Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 1 & 108
Entire Site: 9 & 846
Page Admin: Davideo7, geeogree, Page Staff: Lieutenant Vicktz, play4fun, pray75,
03-28-24 06:20 PM

Forum Links

Thread Information

Views
2,661
Replies
31
Rating
0
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
unknown0s
04-14-12 11:25 AM
Last
Post
tRIUNE
12-15-12 03:11 AM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 672
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


2 Pages
>>
 

Which version of the Bible do you use?

 

04-14-12 11:25 AM
unknown0s is Offline
| ID: 567586 | 33 Words

unknown0s
Level: 37


POSTS: 176/286
POST EXP: 14150
LVL EXP: 325429
CP: 51.3
VIZ: 13973

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I grew up using the good ole King James Version, but I know that there are many different versions of the Bible that are popularly used. 
Which one do you use? and why?
I grew up using the good ole King James Version, but I know that there are many different versions of the Bible that are popularly used. 
Which one do you use? and why?
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-05-11
Last Post: 3888 days
Last Active: 3580 days

04-14-12 11:29 AM
catfight09 is Offline
| ID: 567588 | 53 Words

catfight09
Level: 93


POSTS: 1172/2328
POST EXP: 74403
LVL EXP: 8043573
CP: 395.7
VIZ: 44950

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I'm pretty sure I use the kids' NIV version. I could probably get the regular NIV but I never thought about it. I'm only 13, so I think that the one that I have works just fine for me for now. I might consider getting a new one in a couple of years. 
I'm pretty sure I use the kids' NIV version. I could probably get the regular NIV but I never thought about it. I'm only 13, so I think that the one that I have works just fine for me for now. I might consider getting a new one in a couple of years. 
Trusted Member
Final Fantasy XIII player


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-14-10
Last Post: 3215 days
Last Active: 1917 days

04-14-12 11:36 AM
Hoochman is Offline
| ID: 567589 | 33 Words

Hoochman
Level: 81

POSTS: 1563/1686
POST EXP: 65457
LVL EXP: 4965621
CP: 345.9
VIZ: 142432

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I use the NIV. But I've been thinking about switching to the NASB. I've heard many stories that the NIV might contain changes to doctrine, so I've been thinking of making the change.
I use the NIV. But I've been thinking about switching to the NASB. I've heard many stories that the NIV might contain changes to doctrine, so I've been thinking of making the change.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-25-10
Location: Minnesota
Last Post: 3213 days
Last Active: 549 days

06-05-12 12:27 PM
julis92 is Offline
| ID: 596570 | 15 Words

julis92
Level: 27


POSTS: 27/141
POST EXP: 5817
LVL EXP: 110035
CP: 28.3
VIZ: 27703

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
In English I use the New International Version. In Spanish I use Reyna-Valera.. Just saying.
In English I use the New International Version. In Spanish I use Reyna-Valera.. Just saying.
Trusted Member
I am a lover not a fighter, but I will fight for what I love!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-31-12
Location: I have no idea. I guess I'm lost?
Last Post: 4020 days
Last Active: 2352 days

06-05-12 12:41 PM
Stockton90 is Offline
| ID: 596577 | 35 Words

Stockton90
Level: 34


POSTS: 31/245
POST EXP: 12367
LVL EXP: 252683
CP: 4.8
VIZ: 13099

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I mostly read from the KJV 1611 bible. I've heard the amplified version is also quite good and I am considering picking one up. Whatever Bible speaks to your spirit is the one to get.
I mostly read from the KJV 1611 bible. I've heard the amplified version is also quite good and I am considering picking one up. Whatever Bible speaks to your spirit is the one to get.
Member
Nostalgic Adventurer


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-09-12
Location: Ontario, Canada
Last Post: 4176 days
Last Active: 4147 days

(edited by Stockton90 on 06-05-12 12:42 PM)    

06-26-12 02:10 PM
micah7seven is Offline
| ID: 607230 | 1661 Words

micah7seven
Level: 12


POSTS: 6/22
POST EXP: 22701
LVL EXP: 6786
CP: 422.7
VIZ: 16068

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
The Original Languages of the Bible
The Bible was originally written in three different languages over a period of nearly fifteen hundred years (roughly 1400 B.C.–A.D. 90). The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few Aramaic portions. The New Testament was written in Greek. While sections of the Old Testament previously had been translated into a few other languages (mainly Greek), as soon as the Christian gospel began to permeate other cultures, the entire Bible was quickly translated into many other languages—Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, etc.

History of the English Language
Any living language is constantly changing. Modern English (as classified by linguists) is a relatively recent phenomenon—just a few hundred years old.
The “grandfather language” of English is Old English, the Anglo-Saxon dialect that conquering Germanic tribes brought with them to England in the fifth century A.D. (The word English is derived from Angles, the name of one of these conquering tribes.) Later, when William the Conqueror defeated the Germanic tribes at the Battle of Hastings (1066), he and his Norman conquerors brought with them a French influence. Allegorically, we might say that the English language’s Anglo-Saxon grandfather married a French lady. The intermarried Germanic-French language that evolved from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries is known as Middle English (Modern English’s metaphorical father). Latin, the language of the church for centuries, also had some influence on the development of the English language.

History of the English Bible
While Latin was the official language of the church, a few portions of the Bible were translated into Old English (Anglo-Saxon) from the seventh to the eleventh centuries. In 1382, the famous reforming church leader John Wycliffe (1330–1384) translated the entire Bible into the English of his day (Middle English). The translation was based on the Latin Vulgate and was copied by hand, as the printing press had not yet been introduced to Europe. Followers of Wycliffe continued to call for reform of the church and the monarchy, based on the biblical truth they were reading. Very quickly, church officials and the king judged the availability of the Bible in English as a threat to the status quo.

In 1414, reading the Bible in English became a capital offense (that is, punishable by death). In 1428, Wycliffe’s body was exhumed and symbolically burned at the stake.2 In 1526, William Tyndale (1494–1536) published the first printed (with a printing press) English New Testament, translated from the Greek original. Tyndale printed the New Testaments in continental Europe and smuggled them into England.

The first complete printed English Bible appeared in 1535. It was called the Coverdale Bible because it was published under the leadership of Miles Coverdale, Tyndale’s assistant. Tyndale was captured by followers of King Henry VIII, and in 1536, he was strangled and burned at the stake. As he was dying, Tyndale reportedly prayed, “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.” Only one year later, Tyndale’s request was granted, as the king officially licensed the distribution of an English translation of the Bible. During the next hundred years, a spate of English Bible translations were produced, most of them heavily dependent on Tyndale’s seminal work.

The Bible in Modern English
During the last one hundred years, and especially the last fifty, many good, reliable, and readable translations have been produced in English. Modern English speakers face a choice unlike any in the history of Bible translation. Rather than ask, “Which translation is best?” It is better to recognize that all translations have strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it is advisable for a Christian to own multiple Bible translations. The only Bible translations we can label as completely bad are those done by sectarian or cultic groups, such as the New World Translation (NWT), the Jehovah’s Witness translation that attempts to remove scriptural teaching on the deity of Christ.

Approaches to Translation
There are two main approaches to Bible translation, and all translations fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. On one side is the functionally equivalent translation, sometimes called dynamically equivalency.. This is a translation that seeks to accurately convey the same meaning in a new language but is not so concerned about preserving the same number of words or equivalent grammatical constructions. The New Living Translation (NLT) is a good example of a reliable functionally equivalent translation.

On the other end of the spectrum is the formally equivalent translation. This type of translation is very concerned to preserve, as much as possible, the number of words and grammatical constructions from the original. Because languages are so different, a formally equivalent translation almost inevitably results in a stilted English style. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and English Standard Version (ESV) are examples of formally equivalent translations. The New International Version (NIV) falls somewhere in the middle, being more functionally equivalent than the ESV but more formally equivalent than the NLT.

For reading larger portions of scripture (reading through the Bible in one year, for example), a person might choose a functionally equivalent translation. For careful verse-by-verse study, one might prefer a more formally equivalent translation. In explaining a difficult passage to others in preaching or teaching, it is sometimes helpful to quote other Bible translations that clarify the meaning of the passage. Also, in personal study, reading a passage in multiple translations frequently results in increased comprehension. It is advisable to vary the Bible translation one reads to hear the text afresh.

Paraphrases
A paraphrase is not really a Bible translation but an attempt to freely word the meaning of the biblical text. A paraphrase is usually done by one person and allows for more interpretive comments than a functionally equivalent translation. Sometimes a paraphrase seeks to recast the biblical narrative in the setting of a certain subculture. The Word on the Street, a paraphrase by Rob Lacey, casts the Bible as “urban performance art.” Clarence Jordan’s famous paraphrase, The Cotton Patch Version, sets Jesus’ ministry in the Southern United States of the 1950s, replacing Pharisees with white supremacists and Samaritans with African-Americans. The Message, by Eugene Peterson, seeks to clarify obscure passages and put them in the gritty language of everyday life. The original Living Bible was a paraphrase of the American Standard Version (a formally equivalent translation completed in 1901) by Kenneth Taylor, which he composed for his children during his daily train commute.4 (The New Living Translation, however, is not a paraphrase but a dynamically equivalent translation.) In contrast to paraphrases, Bible translations are always based on Greek and Hebrew texts and are worked on by large committees of diverse scholars, preventing a narrowness of interpretation and guaranteeing that the work remains a translation rather than veering into an idiosyncratic interpretation or paraphrase.

The King James Version
The best Bible translations are based on the most reliable ancient manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. The King James Version (KJV) is not highly recommended because it is not based on the best manuscripts and because the seventeenth-century English is hard for most modern people to understand. Unfortunately, many hotel Bibles and other giveaway Bibles are the KJV translation. While it was an excellent work for its day, the KJV has been surpassed by many modern translations in both readability and faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Some people wrongly and often passionately claim the KJV is a superior translation of the Bible. The historical and linguistic facts do not support this claim. For those who continue to insist on their preference for the KJV, the New King James Version (NKJV) is possibly a better option—being based on the same manuscript tradition of the KJV but updated somewhat in language.

Recent Translation Debates
In recent years, conservative Bible translators have clashed over how to translate generic pronouns and similar constructions. For example, in older English, as well as ancient Greek, the pronoun he (or autos, in Greek) frequently was used to refer generically to both men and women. Fifty years ago, all English teachers would have said, “If a student wants to speak to me after class, he should stay in the room.” Recently, there has been a move in English toward an informal generic “they” or “their” (“If a student wants to speak to me after class, they should stay in the room.” ) or the more cumbersome, “If a student wants to speak with me after class, he or she should stay in the room.” Bible translators debate whether translating autos (“he” ) as “he or she” or anthrōpos (“man” ) as “person” faithfully conveys the meaning of the original. While the debate can be quite impassioned, the sides are closer than they appear, both acknowledging that much gender-specific language in the Bible was understood by the original recipients as applying to women too. For example, virtually all translators acknowledge that Paul’s letters addressed to adelphoi (“brothers” ) in churches were in reality for all Christians, both men and women. The question remains, however, whether a Bible translation should render the expression adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” or “brothers.” Is “brothers and sisters” an interpretation or translation? As one can see, this debate involves the distinction between formally and functionally equivalent translation theories. Scholars favoring the more gender-neutral translations are usually more inclined toward functionally equivalent translation theory. Those favoring a more strict correspondence of expressions are usually more disposed toward formally equivalent approaches to translation. Conservative, Bible-believing scholars, however, are agreed that Greek and Hebrew masculine pronouns for God should be rendered as masculine English pronouns (“he,” “his” or “him” ) because God has revealed himself as Father.

Source: Plummer, Robert L. 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible  (Kindle Locations 1579-1618). Kregel Publications - Kindle Edition.

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Brake, Donald L. A Visual History of the English Bible: The Tumultuous Tale of the World’s Bestselling Book. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Fee, Gordon D., and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.



The Original Languages of the Bible
The Bible was originally written in three different languages over a period of nearly fifteen hundred years (roughly 1400 B.C.–A.D. 90). The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few Aramaic portions. The New Testament was written in Greek. While sections of the Old Testament previously had been translated into a few other languages (mainly Greek), as soon as the Christian gospel began to permeate other cultures, the entire Bible was quickly translated into many other languages—Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, etc.

History of the English Language
Any living language is constantly changing. Modern English (as classified by linguists) is a relatively recent phenomenon—just a few hundred years old.
The “grandfather language” of English is Old English, the Anglo-Saxon dialect that conquering Germanic tribes brought with them to England in the fifth century A.D. (The word English is derived from Angles, the name of one of these conquering tribes.) Later, when William the Conqueror defeated the Germanic tribes at the Battle of Hastings (1066), he and his Norman conquerors brought with them a French influence. Allegorically, we might say that the English language’s Anglo-Saxon grandfather married a French lady. The intermarried Germanic-French language that evolved from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries is known as Middle English (Modern English’s metaphorical father). Latin, the language of the church for centuries, also had some influence on the development of the English language.

History of the English Bible
While Latin was the official language of the church, a few portions of the Bible were translated into Old English (Anglo-Saxon) from the seventh to the eleventh centuries. In 1382, the famous reforming church leader John Wycliffe (1330–1384) translated the entire Bible into the English of his day (Middle English). The translation was based on the Latin Vulgate and was copied by hand, as the printing press had not yet been introduced to Europe. Followers of Wycliffe continued to call for reform of the church and the monarchy, based on the biblical truth they were reading. Very quickly, church officials and the king judged the availability of the Bible in English as a threat to the status quo.

In 1414, reading the Bible in English became a capital offense (that is, punishable by death). In 1428, Wycliffe’s body was exhumed and symbolically burned at the stake.2 In 1526, William Tyndale (1494–1536) published the first printed (with a printing press) English New Testament, translated from the Greek original. Tyndale printed the New Testaments in continental Europe and smuggled them into England.

The first complete printed English Bible appeared in 1535. It was called the Coverdale Bible because it was published under the leadership of Miles Coverdale, Tyndale’s assistant. Tyndale was captured by followers of King Henry VIII, and in 1536, he was strangled and burned at the stake. As he was dying, Tyndale reportedly prayed, “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.” Only one year later, Tyndale’s request was granted, as the king officially licensed the distribution of an English translation of the Bible. During the next hundred years, a spate of English Bible translations were produced, most of them heavily dependent on Tyndale’s seminal work.

The Bible in Modern English
During the last one hundred years, and especially the last fifty, many good, reliable, and readable translations have been produced in English. Modern English speakers face a choice unlike any in the history of Bible translation. Rather than ask, “Which translation is best?” It is better to recognize that all translations have strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it is advisable for a Christian to own multiple Bible translations. The only Bible translations we can label as completely bad are those done by sectarian or cultic groups, such as the New World Translation (NWT), the Jehovah’s Witness translation that attempts to remove scriptural teaching on the deity of Christ.

Approaches to Translation
There are two main approaches to Bible translation, and all translations fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. On one side is the functionally equivalent translation, sometimes called dynamically equivalency.. This is a translation that seeks to accurately convey the same meaning in a new language but is not so concerned about preserving the same number of words or equivalent grammatical constructions. The New Living Translation (NLT) is a good example of a reliable functionally equivalent translation.

On the other end of the spectrum is the formally equivalent translation. This type of translation is very concerned to preserve, as much as possible, the number of words and grammatical constructions from the original. Because languages are so different, a formally equivalent translation almost inevitably results in a stilted English style. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) and English Standard Version (ESV) are examples of formally equivalent translations. The New International Version (NIV) falls somewhere in the middle, being more functionally equivalent than the ESV but more formally equivalent than the NLT.

For reading larger portions of scripture (reading through the Bible in one year, for example), a person might choose a functionally equivalent translation. For careful verse-by-verse study, one might prefer a more formally equivalent translation. In explaining a difficult passage to others in preaching or teaching, it is sometimes helpful to quote other Bible translations that clarify the meaning of the passage. Also, in personal study, reading a passage in multiple translations frequently results in increased comprehension. It is advisable to vary the Bible translation one reads to hear the text afresh.

Paraphrases
A paraphrase is not really a Bible translation but an attempt to freely word the meaning of the biblical text. A paraphrase is usually done by one person and allows for more interpretive comments than a functionally equivalent translation. Sometimes a paraphrase seeks to recast the biblical narrative in the setting of a certain subculture. The Word on the Street, a paraphrase by Rob Lacey, casts the Bible as “urban performance art.” Clarence Jordan’s famous paraphrase, The Cotton Patch Version, sets Jesus’ ministry in the Southern United States of the 1950s, replacing Pharisees with white supremacists and Samaritans with African-Americans. The Message, by Eugene Peterson, seeks to clarify obscure passages and put them in the gritty language of everyday life. The original Living Bible was a paraphrase of the American Standard Version (a formally equivalent translation completed in 1901) by Kenneth Taylor, which he composed for his children during his daily train commute.4 (The New Living Translation, however, is not a paraphrase but a dynamically equivalent translation.) In contrast to paraphrases, Bible translations are always based on Greek and Hebrew texts and are worked on by large committees of diverse scholars, preventing a narrowness of interpretation and guaranteeing that the work remains a translation rather than veering into an idiosyncratic interpretation or paraphrase.

The King James Version
The best Bible translations are based on the most reliable ancient manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. The King James Version (KJV) is not highly recommended because it is not based on the best manuscripts and because the seventeenth-century English is hard for most modern people to understand. Unfortunately, many hotel Bibles and other giveaway Bibles are the KJV translation. While it was an excellent work for its day, the KJV has been surpassed by many modern translations in both readability and faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Some people wrongly and often passionately claim the KJV is a superior translation of the Bible. The historical and linguistic facts do not support this claim. For those who continue to insist on their preference for the KJV, the New King James Version (NKJV) is possibly a better option—being based on the same manuscript tradition of the KJV but updated somewhat in language.

Recent Translation Debates
In recent years, conservative Bible translators have clashed over how to translate generic pronouns and similar constructions. For example, in older English, as well as ancient Greek, the pronoun he (or autos, in Greek) frequently was used to refer generically to both men and women. Fifty years ago, all English teachers would have said, “If a student wants to speak to me after class, he should stay in the room.” Recently, there has been a move in English toward an informal generic “they” or “their” (“If a student wants to speak to me after class, they should stay in the room.” ) or the more cumbersome, “If a student wants to speak with me after class, he or she should stay in the room.” Bible translators debate whether translating autos (“he” ) as “he or she” or anthrōpos (“man” ) as “person” faithfully conveys the meaning of the original. While the debate can be quite impassioned, the sides are closer than they appear, both acknowledging that much gender-specific language in the Bible was understood by the original recipients as applying to women too. For example, virtually all translators acknowledge that Paul’s letters addressed to adelphoi (“brothers” ) in churches were in reality for all Christians, both men and women. The question remains, however, whether a Bible translation should render the expression adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” or “brothers.” Is “brothers and sisters” an interpretation or translation? As one can see, this debate involves the distinction between formally and functionally equivalent translation theories. Scholars favoring the more gender-neutral translations are usually more inclined toward functionally equivalent translation theory. Those favoring a more strict correspondence of expressions are usually more disposed toward formally equivalent approaches to translation. Conservative, Bible-believing scholars, however, are agreed that Greek and Hebrew masculine pronouns for God should be rendered as masculine English pronouns (“he,” “his” or “him” ) because God has revealed himself as Father.

Source: Plummer, Robert L. 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible  (Kindle Locations 1579-1618). Kregel Publications - Kindle Edition.

FOR FURTHER STUDY
Brake, Donald L. A Visual History of the English Bible: The Tumultuous Tale of the World’s Bestselling Book. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Fee, Gordon D., and Mark L. Strauss. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.



Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-25-12
Last Post: 2937 days
Last Active: 2083 days

(edited by micah7seven on 06-26-12 02:12 PM)    

06-27-12 01:30 PM
darkreaver101 is Offline
| ID: 607613 | 9 Words

darkreaver101
Level: 12


POSTS: 13/20
POST EXP: 809
LVL EXP: 6005
CP: 0.0
VIZ: 10128

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
NIV and ESV

I'm not picky to be honest.
NIV and ESV

I'm not picky to be honest.
Member
Darkness is the hearts true essence.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-24-11
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Last Post: 4291 days
Last Active: 4289 days

07-17-12 10:56 PM
SamB is Offline
| ID: 619715 | 40 Words

SamB
Level: 51


POSTS: 359/620
POST EXP: 25938
LVL EXP: 1012099
CP: 203.2
VIZ: 19487

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I don't read the bible, I tried to but thought it was a bunch of nonsense. I think some of it gives good advice while at other times it makes no sense and I laugh at how silly it sounds.
I don't read the bible, I tried to but thought it was a bunch of nonsense. I think some of it gives good advice while at other times it makes no sense and I laugh at how silly it sounds.
Trusted Member
Things that go bump in the night...Me... SamB


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-21-12
Location: Texas
Last Post: 4081 days
Last Active: 3645 days

07-17-12 11:01 PM
mr.pace is Offline
| ID: 619721 | 8 Words

mr.pace
Level: 61


POSTS: 275/874
POST EXP: 42691
LVL EXP: 1854765
CP: 31.1
VIZ: 6580

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
King James Version.  Words of Christ in read.
King James Version.  Words of Christ in read.
Perma Banned
I am the prince of peace. Lord of Light mr.pace.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-17-10
Location: The Dawning of Time
Last Post: 4188 days
Last Active: 4182 days

07-17-12 11:34 PM
play4fun is Offline
| ID: 619754 | 37 Words

play4fun
Level: 114


POSTS: 571/3661
POST EXP: 459253
LVL EXP: 16222059
CP: 21496.5
VIZ: 781220

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Personal preference is ESV due to a more Word for Word translation but still easy and beautiful to read, but I am usually fine with anything that has a word for word translation side of the spectrum.
Personal preference is ESV due to a more Word for Word translation but still easy and beautiful to read, but I am usually fine with anything that has a word for word translation side of the spectrum.
Vizzed Elite
I wanna live like there's no tomorrow/Love, like I'm on borrowed time/It's good to be alive


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-22-09
Location: Quincy, MA
Last Post: 2496 days
Last Active: 2425 days

07-18-12 04:00 AM
tRIUNE is Offline
| ID: 619816 | 42 Words

tRIUNE
Level: 191


POSTS: 5368/12374
POST EXP: 624776
LVL EXP: 97735456
CP: 240947.9
VIZ: 7093601

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
When I became a Christian I started with NLT and read the NT then OT, now have read in NKJV, don't really relate to KJV. Other versions I'm okay with reading although don't prefer: NASB and ESV. I just stick to NKJV.
When I became a Christian I started with NLT and read the NT then OT, now have read in NKJV, don't really relate to KJV. Other versions I'm okay with reading although don't prefer: NASB and ESV. I just stick to NKJV.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin

Hero of Hyrule


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-09-10
Last Post: 938 days
Last Active: 917 days

07-18-12 10:39 PM
AuraBlaze is Offline
| ID: 620246 | 82 Words

AuraBlaze
Level: 105


POSTS: 2599/3111
POST EXP: 208839
LVL EXP: 12037942
CP: 1452.2
VIZ: 92648

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
My parents gave me my first Bible when I was five, and that one was the New International Version. I still use it as my preferred translation. If I feel I need a second translation to get another perspective, I try the English Standard Version when I have Internet access; if I do not have Internet access, I use the New English Translation I have on my iPod Touch. I am open to trying other translations --depending on the circumstances of course.
My parents gave me my first Bible when I was five, and that one was the New International Version. I still use it as my preferred translation. If I feel I need a second translation to get another perspective, I try the English Standard Version when I have Internet access; if I do not have Internet access, I use the New English Translation I have on my iPod Touch. I am open to trying other translations --depending on the circumstances of course.
Vizzed Elite
Illegally Sane


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-23-11
Last Post: 1875 days
Last Active: 1332 days

07-30-12 08:02 AM
orynider is Offline
| ID: 626128 | 174 Words

orynider
Level: 3


POSTS: 1/1
POST EXP: 174
LVL EXP: 70
CP: 6.0
VIZ: 2135

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Hello,
 
I.R.L. I use: The New International Version New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs - English.
The G. Cornilescu, T. Popescu, and E. Constantinescu Traslation 3rd Edition Revised in 1991 by Gute Botshatf Verlag (GBV) - Romanian
Delitzch Hebrew-Romanian New Testament 1987 - Hebrew New Testament translated by 19th century German scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)

Online I use: Restored Name King James Version Peşhitta New Testament - http://www.dukhrana.com/
Holy Bible From The Ancient Eastern Texts: Aramaic Of The Peşhitta by George M. Lamsa (1933)
Revised Cornilescu Bible with Apocrypha - http://bibliaonline.uv.ro/
Romanian Orthodox Bible (1936) http://www.bible.is/RONROB/

I also check:
Tanach from the Masoretic text with embedded Strong's Numbers;
Septuagint LXX Greek Old Testament keyed to Strong's numbers with complete parsing information, and Wescott and Hort 1881 Greek New Testament with NA26/27 variants keyed to Strong's numbers with complete parsing information;
LA SANTA BIBLIA (VERSIÓN BIBLIA DE JERUSALÉN, 1976)
Interlinear Greek New Testament Keyed to Strongs 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus
The Syriac New Testament (The Peşhitta) Unicode Version for E-Sword by Robert Hommel 2006 http://www.bethmardutho.org/

G.B.U.
Hello,
 
I.R.L. I use: The New International Version New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs - English.
The G. Cornilescu, T. Popescu, and E. Constantinescu Traslation 3rd Edition Revised in 1991 by Gute Botshatf Verlag (GBV) - Romanian
Delitzch Hebrew-Romanian New Testament 1987 - Hebrew New Testament translated by 19th century German scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)

Online I use: Restored Name King James Version Peşhitta New Testament - http://www.dukhrana.com/
Holy Bible From The Ancient Eastern Texts: Aramaic Of The Peşhitta by George M. Lamsa (1933)
Revised Cornilescu Bible with Apocrypha - http://bibliaonline.uv.ro/
Romanian Orthodox Bible (1936) http://www.bible.is/RONROB/

I also check:
Tanach from the Masoretic text with embedded Strong's Numbers;
Septuagint LXX Greek Old Testament keyed to Strong's numbers with complete parsing information, and Wescott and Hort 1881 Greek New Testament with NA26/27 variants keyed to Strong's numbers with complete parsing information;
LA SANTA BIBLIA (VERSIÓN BIBLIA DE JERUSALÉN, 1976)
Interlinear Greek New Testament Keyed to Strongs 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus
The Syriac New Testament (The Peşhitta) Unicode Version for E-Sword by Robert Hommel 2006 http://www.bethmardutho.org/

G.B.U.
Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-15-10
Location: Arad, România
Last Post: 4259 days
Last Active: 3649 days

(edited by orynider on 07-30-12 08:08 AM)    

07-31-12 11:04 AM
1238904756 is Offline
| ID: 626659 | 41 Words

1238904756
Level: 9

POSTS: 11/11
POST EXP: 507
LVL EXP: 2488
CP: 21.1
VIZ: 6208

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I use the New Living Translation, but my church uses the English Standard Version (I think that's what ESV stands for...)

The idea behind NLT wasn't to translate the bible word for word, but idea for idea, if that makes sense.
I use the New Living Translation, but my church uses the English Standard Version (I think that's what ESV stands for...)

The idea behind NLT wasn't to translate the bible word for word, but idea for idea, if that makes sense.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-01-11
Last Post: 4258 days
Last Active: 4145 days

08-14-12 12:18 PM
jasonkelli is Offline
| ID: 634492 | 870 Words

jasonkelli
Level: 23


POSTS: 4/98
POST EXP: 21298
LVL EXP: 63232
CP: 25.1
VIZ: 15783

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I use the KJV and only use that version of the Bible.  I don't recognize other versions (in the english language) as being the true Word of God for the following three reasons:

1) All the versions (NIV, ESV, etcetera) have points where they contradict themselves.  Since God can not lie, He can not contradict Himself.  Therefore, anything claiming to be the words of God that contradicts itself is a liar.
2) All the versions violate one of the strongest and harshest warnings the Bible hands out:

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Every version removes verses in their translation.  Revelation warns about removing "words" yet some translations remove hundreds of verses (one removes over a thousand verses) which adds up to thousands of words being removed.  Some translations add to verses under the guise of "simplifying" when they are infact putting man's opinion into the verse as if it is one and the same with the verse (nothing wrong with a study Bible, but rewriting a verse where man's words become one and the same with the verse itself is adding to the Word of God and that is a sin with harsh penalty according to Revelation 22:18).

3) Finally comes the source.  The KJV uses a completely different source from all the other versions of the Bible.  Oddly enough, even though all the versions are different from one another...they all use the exact same sources.  Those sources are actually transcripts that have been proven to have been written by gnostics (which deny the gospel as it is taught in the original writings of the prophets and apostles) or to be invalid.  Many of these sources aren't even used by the most highly educated and regarded theologians because the sources are untrustworthy, contradict themselves, and contradict each other.  The KJV uses completely different sources in which no one has managed to find any contradictions within itself even after hundreds of years of scrutiny and despite many offers by individuals (scholars and otherwise) to provide a monetary award to anyone who can.

Do I believe that a Christian who reads the NIV/ESV/etcetera won't go to heaven?  No, I do not.  I believe one can read those versions and still be saved.  But, anything that is of the devil will be designed to keep you from knowing, understanding, and being as close to God as you might otherwise be.  And since I believe God can not contradict Himself and I believe that anything which disrespects God's command not to remove or add to His Words can not be truly of God...I choose to stick with the only version that respects God's wishes and does not contradict itself.  The KJV.

Just a last note as food for thought.  When Christ sent out His disciples He commanded them saying that they were not to accept any form of payment for their preaching or healing or other miracles.  It is a sin to do so.  All versions of the Bible are copywrighted making it illegal to quote them or profit off a book in which you quote a verse from them unless you have specific permission from the company owning those versions.  Pick up any book with quotes from the NIV/ESV etcetera and you will see that they specifically state in the front pages that they received permission to do so.  However, the KJV is not copywrighted.  With the KJV, the words are retained as the property of God and not of man or any other corporation.  As a result, anyone is permitted to speak and quote the words of God in any manner as he feels led to by God's Spirit without fear of legal reprisal.  However, if I go out preaching using the NIV and the owners of the NIV do not like me, they can legally press charges against me for using the NIV to preach with if I did not get their permission to use the NIV.  However, with the KJV, no man can tell me to stop using it to preach nor can any legal action be taken against me for using the KJV to preach with.  I think the very character of these versions in which the NIV/ESV/etcetera have claimed ownerships and copywrights by men while the KJV contains one only by God, Himself, reveals which book is truly of Him.

This is of course something you must investigate for yourself and come to a decision between you and God on.  And don't let anyone lie to you saying that the NIV/ESV/etcetera are the same as the KJV but simpler.  I've read them and compared them.  They are not the same as the KJV and they often use words that are far more complex than what the KJV uses.
I use the KJV and only use that version of the Bible.  I don't recognize other versions (in the english language) as being the true Word of God for the following three reasons:

1) All the versions (NIV, ESV, etcetera) have points where they contradict themselves.  Since God can not lie, He can not contradict Himself.  Therefore, anything claiming to be the words of God that contradicts itself is a liar.
2) All the versions violate one of the strongest and harshest warnings the Bible hands out:

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Every version removes verses in their translation.  Revelation warns about removing "words" yet some translations remove hundreds of verses (one removes over a thousand verses) which adds up to thousands of words being removed.  Some translations add to verses under the guise of "simplifying" when they are infact putting man's opinion into the verse as if it is one and the same with the verse (nothing wrong with a study Bible, but rewriting a verse where man's words become one and the same with the verse itself is adding to the Word of God and that is a sin with harsh penalty according to Revelation 22:18).

3) Finally comes the source.  The KJV uses a completely different source from all the other versions of the Bible.  Oddly enough, even though all the versions are different from one another...they all use the exact same sources.  Those sources are actually transcripts that have been proven to have been written by gnostics (which deny the gospel as it is taught in the original writings of the prophets and apostles) or to be invalid.  Many of these sources aren't even used by the most highly educated and regarded theologians because the sources are untrustworthy, contradict themselves, and contradict each other.  The KJV uses completely different sources in which no one has managed to find any contradictions within itself even after hundreds of years of scrutiny and despite many offers by individuals (scholars and otherwise) to provide a monetary award to anyone who can.

Do I believe that a Christian who reads the NIV/ESV/etcetera won't go to heaven?  No, I do not.  I believe one can read those versions and still be saved.  But, anything that is of the devil will be designed to keep you from knowing, understanding, and being as close to God as you might otherwise be.  And since I believe God can not contradict Himself and I believe that anything which disrespects God's command not to remove or add to His Words can not be truly of God...I choose to stick with the only version that respects God's wishes and does not contradict itself.  The KJV.

Just a last note as food for thought.  When Christ sent out His disciples He commanded them saying that they were not to accept any form of payment for their preaching or healing or other miracles.  It is a sin to do so.  All versions of the Bible are copywrighted making it illegal to quote them or profit off a book in which you quote a verse from them unless you have specific permission from the company owning those versions.  Pick up any book with quotes from the NIV/ESV etcetera and you will see that they specifically state in the front pages that they received permission to do so.  However, the KJV is not copywrighted.  With the KJV, the words are retained as the property of God and not of man or any other corporation.  As a result, anyone is permitted to speak and quote the words of God in any manner as he feels led to by God's Spirit without fear of legal reprisal.  However, if I go out preaching using the NIV and the owners of the NIV do not like me, they can legally press charges against me for using the NIV to preach with if I did not get their permission to use the NIV.  However, with the KJV, no man can tell me to stop using it to preach nor can any legal action be taken against me for using the KJV to preach with.  I think the very character of these versions in which the NIV/ESV/etcetera have claimed ownerships and copywrights by men while the KJV contains one only by God, Himself, reveals which book is truly of Him.

This is of course something you must investigate for yourself and come to a decision between you and God on.  And don't let anyone lie to you saying that the NIV/ESV/etcetera are the same as the KJV but simpler.  I've read them and compared them.  They are not the same as the KJV and they often use words that are far more complex than what the KJV uses.
Member
Silence Accomplishes Naught


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-10-12
Last Post: 3724 days
Last Active: 3255 days

08-17-12 11:48 PM
play4fun is Offline
| ID: 636614 | 142 Words

play4fun
Level: 114


POSTS: 577/3661
POST EXP: 459253
LVL EXP: 16222059
CP: 21496.5
VIZ: 781220

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
jasonkelli : Interesting...I would like to ask a couple of things:

1. If you believe that KJV as being the true Word of God excluding the other versions, what do you think of the previous versions of the Bible, like the Tyndale Bible, Wycliffe Bible, and the Geneva Bible, which also used similar sources to the KJV?

2. Speaking of sources, explain why is the KJV a more appropriate version when it is partially translated through the help of the Latin Vulgate, which is the Latin translation of the original manuscripts rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves?

3. Though I really don't find this to be significant at all, I don't think you are correct about the KJV as not copyrighted, for the United Kingdom owns that license to print and publish that in UK, under the Cambridge University Press.
jasonkelli : Interesting...I would like to ask a couple of things:

1. If you believe that KJV as being the true Word of God excluding the other versions, what do you think of the previous versions of the Bible, like the Tyndale Bible, Wycliffe Bible, and the Geneva Bible, which also used similar sources to the KJV?

2. Speaking of sources, explain why is the KJV a more appropriate version when it is partially translated through the help of the Latin Vulgate, which is the Latin translation of the original manuscripts rather than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves?

3. Though I really don't find this to be significant at all, I don't think you are correct about the KJV as not copyrighted, for the United Kingdom owns that license to print and publish that in UK, under the Cambridge University Press.
Vizzed Elite
I wanna live like there's no tomorrow/Love, like I'm on borrowed time/It's good to be alive


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-22-09
Location: Quincy, MA
Last Post: 2496 days
Last Active: 2425 days

08-18-12 12:40 PM
jasonkelli is Offline
| ID: 636870 | 411 Words

jasonkelli
Level: 23


POSTS: 12/98
POST EXP: 21298
LVL EXP: 63232
CP: 25.1
VIZ: 15783

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
If the UK wants to claim ownership over God's Word that is between them and God.  Here in the United States, I can quote the KJV as much as I want and I can not get in trouble for it.  There is no copywright preventing that.  The UK has a long standing history of taking other people's work and trying to claim ownership of it and as that is a topic for another place and another time I won't get into it.

Original manuscripts?  If you have access to those, please ship them off to the historians and archaeologists who are still looking for them   The men who translated the KJV  had a far better understanding and knowledge of Greek, Hebrew language and culture than most anyone alive today (including those who translated the modern versions.  And even if they didn't...I know that God can not contradict Himself because that would make Him a liar and since all the other versions do contradict themselves, they can not be truly God's perfect Words for perfection can not imperfect.

As for versions preceding the KJV, I don't know and can't speak of.  God promised He would preserve His Word and warned us that satan would pervert it and that in the end days the church would accept the perversions satan established.  The only Word of God to not contradict itself is also the most hated version of the Bible in the World today.  If we truly are in the end days (as many believe) than we must either accept that the most accepted doctrines and books of today are perversions of true doctrine or we must call God a liar for saying that they would be.

So, the question then becomes this...is the version of God's Word that stands in perfection, without contradiction, and without any historical inaccuracy (The NIV has been proven historically inaccurate btw but I will leave it to you to research that) and is the most hated amongst those who hate God and has become unpopular in these end times in the church the true Word of God or is it the many other versions made popular, full of contradictions, historically inaccurate, and popular amongst those who God the true Words of God?  And that is a question you must answer for yourself and give account to God for when you stand before Him just as I will make account to God for the answer I've come to.
If the UK wants to claim ownership over God's Word that is between them and God.  Here in the United States, I can quote the KJV as much as I want and I can not get in trouble for it.  There is no copywright preventing that.  The UK has a long standing history of taking other people's work and trying to claim ownership of it and as that is a topic for another place and another time I won't get into it.

Original manuscripts?  If you have access to those, please ship them off to the historians and archaeologists who are still looking for them   The men who translated the KJV  had a far better understanding and knowledge of Greek, Hebrew language and culture than most anyone alive today (including those who translated the modern versions.  And even if they didn't...I know that God can not contradict Himself because that would make Him a liar and since all the other versions do contradict themselves, they can not be truly God's perfect Words for perfection can not imperfect.

As for versions preceding the KJV, I don't know and can't speak of.  God promised He would preserve His Word and warned us that satan would pervert it and that in the end days the church would accept the perversions satan established.  The only Word of God to not contradict itself is also the most hated version of the Bible in the World today.  If we truly are in the end days (as many believe) than we must either accept that the most accepted doctrines and books of today are perversions of true doctrine or we must call God a liar for saying that they would be.

So, the question then becomes this...is the version of God's Word that stands in perfection, without contradiction, and without any historical inaccuracy (The NIV has been proven historically inaccurate btw but I will leave it to you to research that) and is the most hated amongst those who hate God and has become unpopular in these end times in the church the true Word of God or is it the many other versions made popular, full of contradictions, historically inaccurate, and popular amongst those who God the true Words of God?  And that is a question you must answer for yourself and give account to God for when you stand before Him just as I will make account to God for the answer I've come to.
Member
Silence Accomplishes Naught


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-10-12
Last Post: 3724 days
Last Active: 3255 days

08-18-12 12:44 PM
mr.keys is Offline
| ID: 636875 | 54 Words

mr.keys
Level: 83


POSTS: 778/1773
POST EXP: 57776
LVL EXP: 5330371
CP: 15.1
VIZ: 1318

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I rarely go to church, but when i do i use the king james version. To be completely honest thats the only version i know that a bible has. I guess i should get out of the house more and go to church and then i can find out the other versions there is.
I rarely go to church, but when i do i use the king james version. To be completely honest thats the only version i know that a bible has. I guess i should get out of the house more and go to church and then i can find out the other versions there is.
Perma Banned
Astronaut Status


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-13-10
Location: Mars
Last Post: 4182 days
Last Active: 4182 days

08-18-12 12:50 PM
TheAlphaPro is Offline
| ID: 636879 | 60 Words

TheAlphaPro
Level: 13


POSTS: 11/25
POST EXP: 1234
LVL EXP: 8163
CP: 1637.8
VIZ: 10423

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I go to church every Sunday and I use the original King James version and yes I know there are many other version I just use KJV because that's how I am but on the same token I wouldn't look down on someone else for using a different version as we all think in different ways none exactly the same.
I go to church every Sunday and I use the original King James version and yes I know there are many other version I just use KJV because that's how I am but on the same token I wouldn't look down on someone else for using a different version as we all think in different ways none exactly the same.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-24-12
Location: USA
Last Post: 2116 days
Last Active: 34 days

08-19-12 01:04 AM
wideblock is Offline
| ID: 637310 | 19 Words

wideblock
Level: 8

POSTS: 6/10
POST EXP: 371
LVL EXP: 2109
CP: 243.9
VIZ: 13492

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
unknown0s : The King Jame's Version is probably the best, but harder to understand. I usually just stick with the International.
unknown0s : The King Jame's Version is probably the best, but harder to understand. I usually just stick with the International.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-19-12
Last Post: 4239 days
Last Active: 3042 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×