical Books is an incomplete Bible.
The Canon of Scripture contains 73 Books. 7 Books were removed by Protestants some 1200 years later.

 

[maxwel]

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.

: )

 

[hattiebod]

Any version that omits the Deuterocanonical Books is an incomplete Bible.
The Canon of Scripture contains 73 Books. 7 Books were removed by Protestants some 1200 years later.

Lets try not cast blame... so you like a Bible that contains the apophriga ? (excuse spelling, doesn't look right...?) Ok. Thank you <><

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Lets try not cast blame... so you like a Bible that contains the apophriga ? (excuse spelling, doesn't look right...?) Ok. Thank you <><

If you're referrring to my post - I was merely pointing out any translation of the Bible is subject to its CONTENTS . . .

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Lets try not cast blame... so you like a Bible that contains the apophriga ? (excuse spelling, doesn't look right...?) Ok. Thank you <><

I think you're trying to spell Apocrypha.
The Deuterocanonicals are not Apocryphal writings.

 

[Nancyer]

I have an NIV that I like very much but started with an Amplified Bible, which I still have. I also have a Strong's Concordance I refer to when studying rather than reading.

I saw a woman reading a 4-1 Bible once, 4 columns per page, KJV, NIV, NAS, and I can't remember the 3rd. Big Bible but would sure be convenient.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

I have an NIV that I like very much but started with an Amplified Bible, which I still have. I also have a Strong's Concordance I refer to when studying rather than reading.

I saw a woman reading a 4-1 Bible once, 4 columns per page, KJV, NIV, NAS, and I can't remember the 3rd. Big Bible but would sure be convenient.

That's what is known as a Parallel version of the Bible.