Choice of modern Bible translations

[ayin jade]

I happen to have the Modern King James bible as my current favorite. It is not the NKJV. Here is an online version of it.

[Purple Chris]

Purp: Please do not say 'old English' (I know; I know: "As opposed to Old English"), as it is easily confused with Old English. KJV is Elizabethan English not 'Old' English.

Sorry Leonard...no offense meant, I'm old too!...just like the English. Would it be okay to call it "The English of James" or "Bill's English (as in Shakespear) rather than name it after a girl? What if I put an "e" at the end of "old" so it was "Olde English" instead?

[gop_jeff]

Jason,

The answers to this question are as numerous as the people who answer it. Some people are strict KJV-only types, others prefer word-for-word translations, others prefer phrase-by-phrase translations. I have only seen a couple of Bibles that I would avoid - the New World Translation, which is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses and is purposely mistranslated to fit the JW's theology; and the Message, which I have read (and listened to) fairly extensively, and I feel is not totally accurate.

All that said, I would recommend the ESV to you as well. It is a word-for-word translation that uses modern English while avoiding slang phrases. But you know that already! If you are looking for a phrase-for-phrase translation, I'd suggest the NIV.

Jeff

[salt and light]

After studying other versions of the bible, and many of them as a matter of fact, and comparing them to the KJV, I will continue to stick with the KJV. I believe in my heart that the KJV is God inspired, while most others are nothing more than perversions. Too many things are left out of the other versions, like for example, sixty four thousand and ninety eight words are not in the NIV, and the word "Christ" is left out of the NKJV 50 times, and the word "blood' is left out either 30 times or 44 times, I forget, and the NKJV ignores the Textus Receptus over 1200 times. I've heard people say, "The KJV is too archaic". Well, there is nothing more archaic than God, for He is archaic, archaic, archaic, holiness is archaic, Jesus Christ is archaic, and I think the 'thee", and "thy", and "thou", and the "ye" etc. that are in the KJV, make the KJV kinda special over the rest.

[Leonard]

Ayin Jade, sounds interesting, but due to a computer bug I can't cure, I can't follow links. Could you PM me the address if you get a chance?

[Guest hubertdorm]

I personally feel that any version that is true to the Gospel message is sufficient for a person to understand and be saved. Anything further should be limited to translations, not paraphrases. For this reason, I avoid versions like The Message. I am torn on study Bibles. They contain lots of helpful information, but also add bias and doctrine in the commentaries, regardless of version. I'll never pick up a Scofield again.

I personally prefer NIV, but I also like NASB, NJKV, and The Amplified Bible. KJV is for good reading, but I don't use it for study.

After studying other versions of the bible, and many of them as a matter of fact, and comparing them to the KJV, I will continue to stick with the KJV. I believe in my heart that the KJV is God inspired, while most others are nothing more than perversions. Too many things are left out of the other versions, like for example,  sixty four thousand and ninety eight words are not in the NIV,  and the word "Christ" is left out of the NKJV 50 times, and the word "blood' is left out either 30 times or 44 times, I forget, and the NKJV ignores the Textus Receptus over 1200 times.  I've heard people say,  "The KJV is too archaic".    Well, there is nothing more archaic than God, for He is archaic, archaic, archaic,  holiness is archaic, Jesus Christ is archaic, and I think the 'thee", and "thy", and "thou", and the "ye" etc. that are in the KJV, make the KJV kinda special over the rest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Left out from which, the original text or the KJV? Have you read the introductions to these other versions to find out why text is missing? The NIV was complied not based on KJV but on the available texts. The missing scriptures weren't hastily or doctrinally removed, and there are valid reasons for their deletion. The KJV is guilty of adding words that only appear in the more recent texts. We have no "full proof" version.

[Botz]

Most translations have their pros and their cons...I use the NASB and the KJV but they have their faults too. Some of my bete noirs are when Israel is translated as Palestine and Passover as Christmas...I just cross them out.

[salt and light]

hubertdorm

You said, "Left out from which, the original text or the KJV?"

What original are you talking about?

The 'original" manuscrips that were used to translate the NIV, NASB etc were corrupt greek manuscripts that the KJV translators would not use. The KJV is a God inspired copy of God's word, and it is God's word preserved in the english language, while the NIV and others are not. Grab yourself an NIV and NASB and the KJV, and compare these verses

Phil. 3:3, Luke 24:36, Matt. 4:18, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52, Matt. 6:33, Isaiah 14:12,15, Luke 4:8, Luke 11:2-4, Luke 12:31, Matt. 6:13, Matt. 17:21, 2 Cor. 6:5, 2 Cor. 11:27, Acts 22:16, Luke 1:28, Heb. 1:3.

There are many, many, many more omittions and changes, but these are just some examples of why these other versions are corrupt. It is best to stick to the version that the 50 holy men of God and the majority greek manuscripts that they used to translate that version {KJV]. All other versions are corrupt greek manuscripts, 45, compared to the over 5000 that the KJV translators used, so again, I say, what "original" greek manuscripts are you talking about? Surely not the majority. When I see omittions in these other so called bibles, which are nothing but man's watered down versions, where things are left out or reworded, I can't help but think of Mark 4:15, Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word.....

[Purple Chris]

Couple thoughts...

The 'original" manuscrips that were used to translate the NIV, NASB etc were corrupt greek manuscripts that the KJV translators would not use.

Actually some of them they could not use since they hadn't been discovered yet.

The KJV is a God inspired copy of God's word, and it is God's word preserved in the english language

It is not without error. Matthew 23:24 reads "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The Greek word used there is "diulizo" and is means "to strain or filter out" not "at." The KJ is in error in it's translation.

All for now,

Purp

[salt and light]

God said that He would preserve His Word, and I feel that He is capable of doing just that, so one of the versions is IT, and if it isn't the KJV, then the NIV certainly isn't the remedy, and neither is the NASB, or the RSV etc. Some people say that the word of God is only contained in the original autographs, which are long gone, and all these versions of the bible are just good rendering of what God said. Well since God said that He would preserve His Word, I believe it is preserved in the KJV. The KJV has been proven trustworthy for nearly 400 years. Here is a question, do we or do we not have the word of God today, and if we do, where is it?