“Your Kind of Bible”

[other one]

... and the Nestle manuscripts.

Do those come with chocolate?

I got snickers to go with mine...

[Guest shiloh357]

My personal favorite the KJV, but I study and teach from other versions like the ESV and HCSB. I like the NASB, NLT, NIV and NKJV. I do not own, and will not own a paraphrase, ever (Message, Living Bible).

[Joshua-777]

I like the NKJV and the NASV. I like that they are literal translations and not a thought for thought, and they have some verses that NIV doesn't have. I feel teh most comfortable with them.

[cooterhein]

Hey Gang. I got a simple question that anyone can answer. Well not anyone exactly. Only to those who read the Bible that is.

My Question is what is your favorite Bible version? examples such as Kings James NIV NASB NLT or any version of your preference.

Can you please say why you prefer the version of the Bible you most like to read?

I like the ESV. It is the Extra Special Version, you know. The collective man-hours (and expertise) that went into it is unparalleled, and the results are superior in accuracy while still being readable. Most translations sacrifice one for the other, but the ESV does a very nice job on both sides. It's also representative of a truly ecumenical effort. It's impossible to keep all bias out of a translation, but you can minimize it when you build a team of scholars representative of a couple dozen different denominations (and groups of Christians that don't like being called a "denomination"). Along with the work they did in balancing one another out, the work they put into examining manuscripts from different eras is equally impressive. Again, there are different schools of thought on when, where, and how often a given manuscript is trustworthy. The work that went into the ESV included quite a lot of impressive work in finding answers to those questions. This, too, was an ecumenical effort worldwide. Many translations simply do the translation, fix little mistakes, and update wording for more modern English. But the ESV went all-out with a wholesale re-evaluation of all the different sources you can rely on. That's the main reason why it's the preeminent translation of our generation, and that in turn is the reason why it's been so carefully criticized and examined. It's not perfect, but it's stood up to the higher level of criticism pretty well.

I'll also mention the NET Bible. That one is very good as well, and I don't know if anyone else is going to mention it. I also like the Holman one and the NAS....when there is legitimate criticism of how the ESV handled something, either or both of those can generally be relied on to give you something that's better.

My second question is.. Are there some versions that you consider to be water downed version of written scripture? What versions would you say would be watered down that you think it is not fitting to that of original doctrines comparable to Hebrew, Greek of the Dead Sea scrolls? And would you remember to tell anyone not to read that version? So question one is what is your favorite versions and question 2 is what versions do you not like you believe is watered down to change the meanings in some cases?

In terms of bias, inaccuracy, and a relatively low level of reading (between 4th and 6th grade, if memory serves), I'd say the NIV and NAB are equally guilty of all these things in some way. Your perspective might depend on how much you want to balance a dynamic approach with formal equivalency, though. The Message is more of a paraphrase than a translation, although the poetic parts of the Bible are done in a way that you can have some admiration for if you know ancient languages. I don't think most of it is any good for personal reading, though, and certainly not for any scholarly pursuits. Edited September 28, 2011 by cooterhein

[j102]

i like the parralell verson of the bible with the other versions side by side for compairison. also for study i use the kjv with a concordence to look up the words.

[j102]

i like the parralell verson of the bible with the other versions side by side for compairison. also for study i use the kjv with a concordence to look up the words.

[EricH]

When I was a kiddo, I loved Hurlbut's Stories from the Bible. I still have the one my mom gave me that was hers when she was a kiddo in the 1930's and 40's

[Waiting2BwithHim]

BTC aka Robby and I use NKJV. We're now getting an ESV. But I also own a NIV older translation.

I also can go to biblegateway.com for all different translations first hand without getting up if needed in a hurry.

[Massorite]

Hey Gang. I got a simple question that anyone can answer. Well not anyone exactly. Only to those who read the Bible that is.

My Question is what is your favorite Bible version? examples such as Kings James NIV NASB NLT or any version of your preference.

Can you please say why you prefer the version of the Bible you most like to read?

My second question is.. Are there some versions that you consider to be water downed version of written scripture? What versions would you say would be watered down that you think it is not fitting to that of original doctrines comparable to Hebrew, Greek of the Dead Sea scrolls? And would you remember to tell anyone not to read that version? So question one is what is your favorite versions and question 2 is what versions do you not like you believe is watered down to change the meanings in some cases?

My favorite version is the old KJ but I got tired of all of the thee's and thou's so I switched to the NKJ because basically the only thing that has been changed are the thee's and thou's etc. and they have been changed to plain easy to read words.

Many other versions are changed to the point that one time I got into a discussion with a worthy chat member who insisted that in Jeremiah 10:3 that the word "Chisel" was used in that verse. However in my bible the word "Axe" was used so I kept telling him he was wrong and he insisted that I was wrong until I realized that we were both right. He was reading from an NIV and I was reading from an old KJ. The problem here is that the Chisel can not be used without a hammer to make the chisel do what it is supposed to do but there is no mention of a hammer in that verse. Which means that it is left up to the imagination of the reader to assume that a hammer and a chisel are used to cut down a tree from the forrest. Even when the word chisel is used the words "a tree from the forrest" are still used, so how can anyone cut down a tree with a chisel without a hammer to hit the chisel with? In fact the NIV even adds words to that verse "NIV - For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel". Now here is what the NKJ says " For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax".

Here is what the Strongs Concordance says about the word "Axe" in that verse "4621 ma`atsad mah-ats-awd' from an usused root meaning to hew; an axe:--ax, tongs". However if you were to look for the word "Chisel" in the Strongs Concordance you will not be able to find it because the NIV has been change so much that a seperate concordance had to be created because no other existing study tool will work with it.

Simply put the NIV version of the bible is a source of confusion for the body of Christ and it has been tainted. In not just one but several places.