What Bible do you use?

[twerpv]

To those posting in this thread that don't want to discuss this: why are you posting in this thread? It always amazes me when people post in threads they don't want to discuss or like. Confusing?

[ShilohRose]

I rely mostly on the KJV, but I also use the NASB. I have an NIV, but I rarely use it. I also have a Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible KJV, which is very helpful. The KJV is the easiest to memorize for me, and it is the most beautiful when read aloud. I love reading it out loud and feeling the power of presence of God in His Word.

Welcome to the Forums!

[mikhen7]

To those posting in this thread that don't want to discuss this: why are you posting in this thread? It always amazes me when people post in threads they don't want to discuss or like. Confusing?

I think WordDivine made it clear that his intent was to help him to find out what others used so he could also look into the translations for himself. There was a previous thread that put a bad taste in the mouths of some because of Translation bashing. When it was clear that this thread was not for that purpose then others felt free to share. Hope that helps. That is how I saw it.

God Be with you!

[SonSeeker]

because they can still follow with out getting grumpy

Well, I am a grandpa, so the shoe fits. But I only get grumpy when the pastor starts jumping from place to place in his bible without giving us stodgy, slow, set in our ways, old timers time to catch up.

[SonSeeker]

WordDivine, welcome to the boards.


I have been using the NASB, NIV, and now NLT Parallel Study Bible which includes the Life Application Study Bible. I like this the best for study and reading as I can simply read it without getting bogged down in sentence structure and pronouns. My second favorite is the NASB probably because it was given to me when I was saved back in the early 80's.

I also have used the NKJV courtesy of Coach Joe Gibbs. It is really great for witnessing and for helping new believers to get started in reading the Bible. I do have a KJV family Bible handed down from my grandmother which is dated 1834.

In answer to your OP question, I use the NLT for study and reading, and the NASB at church as that's what the pastor uses, and it's easier to follow along that way.

Different bibles for different purposes. The important thing isn't what bible we read, but that we read it!!

[mikhen7]

Well, I am a grandpa, so the shoe fits. But I only get grumpy when the pastor starts jumping from place to place in his bible without giving us stodgy, slow, set in our ways, old timers time to catch up.

I will definitely remember that!!

Praise Him!!!

[Meg]

WordDivine, welcome to the boards.


I have been using the NASB, NIV, and now NLT Parallel Study Bible which includes the Life Application Study Bible. I like this the best for study and reading as I can simply read it without getting bogged down in sentence structure and pronouns. My second favorite is the NASB probably because it was given to me when I was saved back in the early 80's.

I also have used the NKJV courtesy of Coach Joe Gibbs. It is really great for witnessing and for helping new believers to get started in reading the Bible. I do have a KJV family Bible handed down from my grandmother which is dated 1834.

In answer to your OP question, I use the NLT for study and reading, and the NASB at church as that's what the pastor uses, and it's easier to follow along that way.

Different bibles for different purposes. The important thing isn't what bible we read, but that we read it!!

Here's a great big hearty AMEN!!!

[Robert]

Im not on here to debate which is the accurate version. I am asking for insight on deferent versions and opinions. I think when it comes to the Bible the Holy Spirit intervenes with us individually no matter which version you read. GOD uses different forms to teach and reach his children.

Fair enough, that is a legitimate reason. I didn't mean to come off as harsh; I was just concerned about the topic. But yeah, I read the NASB and at times the NIV.

[livin_in_the_Son]

I also apologize, but until you clarified your purpose, I read the implied intent wrongly.

I have used a KJV, and NKJV, The Good News Bible, and American Standard growing up. As a young adult I got an NIV devotional bible. I got a Quest Study bible NIV version, and a Life Apllication Study Bible NLT version within the last few years. When I'm studying I have them all out and flip back and forth, but when I'm just enjoying the Word, I typically read the NLT version.

[GlennO]

In order of use

NASB 95

NLT

ESV

AMP

Wuest (NT)

NKJV

[Ducati]

Why would one be ashamed to say what version they read...? , makes no sense. I personally have never seen or read a more amazing Bible than the Expositors Study Bible (KJV). Every verse and phrase is explained and broken down right in the text , not in the margin or at the bottom of the page.

The message bible...wow, new age gospel in its purist form.

[ftwspursfan]

I primarily use a NASB hardback Macarthur Study Bible. My pastor uses the Holman from the pulpit. I like the Holman and I read the NLT at times also.

[Jared Hanley]

My wife and I mainly use the ESV. Partially because I was part of the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd for a few years. I'm still recovering from that. (Not from monergism but from some of the legalism and mean-spiritedness of that movement)

But, I like the ESV because it's more literal than the NIV but more readable than the NASB. I think most people agree that the NASB is one of the most literal translations on the market. But, typically if I want an extremely literal translation, I'll pick up my Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear Bible. I have the Greek and Hebrew right there so I can look the words up myself. My interlinear has the Strong's numbers so I can look up the definitions in the Hebrew and Greek lexicon that's contained in the Strong's Concordance.

[mattfivefour]

My wife and I mainly use the ESV. Partially because I was part of the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd for a few years. I'm still recovering from that. (Not from monergism but from some of the legalism and mean-spiritedness of that movement)

But, I like the ESV because it's more literal than the NIV but more readable than the NASB. I think most people agree that the NASB is one of the most literal translations on the market. But, typically if I want an extremely literal translation, I'll pick up my Hebrew-Greek-English Interlinear Bible. I have the Greek and Hebrew right there so I can look the words up myself. My interlinear has the Strong's numbers so I can look up the definitions in the Hebrew and Greek lexicon that's contained in the Strong's Concordance.

Bro, I highly recommend getting a Vine's Expository Dictionary. It will give you a far greater grasp of the word meanings than Strong's. Strong's is a concordance. It is not a dictionary. It will give you every possible mention of the lemma of any word but the word's meaning may vary greatly depending on the context. The problem with Strong's is that because it gives every possible meaning of a word, the reader is able to choose the meaning that seems right to them or that fits the doctrine they like, without any regard to the meaning in context. Now there are many word-for-word Greek and Hebrew study aids but they can be very complicated to use. I have many of them, but one of the simplest to use and one that is sufficient for most bible study is Vine's.

[Hannah]

Why would one be ashamed to say what version they read...? , makes no sense. I personally have never seen or read a more amazing Bible than the Expositors Study Bible (KJV). Every verse and phrase is explained and broken down right in the text , not in the margin or at the bottom of the page.

The message bible...wow, new age gospel in its purist form.

No one here is ashamed of what they read.

The last time I wrote what I used for a Bible I ended up in any ugly exchange/debate with several posters in the Thread.

I really don't need to make myself vunerable to that again thanks. Been bitten here twice about Bible choices. I would have to be totally stupid to do it all over again.

So why would I want to put myself in that position again?

[MikeD]

What an interesting thread to read. Like most, I too started in the KJV but, now, during reading times, I enjoy the NLT. However, I use many different versions for studying. I'd have to say tho', my prized Bible I'll keep, no matter what, is an old Family Bible (KJV) Dad gave to Mom back in 1956. Mom has all kinds of family history written in it, a registry of family members going back 5 generations, a history of happenings of my sisters and I. Mom also wrote in this Bible supposedly the date I invited Jesus into my heart, May of 1973, just before I graduated from Hi School. Just a wonderful item to keep and cherish. After Mom and Dad passed away my sisters presented the Bible to me and said I should be the one to keep it. Words could never express what that meant to me.

[WordDivine]

Charles Stanley and John MacArthur both like the NASB. In fact, Dr. Stanley is of the published opinion that it is the best of all translations. It does retain much of majesty and cadence of the KJV while offering better scholarship. But for that reason, being more of a formal translation, it is not a easy to read, perhaps, as the NIV which uses more dynamic equivalence (which is not a flaw or a means of "corruption" but rather a legitimate, not to mention necessary, tool of any translator.). Personally, I have never found it awkward to read the NASB; but then I have never found it awkward to read the KJV either, having grown up reading early seventeenth century authors such as Donne, Lovelace, Jonson and Bacon.

I have so many "favorite verses"—seriously!—that I cannot pick just one. However the verse that guides my ministry is Lamentations 4:4. Here it is in both NASB and KJV 1611:

NASB: "The tongue of the infant cleaves to the roof of its mouth because of thirst; the little ones ask for bread, but no one breaks it for them."

KJV: "The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them."

Hebrew is particularly challenging to translate well because it is a very imprecise and emotinal language, not at all the precise and intellectual language of the Greeks. Here is how the authoritative Jewish Publication Society tnaslation renders this same verse:

JPS: "The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst; the young children ask bread, and none breaketh it unto them."

And this is the Thompson Septuagint translation:

Thompson LXX: "The tongue of a sucking babe cleaved to the roof of its mouth for thirst: infants asked for bread, there is none who breaketh it for them."

As I said in a previous post, I am not a Hebrew scholar, therefore I like to examine the old Jewish Hebrew-to-Greek and modern Jewish Hebrew-to-English translations such as these to help ensure the meaning of the original Hebrew.

As to the English translations of the NT, the mainly differ over the balance between formal and dynamic equivalence in translation as well as over which manuscripts they use. There is much debate in some scholarly circles over the reliability of one set of manuscripts over another. Sadly we lack the original autographs, or actually any manuscripts from the apostolic era. We do have some surviving fragments of manuscripts dating to just after 100 AD, shortly after the death of John. We do not find complete manuscripts until about 100 years later. But we have literally thousands of manuscripts and fragments. And there are not a lot of major differences between them. Certainly none that affect any doctrines. God wove His doctrines throughout the bible. None stands on a single verse. Now some manuscripts are missing words or sentences. The question then becomes which is the correct reading, the one most faithful to the missing (and likely long ago decayed) original autograph? Here is where the surrender of the translators to the Holy Spirit becomes very important. It can take a lot of wisdom to decide what is what ... which is why many translations include marginal readings which reflect the variance between manuscripts on a specific point. Unfortunately scribes often put commentary on verses in margins, which later wound up incorporated in the main text. Let me give one example: the well-known and often quoted Romans 8:1.

The KJV reads: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The NASB reads: "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Did the NASB translators decide to chop out part of a verse? No. they used older manuscripts that the KJV translators did not know existed. With modern scholarship, not only do we know these older manuscripts exist but we know there are thousands of copies and fragments and none of them has the longer part of the verse. They all read along the lines of: "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:1-2 NASB) So why do some later manuscripts have the words "... who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" in this verse? One possibility is that these words were a commentary, explaining to neophytes exactly what it means to be "in Christ Jesus". Somewhere along the way, a medieval copyist added the commentary to the verse itself. But much more likely is that the copyist's eye jumped ahead to the fourth verse which reads:

"... so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:4 NASB

To show this is quite likely, look at the Greek of Romans 8:1 and 8:4 side by side, using the manuscripts available to the KJV translators. I have highlighted the relevant clauses in red. They are identical and literally read "not according to the flesh they are walking, but according to the spirit."

Romans 8:1— Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμ&alph a; τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦ σιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα
Romans 8:4— ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦ σιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα

Can you see how easy it would have been for the copyist's eye to have jumped ahead to the 4th verse and copied the phrase into the 1st verse? Then, rather than throw out the entire laboriously hand-copied text of what he had written thus far, he may have decided just to leave it. After all, it did not change the meaning of the original text. It merely added an explanation which, after all, is found just three verse later. Grammatically it is out of place in the first verse because it lacks a relative pronoun. In verse 4 you can see the word τοῖς, which means "who". Thus the fourth verse reads "who walk not after the flesh" etc while the first reads "they walk after the flesh" which lacks coordination with the first clause of the sentence. The translators glossed this by taking the τοῖς that appears in the phrase τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ("who are in Christ Jesus") and making it also introduce the appended clause ("they walk not after the flesh") allowing them to write: "who walk not after the flesh... etc."

Now does this in any way mean God's Word is corrupted? No. Because the words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" are in full accord with bible doctrine, the exact concept being found elsewhere in the NT and, as I have just pointed out, the exact wording is found just three verses later..

As I said in a prior post, God's Word is so awesomely constructed by Him that He ensured it would survive with ALL of what He gave to man to know intact! \o/

I hope this helps you a little by giving you a tiny glimpse at the process of translation and the transmission of manuscripts, thus giving you great confidence in the reliability of God's Word! It truly is AWESOME!!!

God bless.

I have had to read your response several times to be able to understand what you mean. You really seem to know your way around The Book. I'm will be picking up a NASB Bible to use when i study the scripture. Is there a particular brand or version you recommend? Perhaps provide the ISBN. I think part of my problem in understanding certain passages is my grammar. Vocabulary is not my strong suit.

[mattfivefour]

I have had to read your response several times to be able to understand what you mean. You really seem to know your way around The Book. I'm will be picking up a NASB Bible to use when i study the scripture. Is there a particular brand or version you recommend? Perhaps provide the ISBN. I think part of my problem in understanding certain passages is my grammar. Vocabulary is not my strong suit.

Absolutely the best NASB study bible available is the NASB Zondervan Study Bible. You should be able to find it for under $25 in hardcover and under $35 in bonded leather. The ISBN-10 number is 0310910927; the ISBN-13 number is 978-0310910923. You can find it at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and online at Christianbook.com - Shop for Christian Books, Bibles, Music, Homeschool Products, Gifts & more.

Their own promotional material for this Bible says: "The Zondervan NASB Study Bible is hands-down the most comprehensive, up-to-date study Bible available in the New American Standard Bible translation. Combining this widely respected, word-for-word approach with study tools that represent the best in conservative scholarship, reading the Zondervan NASB Study Bible is like having a complete resource library at your fingertips. At the heart of the Zondervan NASB Study Bible is its abundance of in-text study notes. Over 20,000 notes ... draw on the knowledge of today's leading experts to provide valuable commentary right where you need it. No need to flip pages to obtain important insights on biblical words, verses, and passages. An exclusive, center-column reference system guides your study with over 100,000 references. In-text maps give you an instant feel for biblical geography. An extensive NASB concordance guides you swiftly to key verses and study resources. The words of Christ are in red. And there's much, much more."

They are not exaggerating. I recommend this particular study bible for any Christian—new or old. The main author of the study notes is Dr. Kenneth Barker who is a highly reputed conservative scholar and expert in Hebrew and Greek.

[nillapoet]

I think I'm going to have to look into that Zondervan study bible.

Right now I use a Zondervan kids bible for my light reading and a KJV prophecy study bible.

[Ducati]

So why would I want to put myself in that position again?

I'm not. It just seems a bit...............silly that you have such a desire to keep it secret. Frankly I'm very curious now that its been made such a big issue.

To each his/her own.