what Bible do you read

[speckles]

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.

The problem IMO with the KJV is the fact that, like, I don't talk like that, so I don't understand what it means normally. It's like reading shakespeare, i have to read it out loud to get even the faintest idea what it says. However, since I grew up with preachers using the KJV...at least at Mom's church...I do like the NKJV. It is understandable but still familiar.

[PeterJohn]

I use a combination of Thompson's Chain Reference AV and Defined King James both of which are based on the more accurate Textus Receptus or Received Text; all later Bibles are based on the inaccurate Westcort-Hort MS and variants as NJKV also use other variants as these as NU-text;

I grew up with the AV and yes some passages are difficult; however in tandem use of a good commentary such as Youngs the Rough is made Smooth; and we rely in Prayer on the Holy Spirit to interpret for us; if we as humans follow our human natures and only seek an easy path we will never learn as we need to learn or grow as we need to grow

The AV is not perfect; but is the most perfect of imperfect translations as it follows the original Hebrew and Koine Greek MS in a crib-like fashion and does not freely INTERPRET the MS ...

[LadyRaven]

I use a combination of Thompson's Chain Reference AV and Defined King James both of which are based on the more accurate Textus Receptus or Received Text; all later Bibles are based on the inaccurate Westcort-Hort MS and variants as NJKV also use other variants as these as NU-text;

I grew up with the AV and yes some passages are difficult; however in tandem use of a good commentary such as Youngs the Rough is made Smooth; and we rely in Prayer on the Holy Spirit to interpret for us; if we as humans follow our human natures and only seek an easy path we will never learn as we need to learn or grow as we need to grow

The AV is not perfect; but is the most perfect of imperfect translations as it follows the original Hebrew and Koine Greek MS in a crib-like fashion and does not freely INTERPRET the MS ...

I don't like the chain reference, the chains IMO are not sound in many cases. Would rather have a concordance to find verses on like topics. I've never heard of or read the Defined King James.

[billie]

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 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.....

It helped me, Leonard! Some things people were saying had me worried about my KJV!

[KeilanS]

I read the NIV, simply because my parents bought me a beautiful leather-bound bible for my birthday in that translation. Eventually I plan to get a similar looking bible in KJV, but for now I just use an online site with 20-some available translations.

[Candi770]

I love the KJV and NLT

candi

[Marnie]

I use the NIV for everyday reading. I study from the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.

[irishcowboy]

we have three that we use on a regular basis....

one is KJV/NIV/NASB/AMP

another is KJV/NIV/NLT/NASB

and the next is the chronological Bible...... (places all the verses in chronological order)

we use the paralel bibles in class or service, and also for study, and our daily reading is out of the chronological....

mike

[pointer]

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

Anyone who loves God's Word, who has discovered the truth, the riches and indeed the delights of original languages, will not, imv, ever again be satisfied with any mere translation. What is certain is that anyone who wants to make any serious, critical comment on Scripture must use those languages.

[cupajoy]

What bible do you read and why do you read this particular bible?

Anyone who loves God's Word, who has discovered the truth, the riches and indeed the delights of original languages, will not, imv, ever again be satisfied with any mere translation. What is certain is that anyone who wants to make any serious, critical comment on Scripture must use those languages.

pointer that is a very good point, a little over a month ago I was given a computor program Study Bible with the Greek/Hebrew word and definition to every word. I have been into it so intensly I also use the Strong's Dictionary. it has been an awesome learning experience.

Edited August 26, 2006 by cupajoy