Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[KJVB]

Question: If all the newest versions are the best why do they keep having to update them? Could it be that the bible is the biggest money maker of all time. To try to make more money they have to come up with a new version all the time.

Yes! Bingo...you hit the nail right on the head. Publishers make mega bucks off of bibles. Thats why we have hundreds of per-versions of the bible. (link removed by moderator). Site engages in criticisms of ministries.) May God give you discernment in this very important matter.

[RGR]

Question: If all the newest versions are the best why do they keep having to update them? Could it be that the bible is the biggest money maker of all time. To try to make more money they have to come up with a new version all the time.

Yes! Bingo...you hit the nail right on the head. Publishers make mega bucks off of bibles. Thats why we have hundreds of per-versions of the bible. For more info go to (link removed by moderator) May God give you discernment in this very important matter.

The KJV itself is a VERSION, aka, a TRANSLATION!!! There were translations before it, even in English. Also, the modern KJV is not the same as it's 1611 counterpart, btw! Forget the KJV, why don't we all learn Greek and Hebrew!

[KJVB]

I own (and use) the New Century Version, New Internation Version, and the New Living Translation. I also have an Amplified Bible on order from Crossings that should be in any day now.

So which one is the REAL WORD of God? They can not all be the WORD of God can they?

[Floatingaxe]

I own (and use) the New Century Version, New Internation Version, and the New Living Translation. I also have an Amplified Bible on order from Crossings that should be in any day now.

So which one is the REAL WORD of God? They can not all be the WORD of God can they?

Yes!

The Word is JESUS! He is on every page, no matter what version you use.

[Marnie]

NO translation is inspired. A translation is the work of man, not a work of G-d. Only the original autographs were inspired. The KJV has legions of errors in it. The NIV as well (at least the NIV is always updating itself and offers alternate translations). You KJV-onlies are a funny lot indeed.

I know the original Hebrew which is why I use the NIV and the ESV. To read the OT from the KJV like drinking watered down milk.

[Floatingaxe]

NO translation is inspired. A translation is the work of man, not a work of G-d. Only the original autographs were inspired. The KJV has legions of errors in it. The NIV as well (at least the NIV is always updating itself and offers alternate translations). You KJV-onlies are a funny lot indeed.

I know the original Hebrew which is why I use the NIV and the ESV. To read the OT from the KJV like drinking watered down milk.

How refreshing!

[Scarletprayers]

NO translation is inspired. A translation is the work of man, not a work of G-d. Only the original autographs were inspired. The KJV has legions of errors in it. The NIV as well (at least the NIV is always updating itself and offers alternate translations). You KJV-onlies are a funny lot indeed.

[Guest Biblicist]

This information is from the NLT website.

English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called "formal-equivalence," "literal," or "word-for-word" translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called "dynamic-equivalence," "functional-equivalence," or "thought-for-thought" translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original- language text, both in meaning and in style.

Both of these translation theories have their strengths. A formal-equivalence translation preserves aspects of the original text--including ancient idioms, term consistency, and original-language syntax--that are valuable for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the original-language text through the English translation. A dynamic-equivalence translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the text's message and clarity in both devotional and public reading.

The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal- equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure.

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.

On the other hand, the NLT translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. More than 90 Bible scholars, along with a group of accomplished English stylists, worked toward that goal. In the end, the NLT is the result of precise scholarship conveyed in living language.

[Vickilynn]

NO translation is inspired. A translation is the work of man, not a work of G-d. Only the original autographs were inspired. The KJV has legions of errors in it. The NIV as well (at least the NIV is always updating itself and offers alternate translations). You KJV-onlies are a funny lot indeed.

I know the original Hebrew which is why I use the NIV and the ESV. To read the OT from the KJV like drinking watered down milk.

Shalom Marnie,

I am not well-versed in Biblical Hebrew, but I have a couple of interlinear bibles. Do you use them and if so, do you have a favorite?

I like the Hebrew / NIV.

[Guest Biblicist]

What is an interliner? Is that the same as an interloper?