Which translation of the bible do you use>

[billie]

BI, there some Bible translations that are obvious in their insertion of agenda, some, no, not all.

I will provide one example that I had seen here at worthy on an old post concerning titheing...

someone clipped a scrip from a bible that read.........."you tithe a tenth of all your income- but have avoided greater matters of law"

when the first english translation reads "You tithe of dill anise and cummin- but have avoided wieghtier matters of law"

I might be off by a word or two there (from memory) but you will find the difference in those two (should you look them up yourselves -kjv and a modern tranlation- cant remember which... dont care) startling.

the agenda from that first modern translation there would be most notably....the "preservation" of the tithe...

to think that dill/anise/cummin or any thing other than money/coins/etc...could be confused with the word income...is directly a distorted agenda...

oh but the pharisees collected such things...therefore that was there "income"........to rationalize the text in such a way as this example...is blantant and unspiritual.

Yes, good example! There are some Bibles now printed who call God "Father and Mother", some with Wiccan phrases inserted into the text........scary. They're not all of them equal.

[RGR]

I use the New Living Translation and even take it to church, even though our pastor uses the KJV. Honestly, 99.9% of the time, I find the NLT agreeing with what he's reading out of the KJV, just worded a bit different.

[the inside out]

I use an NIV study bible. I also have a KJV and NKJV.

[53Christian]

I use the KJV not the NKJV that is why I voted "other" on the poll.

[JIME]

When I first became born again the only translation that I knew was available, was the KJV. I found that the old english style was hard for me to understand and I couldn't sink my teeth into it. So after I was married I came across different versions. I like to use the NLT because it is easy to understand and it speaks modern english. I also like the Amplified. It gives you meanings of the words from the Hebrew and Greek to help you better understand what is being said and why. I will do a side by side comparison of each of them to the KJV to make sure the picture is clear. There have been times in the NLT that the verse is blank. I can then look at the KJV to see what the verse actually says.

I voted for the NLT.

JIME

[spiritman]

Just wondering

Hi Josh,

When I first became a Christian at about 13 years of age, I used only the KJV. I studied it until I was about 20; then I discoverd other versions of the Bible, and use them along with the KJV as study tools. Here are the versions I use:

Geneva Bible

Amplified

NLT

NASB

NKJV

KJV with strongs roots.

Interlinear Bible

KJV

I know that this sounds like alot of reading but, this way I make sure I don't miss anything.

[Tzav_LaTzav]

I was reared on KJV and had attended a church that taught against other translations, but I enjoy the NASB especially. But mine is too big to carry about, so I am trying to purchase the smallest one I can find. I found one offered on the Internet and ordered it. They said it had been mailed out, then they wrote and said they were out of them! I've been waiting for two weeks now. It's killing me!!!

[PBob]

Just wondering

I have used numerous Bibles and am aware that some are actual translations while others are written in a more everyday language. I know some say that a particular version is "the only authentic one" and I don't figure it is worth while debating the issue. I would rather trust the WORD which tells me that the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to me. When I first gave my life to Christ a good friend told me ..."Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God not by reading commentaries. I am confident that the Lord can lead me to know His truth. Man has an opinion - God is truth. Some how I don't think He is looking down from the heavens saying, "Golly. I hope my children can figure out what the right version is and whose commentary to trust.

Edited January 4, 2007 by PBob

[am bassador]

Yo,

You listed "KJV" without letting it be an option . . . what's up wit dat? You forced me to vote "other" as if the King James isn't worthy to be listed with those you know what versions. Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" dvd uncovers what the other versions are up to.

ambassador

QNA2Z

[forrestkc]

I never understood why people would still be using older translations like the King James Version in the case of protestants or the Douai-Rheims_Bible in the case of Catholics. The manuscripts available today are much older than those that were available when the KJV was written, and the KJV and Douai-Rheims contain many errors.

I digress though. I think that we make a mistake in many Sunday School Classes by not teaching about the history of the Bible. One gets the impression that many Christians believe that the Bible is simply a translation of manuscripts that were direct dictations of God. That is not the case though, certainly the original manuscripts were entirely inspired, but no original manuscripts exist, and there are distinct differences - though often minor - between the various manuscripts that have survived. In fact, the oldest complete New Testament Manuscripts are from the 4th Century and there are great variances between it and the KJV. Think about it, the oldest complete New Testament manuscripts we have are over 300 years after the fact. It is also worth pointing out that early versions of the New Testament Cannon omitted some of the books in today's New Testament (Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or 2 Peter), and added others (Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon). It was not until A.D. 393 that The First Council of Constantinople first listed the New Testament as the 27 books that we have today. Which means it took about 350 years or so for the New Testament Canon to be formed. Formed by consensus I might add. Of course, when the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no finalized Old Testament, that did not happen until about A.D. 300. For over the first 300 years of Christianity, very few churches had a complete set of the epistles, and of what they had, they had a very hard time telling whether it was a forgery or what errors it might contain as they were all handwritten copies or other handwritten copies. It is also worth pointing out that it is widely believed among modern theologians and literary historians that many of the Epistles were written prior to the Gospels (partly evidenced by how Paul's letters make relatively few references to the Gospels, they mention very few Gospel Miracles, acts, or events of Christ's life).

There are also many contradictions in the earliest manuscripts of the Pentatuch. The Masoretic Text gives 720 years as the length of time from Abraham's birth to the Exodus, but the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch give 505 years.

There are about 5,700 ancient manuscripts that make up the basis for the modern translations of the New Testament, and about 200,000 variations have been found between the different manuscripts. Granted most are simply differences in style, regional dialect, and grammer, but there are some big differences. For example, what is many people's favorite passage (I know its one of mine), the story of the Jesus saving the adulterous woman from being stoned, John 7:53-8:11, is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It was added at least a century later. We don't why it was inserted, it could be that at the time a better manuscript was found that had the passage, but we dont know.

So I would say that the best Bible's are ones that are generously footnoted with theological notes, historical context, and that note variations in translations. From everything I have read, the New American Standard Bible for Protestants, and The New American Bible for both Catholics and Protestants are the best translations in terms of readability and adherence to the best manuscripts available currently.