what Bible do you read

[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.

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.

It often seems to me that computers were invented to make Bible study easier, and software that makes Greek and Hebrew Scriptures accessible has never been so readily available, or so cheap. It seems to me that Christians who have access to a computer, and only a little available finance, are missing out on an enormous resource if they do not make use of such software.

[rich101]

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.

Amen" LawyerforGod" In fact the other versions come from the oldest copy of the Alexandrian text. In the book of Acts(6:9) Stephen was disputing with this group.

[pointer]

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.

Amen" LawyerforGod" In fact the other versions come from the oldest copy of the Alexandrian text. In the book of Acts(6:9) Stephen was disputing with this group.

That's what's so good about the internet. You learn something every day.

[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!

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.....

Thank you for the response!

I'm askin this because if I'm not mistaken Jim Jones used Mark 16:9-20 as his reference....Is it correct?

[Leonard]

In the early years of his 'ministry' the 'reverend' Jim Jones of Guyana infamy tended to use a lot of Scripture, however I do not know if Mk 16:9-20 were a 'mainstay' of his preaching. I read a good deal about the man many years back from survivors of his People's Temple, and none of them ever mentioned it.

Possibly those who wish to deny these verses have found an old tape of one of his sermons where he mentioned them. So what? The devil quoted Scripture to Jesus; shall we toss THOSE Scriptures out to? Of course not. Many evil people have quoted Scripture throughout history.

[Cassocks]

The New English Bible is generally accepted as the most accurate translation from the original Hebrew and Greek texts to modern English. It was revised a few years ago to make it better for public readings, and I think it is now called the Revised English Bible. Obviously it will not appeal to those who like the quaint olde English language of a few hundred years ago, but it is otherwise worthy of serious consideration.

[Guest Muldar]

Wow...

NIV

NLT

KJV

Amplfied

So many to choose from...

[LadyRaven]

Wow...

NIV

NLT

KJV

Amplfied

So many to choose from...

Why choose, if you have the money get them all!! We collect all sorts of things, why not Bibles?

[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.

Amen" LawyerforGod" In fact the other versions come from the oldest copy of the Alexandrian text. In the book of Acts(6:9) Stephen was disputing with this group.

Care to back that up with a reputable source?

[darkest_red]

I read The Good News bible and NIV.

The Good News was the first Bible I had, my brother got me it when I was 5 or 6. It always reminds me of Advent. The advent calender we had at the time had a reference to a verse or a few verses behind each door and I used to love getting my Bible out every night during advent to read them (my brother, sister and I took it in turns).

We use the NIV in church so I do use that too.