what Bible do you read

[billie]

KJV, although I may look to an NIV for more clarification, I'll always consider the KJV the more authoritative.

[Guest EFS]

KJV, although I may look to an NIV for more clarification, I'll always consider the KJV the more authoritative.

Is it true that there are some additional verses in KJV that's not found in Greek and Hebrew translations? If so, what are those?

Peace!

[KarenJo5]

I have KJV,I love the wording in it.

I have the NIV in here by my computer. And I also have a Living Bible. I read them all,depends on which one is the closest.

[RGR]

New Living Translation and New International Version-both are easy to read and understand!

[LadyRaven]

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

I have a KJV, a NKJV, an RSV and another one, NASB? or something like that. I prefer the NKJV and since it's also my "Inductive Study Bible" and also my "New Geneva Study Bible" i'm really familiar with it. However, I like to look at the other versions when I'm struggling with the meaning of verses, cause sometimes having various translations does help. I don't speak KJ english well. Better than some, but not as well as Anne Bolen would have...

As far as the other views and stuff, that's a great attitude actually, though you need to understand that there are only about 2-4 systems of theology and any one of those views will belong in one out of them most of the time, rarely do they cross (except the basics of Chrsitianity like salvation by faith, the nature of God, that sort of thing). Therefore, while it is possible to have a certain view of the end times and a view from another system of how God's covenants work, it's not always logical or theologically consistent to do so. Everything you believe has consequences.

Bless you on your journey, it'll never get boring.

[pointer]

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.

Where did you learn that?

That is why I think it comes the closest in translation.

How do you know that it does?

[RGR]

Stay with the KJV. It is correct word for word.

The NIV has missing verses, missing words... important words that will change the original meaning and doctrine as do a number of other versions. It is not a word for word translation. The words are longer, harder to memorize and based on the 8th grade reading level.

The KJV is at the 5th grade reading level, easy to memorize, and uses short precise wording.

It is true that not all bibles are based on a correct text, but an updated text from the 1880s. The Masoretic text and Textus Receptus is what the KJV is from. The NIV is not.

God built in a certain structure in the KJV that is destroyed by the new versions. A structure to the bible that helps you understand it.

5th grade, eh? Last I heard, it was 12th grade!

[pointer]

Stay with the KJV. It is correct word for word.

Don't believe everything you read, Lawyer. The people who used to burn readers of the Bible not in Latin find the 'KJ' the next best thing, and have no scruples about making up tales like that.

[Leonard]

KJV, although I may look to an NIV for more clarification, I'll always consider the KJV the more authoritative.

Is it true that there are some additional verses in KJV that's not found in Greek and Hebrew translations? If so, what are those?

Peace!

EFS: Not exactly. The canon of the New Testament was adopted by the Church around the end of the 4th century to the beginning of the 5th (A.D. 385-435 or so), and these people who worked on it for YEARS with the source documents, accepted ALL the verses we find in KJV.

Today, two (only two....count 'em) very old documents excluding these verses, but containing most of the New Testament have been found. One is called Sinaiticus, the other Vaticanus. Neither one contains Mark 16: 9-20. However these verses ARE contained in ALL the other Greek manuscripts of Mark. Mss V and S date from around A.D. 250-300, if memory serves, but Mark 16:9-20 is quoted by the Church Fathers, and attributed to the Marcan Gospel well before that. So it seems to me that the translations which leave them out, or which relegate them to a 'second-class-status' are doing so because they don't like the MESSAGE of Mark 16:9-20, rather than for legitimate scholarly reasons.

Hope that helps.....

[cupajoy]

a few years ago I did a study on the history on the bible, If i remember correctly king James sent different people from different areas to translate the Bible he wanted it to it's truest form not a religious form if I remember correctly he did this because the roman catholic had translated the Douay (SP) to fit their religious purposes. I will look up where I found this and get back with you. As for the I THINK part wouldn't it make sence that it would be the closest to what God meant if religion wasn't envovled with the translation? I have also heard about different books but haven't researched anything on it. It seems like if it were part of the Bible it would have all been together? And didn't God say do not add or leave out one word? I am still learning I think I will be learning for a very long time there is so much to know and figure out.