Which translation of the bible do you use>

[forrestkc]

Forrest, you are really not telling me anything I haven't already heard. If you want to know why I use the King James Bible, I will give you some of the reasons.

First, I reject the notion that the Bible I have today has errors in it. Yes, there are those who believe that only the original manuscripts were without error, but I am not one of them. I hold to the belief that God preserved his Word for the English speaking public through the translators of the King James Bible. Age of known manuscripts don't make them more or less reliable than others. I hold to the fact that the Textus Receptus are the manuscripts that were without error, and they are the ones used by the King James translators. All others are forgeries, that at times leave out certain portions of the text.

I am well aware that it was by concensus that the 66 books we now call the canon became our Bible. I use a reprint of the original 1611 King James Bible. It actually contains 80 books. Right now I am reading Wisdom of Solomon. While I don't believe the Apocrypha to be on par with the 66 books, I do still enjoy reading it. The Apocolypse of Peter is not found in this Bible, but I am pretty sure I have read it, as well as the Apocolypse of Paul, and many other such books. It is my belief that the books God wanted included in scripture are.

Besides my belief that the Textus Receptus are the only reliable manuscripts, I also dislike new translations because they open the door up for wilful abuse. For example, there is a new NIV Bible that is gender neutral. They didn't make it that way because it was more accurate, but because it had a market among feminists. There is the New World Translation, used by the Jehovah's Witness. When they go about witnessing now, they try to explain how it is yet another modern translation of the Bible, and supposedly more accurate than the rest. If these groups can do this, so can any other. Pentecostals will have a Bible emphasising gifts of the Spirit. Baptists will have a Bible emphasising eternal security. Wesleyans will have a Bible emphasising sanctification, and the fact you can lose your salvation. To me, the new translations cause nothing but confusion.

I also hate sitting in church, and not knowing what the minister is going to read from. In some cases, you would have to carry 6 or 8 translations to church to keep up with him, as many like to use a verse from one translation for one point, and another for a differen't point. It is something to see how a minister can craft a sermon in such a way with the aid of so many translations into saying just about anything he wishes. I won't attend any church where they don't use the King James Bible anymore.

When it comes down to the history of the Bible, it also depends on who you trust what you will hear. I normally do business with a Christian book store run by independent baptists, and their version of Bible history is differen't from yours. The books they sell telling about how we got our Bible are differen't from yours. As such, they won't sell any modern day translations, which is one of the reasons I like shopping there.

I don't think this thread was really intended to debate the subject of new translations. I have been doing that in 4 or 5 others since I joined Worthy. The question I had, as well as am bassador, is why the KJV wasn't an option for Bible of choice? As a result, both of us voted other. I noticed we weren't the only ones, and I would imagine a lot of those that voted that way use the King James Bible.

I can't say I agree with you on the God preserved his word for the KJV part, but I do agree with you with much of the rest of your post. Its true that if we are not careful, we will have custom tailored Bibles to different denominations. I could not agree with you more on that. Also, I agree with you on Gender Neutral Bibles as well. I don't see the point in them other than they are obviously just attempts at pleasing certain groups. However, some of the modern translations are collaborative works, and were reviewed by theologians of many different denominations. I know the New American Bible (Official American Catholic Bible) and the New Revised Standard Bible (KJV is the base version for it I think) are both translations that were reviewed by theologians of many different denominations. Personally, the main Bible I use is the New American Bible from my old Catholic days. Its heavily footnoted with historical context and theological notes and because its meant for liturgial use, the grammer has a very nice flow to it. I think its all a matter of personal preference though and you did provide a very good explanation on why you prefer the KJV. Also, I know what you mean by not knowing what Pastors are going to use in their Sermons. Even though I was raised Catholic, being raised in Arkansas, I have been to many different Southern Baptist and at least one Pentecostal Church. You never knew which Bible they would be using. The Episcopal Church we are members of now though always uses the New Revised Standard Bible in readings. They also always have several copies in the pews, but you really don't need them as the readings are always in that weeks program anyway.

In the Church my wife's parents attend, which is a non-denominational one down in Houston. Its like a classroom. It has auditorium like seating, they only sing maybe one or two hymns, then the pastor fires up an overhead projector, everyone takes out there notes, and he takes the original Hebrew or Greek, and they work through the translation. We have been with them while we were down visiting, but as they may spend an hour and a half on just a few verses, its kind of hard to follow without going reguarly.

Also, I agree with you on the KJV not being an option. It is kind of absurd for it not to on there. No Orthodox Bibles were listed or Catholic ones either. I

[Guest spiersdodgerblue]

Just wondering

I started my walk with NIV but as I grow I have found I receive a better understanding through the NKJV.

I also use The Strong's Concordance & Vine's Dictionary

Edited January 17, 2007 by spiersdodgerblue

[GodisTruth]

I didn't vote because I use more than one translation. I read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, Amplified, New American Translation. I like to compare the different versions.

[AnotherTraveler]

KJV

If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.

RELAX I'm just kidding. I know Paul used the NIV

[Guest grace5]

I know Paul used the NIV

Nearly Inspired Version

Another reason their is so much differance in the various trnaslations is in the way they were translated

The three techniques are:

1. Formal Equivalency

2. Dynamic Equivalency

3. Paraphrasing

more herehttp://www.christianjournal.org/is-inerrancy-enough-a14.html

I use the KJV only,but I have a parallel bible which shows just how out of whack sometime the other versions can be

[AnotherTraveler]

Nearly Inspired Version

That is good.

I am mostly a KJV fan, but I am older and KJV has been my old familiar bible for over 30 years. I do also read the parallel bible, and I agree that some of these versions really wander off the point.