what Bible do you read

[ted]

Still, the simplicity of the OP is being ignored.

Post which Bible you read and give a simple reason why.

Is it so hard?

t.

I motion that pointer split this topic and start a new thread so that he can debate with himself (or anyone else with enough patience ) about his divine viewpoint.

The condescension and accusation emanating from this conversation not only have nothing to do with the OP's question, but they are honestly frustrating. That or just close the thread as there are enough pages of honest answers from those who contributed their "opinions" as asked.

And that was what I was getting to.

Members are encouraged to split from threads and create new ones when the thread gets away from the OP. In doing that, the OP keeps it's integrity, and follow-on conversations can be discussed/ debated in the new threads.

I'm sorry to be so adament about the issue, but there are literally hundreds of threads in the boneyard due to these run-off issues. I guess I'm still searching for that one mythical thread dealing with people's favorite Bible versions to be cordial enough to last more than two days.

Have a great day!

t.

[LadyGunivere]

sorry ted it just bothers me someone would speak so......

[ted]

sorry ted it just bothers me someone would speak so......

Yes, but then the Bible shows us to take it up in private with that person, yes? It is why you so often hear the Mods ask people to take things like that up in PM's together.

I understand the nature of threads and how they can swerve with the conversation. It's natural to want to clarify what we say. In fact, I am now guilty of the same thing by posting this!

Anyway, thanks all, for the understanding of the matter.

With that said- I like the KJV and am KJV "inclined", meaning that it's the one I use the most, along with various devotionals and commentaries. Lately, I have been looking into the ESV- but my standard is the KJV.

Why? Because I like it, I guess. I've tried other versions and just didn't get the same understanding from them. While reading other versions, I always get a feeling that something is just missing, or not quite right. I can't explain the feeling. But, I simply trust that the Lord will lead me to an understanding of things unknown to me through Preaching, or other forms of communication.

I do feel that there are some things which God keeps secret, however. Deu 29:29 says as much.

For those things, whatever they may be, I will trust in God to keep me from error on His own ability.

t.

[jmwhalen]

Perhaps the issue should be framed as not "Which Bible do you read"("The Bible" is singular, is it not?), but which "the Holy Bible" do you believe and submit to as your final authority?

Many Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Roman Catholics ....."read" the Holy Bible, and many of the members of these "religions" perhaps know the contents of the Holy Bible better than Christians. But they do not believe the Holy Bible as the sole authority for matters of the Christian faith.

The problem is not that people do not read the Holy Bible-the problem is that most do not believe the Holy Bible. And thus, instead, they "prefer, like, admire,......." the Holy Bible, instead of submitting to the Holy Bible.

I submit to the Holy Bible, and do not submit the Holy Bible to my scrutiny as to what I "think" it should say, or to what I would "like" it to say, or to what I "prefer" it to say("a better rendering would be....the KJB is in error here...it should read....blah blah...blah).

I believe every word of the KJB-I do not "prefer" it, I often times do not "like" it, and I do not "correct" it, or exhibit the "new tolerance" of today's "enlightened, cultured, open-minded,......." secular humanist mind set, typified by the cliche "you are limiting God by your insistence that the LORD God preserved His inspired word without error in one book we refer to as the Holy Bible." I submit to every word of the KJB-it corrects me, and it limits me.

Religion embraces "I have my doctrine, now I will find a particular 'revelation(s)' of 'god' that fits my doctrine"(Religious Stew/Buffet/Smorgasborg). Bible correction mirrors this approach: I have my doctrine, now I will find a particular "version"(200+ "new and improved" versions in the last 100 years)of "the" Holy Bible that fits my doctrine. Bible believers, in contrast, submit to the Holy Bible as the final source authority for their doctrine. Thus, the Holy Bible's testimony is that it determines doctrine, and not that doctrine determines what "the" Holy Bible is. The latter mind set implies that the individual is the final authority, instead of the objective truth of the Holy Bible.

Well, I must go to work. I "prefer" not to go to work, and many times I do not "like" going to work. I sure do not "like" or "prefer" this word "authority." Perhaps a better "rendering" of this "troublesome" word would be "voluntary compliance"?

Now. let the criticism of my post commence. However, as it is written:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name(emphasis mine). Psalms 138:2

Thy word is true from the beginning(emphasis mine): and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth(emphasis mine). John 17:17

"the simple"(Psalms 119:130): If the Holy Bible's own witness/testimony is to be believed(and not corrected, preferred, doubted...), than any such presentation of any so-called "the" Holy Bible must be without error-period.

http://www.av1611answers.com/buffet.html

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

PS: The "originals" argument-Despite what the "scholars" brainwash you into accepting, know this:

They no longer exist. No one alive today has ever seen "the originals", and, even if they did exist, then "reason"(Isaiah 1:18), and address this question":

How would you know they were "the originals"?

[pointer]

I believe that God preserved his Word in a way where we could read it for ourselves.

He failed miserably for well over a thousand years, then.

Pointer,

Are you really saying 'God failed'?

If God's intention was to preserve his Word 'in a way where we could read it for ourselves', irrespective of the evil of mankind, yes. We know from history that from, say, Constantine to Wycliffe, very few were aware of the gospel, and were for much of that time in deep ignorance and amazing superstition. Few could read any language, even their own. The Bible was 'locked up' in Latin which, for the most part, only clerics in the pay of the papacy could understand. And not always those men. There is a record of a papal legate travelling from Italy to Germany in the 16th century, complaining that so few priests knew Latin, and there was no-one to give him directions!

That was in Europe, and there is very little evidence of the gospel anywhere else in the world. So God permitted evil men their way, as he still does in many ways. Millions of people killed in two world wars are evidence of that, if it is needed. The Bible was 'set free' in vernacular languages only after a struggle, in which many risked their lives, and some lost them. Tyndale was imprisoned for translating into English the Old Testament, and martyred for translating the New.

[tpbarn]

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible? I read the King James Version of The Holy Bible, because it was ordered by King James to have people to interprete it for his knowledge, not for religious reasons. That is why I think it comes the closest in translation. And do you use the Bible as a whole or just hold tight to certain scriptures? I guess just reading some of the other threads has me wondering, I feel I should look at all views and then wieght them out against the Bible to see if that is how I should line up my life. I want to be a willing vessel for God, and do all I can to honor him not myself. And being that I am human and by nature am prone to mistakes. I am seeking out you're imput. thanks

Here is a link you may be interested in looking at:

(link deleted)

I prefer the New World Translation. I have discovered Gods Name and cannot understand why most other bibles have eliminated his name. (I actually do understand) I also do not agree with the justification used by others. The translators of several other bibles have removed Gods name and several today do not even make mention of what they have done. It seems to me that when people use their own bibles and read Ps 83:18, whereas they believe every other verse, when it comes to Gods name they reject it and it is in their bible. Christianity has led people away from Gods name. It needs to be restored and the New World Translation does that. The removal of Gods name causes confusion and error. One only has to read Ex 3 Vs 14-15 and ask themselves what is Gods name. Most will answer "I AM" because in Verse 16 Gods name has been replaced with LORD. If we put Jehovah back where LORD is written, it becomes clear what his name is and that I AM is a descritive term that also is translated "I shall prove to be".

Gods name has been removed from most bibles in excess of 6,500 times.

I always pray that I can let the Bible answer my questions and not rely on my own opinions. Jer 10Vs23. Hope this helps.

Edited September 5, 2006 by IslandRose

[Ovedya]

Anonymity on the internet is not an automatic disqualification of someone's argument.

It is if the argument is an appeal to personal authority!

Wrong. If you had met a person on the street, and they had given you their real name, and then had made the argument, the result would have been the same.

[pointer]

Anonymity on the internet is not an automatic disqualification of someone's argument.

It is if the argument is an appeal to personal authority!

Wrong. If you had met a person on the street, and they had given you their real name, and then had made the argument, the result would have been the same.

With respect, you misunderstand. The name is immaterial. The difference is between someone well known and trusted in the flesh, and someone who is just a pattern on a monitor screen. We may accept the advice of the former, but, without facts and reasoning, we have no reason to accept the advice of one monitor pattern over another. An appeal to personal authority might make sense in a church situation where people are known personally, but it makes no sense here.

The OP asks for a choice, and reason for a choice. If I say that I drive a Mercedes because it is the most economical car on fuel, but give no data, someone else might like to purchase a Mercedes, but want to be sure that my claim is indeed factual. Someone else might think I am mistaken, or someone might even think I am a salesman for Mercedes who has been given faulty information. So when people claim, as they have done, that the KJV is the best translation of the original languages, it is reasonable, and imv, only proper to investigate the claim. If there is resistance to such investigation, no doubt people will draw their own conclusions.

[Christian]

[Iryssa]

I must say, I agree with Pointer here.

If you're going to present yourself as an authority on a subject, you need to give your audience some sort of credentials to lend credence to your claim of authority. This is much more difficult on the internet than it is in person.

Personally, I am very interested in seeing whatever evidence you all have to give regarding the claimed superiority of the KJV.