what Bible do you read

[Guest yod]

Overall, the New American Standard is the best literal translation for today.

But a translation can never be perfect.

For instance...the word "church" is a bad translation that shouldn't be in the Bible at all.

It is used for these 4 words:

1. Kahal - assembly

2. Synagoge - meeting place

3. Adat - a congregation of people

4. Ecclesia - specific kind of gathering

None of those words carry a religious connotation but usage of the word "church" implies a christian religious institution as opposed to a simple community of faith.

And the King James renders "pascha" as Easter. Is there anyone here that doesn't know Passover and Easter aren't the same thing?

I love the King James version when reading the Psalms but it can be rather cumbersome to decipher a language that is 400 years old

[toohisglory]

This post is very interesting ,so many thoughs and so many versions.I guess I am an old stick in the mud. I know there were a few versions.Thanks for all the information.

[pointer]

This post is very interesting ,so many thoughs and so many versions.

There are few that have gained much popularity, though (the NIV sells more than most others put together). One can sample them conveniently online, and make a purchase on that basis.

No published translation should be taken as reliable, though. It is not the Lord who controls the world's printing presses.

[buckthesystem]

I usually read the KJV. It is the only one I have and is a really old copy. That particular book is special to me because it has been around since I was a small child and someone gave it to my father for him cutting down a tree in their garden, but nobody ever read it until my mother became a born again Christian in about 1978, then it belonged to my brother who also became a born again Christian, and now it is mine.

There are so many versions of the Bible now and if I want to compare a scripture in the KJV with another version I go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ (though I guess everybody here has this site) and you can get the verse in several different versions for comparison's sake. It is incredible how different some of them are. I thought at first that they all basically said the same thing, but in some of the wording is so different as to completely alter the meaning, e.g. in one version (can't remember which one, sorry) "Thou shalt not kill" has been changed to "thou shalt not commit murder". I know its just a word, but really it alters the meaning of the passage a lot.

Of course most everybody is right, all Bibles basically do say the same thing and the scripture in the Bible is the important thing. We can spend hours debating interpretation, but really we've just got to trust the word.

[pointer]

we've just got to trust the word.

What did the Ethiopian (Acts 8:27) trust? He had a copy of Isaiah that he barely understood, and no New Testament.

[pointer]

To claim those who use the KJV don't care about the Greek or Hebrew words is nonsense.

In that case, why have repeated requests to prove the allegations that the KJV is the closest to Greek and Hebrew been ignored? Why have posters complained that they do not have the time to use Greek or Hebrew?

[pointer]

we've just got to trust the word.

What did the Ethiopian (Acts 8:27) trust? He had a copy of Isaiah that he barely understood, and no New Testament.

I would assume it was a scroll and the text would have been in Hebrew.

That is extremely unlikely, as he was an African, and even Jews often did not know Hebrew. What he read was almost certainly in Greek koine.

What he couldn't understand was not the language, but who the author was speaking of.

Of course. What does the language of the text have to do with this?

He had not been born again and didn't know of Jesus yet.

Even those who are born again, and know who is referred to in Isaiah 53:7-8, require much study to properly understand Isaiah.

we've just got to trust the word.

The Ethiopian was rich, and had a copy of an OT book. There must have been thousands of early Christians who possessed no OT at all, and of course no NT. What did they trust?

[pointer]

To claim those who use the KJV don't care about the Greek or Hebrew words is nonsense.

In that case, why have repeated requests to prove the allegations that the KJV is the closest to Greek and Hebrew been ignored? Why have posters complained that they do not have the time to use Greek or Hebrew?

I guess it comes down to what you mean by believing Greek and Hebrew definitions to be important.

I note that the questions have not been answered.

Evidently there is only one KJVOer here belatedly willing to concede that Greek and Hebrew are important, which rather suggests that it is very far from nonsense to claim that those who use the KJV don't care about the Greek or Hebrew words.

they came from differen't manuscripts than did the KJV

This aspect of the debate is largely a storm in a teacup. The mss. vary very little from text type to text type, and the differences are mostly negligible in practice. Most KJVOers seem to have very scant knowledge of any aspect of translation, and what they do 'know' is frequently imaginary, wrong or even absurd. It seems to me that the only material reason that the great majority of KJVOers have for clinging to their choice is its archaic language.

[pointer]

Everything you say here is your opinion.

And what is what you wrote, please? Something more than opinion?

And how can a question be an opinion?

It is your opinion the Etheopean was reading Greek and not Hebrew.

It is my reasoned opinion. Do you have any reasons for what you claim? And again, why does the language make any difference?

The quote in Luke's account is near verbatim with the Septuagint. Of course, Luke may have copied it out from that work, but it seems very unlikely indeed that an Ethiopian would have been able to read Hebrew, though it is almost certain that this one knew koine. It was mostly only priests who could read Hebrew in Jesus' time.

It is your opinion the trouble he was having understanding the text was the language rather than just not knowing who the author was speaking of.

That is not my opinion at all, which fact must be abundantly clear to any reasonably careful reader.

It is your opinion the Ethiopian had an entire copy of the Old Testament book.

I wrote that he 'had a copy of an OT book', which has an entirely different meaning. Might I suggest that you do not snip what other posters write and put things in your own words instead? It is not only very convenient to do so on the 'net, it is also generally accepted netiquette that saves much misunderstanding or worse.

I do not discount the possibility that the man had a whole Bible. He would have had to have been exceptionally wealthy to have possessed the whole Tanakh, in any language. Most people could not afford even one book of it.

The Ethiopian was rich, and had a copy of an OT book. There must have been thousands of early Christians who possessed no OT at all, and of course no NT. What did they trust?

[pointer]

How could the translators of the 1611, being so inspired and led by God, put the apochrapha in the 1611 Bible?

The Apocrypha is used by Roman Catholics to support some of their doctrines that cannot be supported from Scripture proper. Despite being chosen as king because he was, supposedly, a Protestant, King James was a supporter of the RCC, and unsuccessfully attempted to make Britain Roman Catholic. It was hardly to be expected that the translation James commissioned would omit the Apocrypha. It must be admitted that, although Protestants did not recognise the Apocrypha as Scripture, some Protestant Bibles contained it. However, that a Bible that is supposed to be uniquely divinely inspired should contain the Apocrypha is absurd.