What Bible do you use?

[WordDivine]

There are so many choices in Bibles. Personally I was raised in a Christian home. My parents were ministers and since I was a child I read either the AV1611 or KJV very similar with a few differences. I was in the world for a while but GOD had mercy on me and spared my life so many times. Its been a year since I started my walk with Christ again, it has been a rough road but GOD is working with me. I have been reading the Bible started using the NIV version its easier to read but I notice there are a few things missing and some meaningful tones are left out. As a child I read the Bible so many times read the New Testament a few times and the majority of the Old Testament so lots of the Bible has been ingrained in my mind. I really like the NIV easy read but feel the KJV is what I should use as well. Im not here trying to debate the which version is best to use issue. I have done research online and have found numerous opinions regarding modern translation. As Believers we know that satan is a liar and likes to confuse people wether born again or not to the point that we forget the ultimate goal, which is to serve GOD Almighty and get to heaven.

I would like opinions on using the Bible, not a debate on versions, but rather an explanation on your Bible or Bibles of choice and your reading habits including if you ever compare scriptures between different translations.

For me using an easy understandable version is very appealing. I will continue using the NIV but I will also use the AV1611 KJV and the NKJV but ultimately relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Hannah]

This is a hot issue & there is no way it can be discussed without there ending up argument and debate. There will be tears.

Honestly why does it matter to you what I read or why I read what I do??

If you have a version that suits you. Great!

[WordDivine]

I understand its human (devils) nature to argue, but as Believers we should discuss this.

[rossnixon]

Have been using the NASB for the past 36 years. But I like the look of the Holman (HCSB) version.

[Hannah]

I understand its human (devils) nature to argue, but as Believers we should discuss this.

Why?

[WordDivine]

Why?

I believe the sharing our opinions on this matter will help in producing a more deeper understanding of GODs Divine word. As individuals our mind sometimes only comprehends things one way but when things are brought to light we can achieve a better rooted understanding. Some people are wired that way.

[Hannah]

I believe the sharing our opinions on this matter will help in producing a more deeper understanding of GODs Divine word. As individuals our mind sometimes only comprehends things one way but when things are brought to light we can achieve a better rooted understanding. Some people are wired that way.

How does knowing other people's Bible preference do this??

What better rooted understanding are you desiring for us to get to know through this exercise??

[livin_in_the_Son]

I believe the sharing our opinions on this matter will help in producing a more deeper understanding of GODs Divine word. As individuals our mind sometimes only comprehends things one way but when things are brought to light we can achieve a better rooted understanding. Some people are wired that way.

I don't agree....I think that most people prefer one version because it was their "first" experience wiith God's word. I have found that a lot of people on this forum use more than one version in order to enhance their study and understanding...but unless the version in question is a paraphrased version that is far removed from the true word of God (read: The Message), than a person's preference is simply that....a personal preference, no discussion is needed or warrented, and like Hannah pointed out, will only promote division in the body of Christ. We are humans, and as such are broken in nature, and it's completely unnecessary to deliberately start a debate that will only create undue distress. The world we live in currently is gonna do that enough without delving into a 'one version is better than another' argument.

[mattfivefour]

Well, we seem to have this go round from time to time. Must be something people just have to discuss. So, once again: for myself, my primary Bible is the NASB 1995 (it is superior to the 1971 and revisions) because it is the most accurate of all Bibles in terms of both translation and manuscripts used. But in my study I also use the KJV 1611, despite it few flaws; and, as well, I use the NIV, the Wuest, Vincent's, Phillips, Amplified, NLT, CEV, the Stephanus TR Greek, Wescott-Hort Greek, Byzantine Majority Greek, and Apostolic. I am not a Hebrew scholar and use mainly the JPS, Thompson's Septuagint, and the Masoretic Hebrew Interlinear for the OT, in addition to the major translations previously mentioned.

There is no perfect bible translation, but the awesome thing about God's Word is it does not depend on the specific words that honest translators choose, or the language into which it is translated, but it is so ingeniously inspired and woven that every doctrine can be found and every truth revealed regardless of the translation or the language. (BTW, I am excluding most paraphrases because, by definition, they rely completely on the theological presuppositions of the translation committees. And some of them—such as The Message Bible—are absolutely atrocious, changing the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew completely from what God has said.)

I hope this helps. If you require more specifics as to why certain translations are weaker or stronger, please PM me. And please understand we will not permit an argument over translations or a bashing of them on this site.

BTW, welcome to RF. I pray you are blessed by the ministry here. If you have any questions feel free to PM me or any other member of the mod/admin team.

[Robert]

I understand its human (devils) nature to argue, but as Believers we should discuss this.

It has been discussed before here, and it always comes down to "which version is THE accurate version". That is a "discussion" that would be best NOT revisited.

[Hannah]

If you must discuss it here is a previous thread on the topic.

Is The Kjv The Only Reliable Translation?

[WordDivine]

Well, we seem to have this go round from time to time. Must be something people just have to discuss. So, once again: for myself, my primary Bible is the NASB 1995 (it is superior to the 1971 and revisions) because it is the most accurate of all Bibles in terms of both translation and manuscripts used. But in my study I also use the KJV 1611, despite it few flaws; and, as well, I use the NIV, the Wuest, Vincent's, Phillips, Amplified, NLT, CEV, the Stephanus TR Greek, Wescott-Hort Greek, Byzantine Majority Greek, and Apostolic. I am not a Hebrew scholar and use mainly the JPS, Thompson's Septuagint, and the Masoretic Hebrew Interlinear for the OT, in addition to the major translations previously mentioned.

There is no perfect bible translation, but the awesome thing about God's Word is it does not depend on the specific words that honest translators choose, or the language into which it is translated, but it is so ingeniously inspired and woven that every doctrine can be found and every truth revealed regardless of the translation or the language. (BTW, I am excluding most paraphrases because, by definition, they rely completely on the theological presuppositions of the translation committees. And some of them—such as The Message Bible—are absolutely atrocious, changing the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew completely from what God has said.)

I hope this helps. If you require more specifics as to why certain translations are weaker or stronger, please PM me. And please understand we will not permit an argument over translations or a bashing of them on this site.

BTW, welcome to RF. I pray you are blessed by the ministry here. If you have any questions feel free to PM me or any other member of the mod/admin team.

Thank you for the welcome.
I understand your point of view and I agree as well. I have never read the NASB will defiantly take a look at it. Is there a particular verse that you enjoy the read in the NASB? Post it if you can.

GOD Bless you

[WordDivine]

It has been discussed before here, and it always comes down to "which version is THE accurate version". That is a "discussion" that would be best NOT revisited.

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.

[WordDivine]

How does knowing other people's Bible preference do this??

What better rooted understanding are you desiring for us to get to know through this exercise??

Its a better rooted understanding for me and perhaps others.

[WordDivine]

I don't agree....I think that most people prefer one version because it was their "first" experience wiith God's word. I have found that a lot of people on this forum use more than one version in order to enhance their study and understanding...but unless the version in question is a paraphrased version that is far removed from the true word of God (read: The Message), than a person's preference is simply that....a personal preference, no discussion is needed or warrented, and like Hannah pointed out, will only promote division in the body of Christ. We are humans, and as such are broken in nature, and it's completely unnecessary to deliberately start a debate that will only create undue distress. The world we live in currently is gonna do that enough without delving into a 'one version is better than another' argument.

I can understand why people do prefer the version they started out with. Like myself I love the KJV but now using the NIV for certain scripture helps me grasp the passage. Im not here to divide the body of Christ or debate the purity of Bibles.

[WordDivine]

If you must discuss it here is a previous thread on the topic.

Is The Kjv The Only Reliable Translation?

Im not discussing the reliability of KJV NIV or any other version. Im not debating Bibles. Im just curious and want to discuss views and how we study/read the Bible using different versions.

[mattfivefour]

Thank you for the welcome.
I understand your point of view and I agree as well. I have never read the NASB will defiantly take a look at it. Is there a particular verse that you enjoy the read in the NASB? Post it if you can.

GOD Bless you

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 κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα
Romans 8:4— ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν 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.

[Meg]

I have had several translations over the years, but my main study Bible is the 1984 NIV (published by Tyndale) in the Life Application Study Bible. The copyright date matters, as Zondervan took it upon themselves to "revise" the text a few times since then for the worst. There is actually a Life Application study Bible available in the NASB in print

I have found a good study Bible such as the Life Application is a huge help in understanding the people and issues in Scripture that otherwise would take vast amounts of time and searching to unpack. I was given a Life Application NIV for my first Bible, and the study notes really helped me get on track from the very beginning. I still browse the introductions and footnotes even in my 9th year of daily reading.

I dearly wish people would stop trying to stifle this sort of discussion. It seems some of you have been immersed in church for decades and really don't remember what it can be like to be a beginner full of questions. Questions about the Bible and the Lord our God are fully legitimate and should be welcome at all times. The people I worry about are the ones who don't have questions!

Dear brother Word Divine (welcome to RF, BTW) I recommend you go over Robert's studies in Bible Study Q&A, not because Robert is my husband, but because the studies he wrote were born in his own questions and guided by the Holy Spirit. His material is really good, he works hard on those studies. I have written a couple of studies as well, those reflect my own experience in reading the Word and praying my way through the challenges I have faced in my own walk with the Lord.

Finally, it is my opinion that between the KJV and the NIV, you are likely on the right track. I also hope you took Mattfivefour up on his offer to PM him, he has a lot of experience with Bible study and a huge library which the rest of us wish we could match!

God bless you deeply, Word Divine. I am delighted to meet you here and hope and pray that you grow in the riches of Jesus Christ Who has blessed so many of us in His grace, Amen.

[mikhen7]

I use the NKJV and ESV mostly, but I also use the NASB, the Wuest's, NEB, JB, DSS, Rahlfs LXX interlinear, LXXE, Vincent's, Phillips, NLT Interlinear, LEB, the Stephanus TR Greek, Scrivners Greek, Wescott-Hort Greek, Byzantine Majority Greek, Apostolic Polyglot, Orthodox Bible with NKJV NT, HCSB, Williams, Moffatt, BHS Stuttgartesia, UBS Greek 4th edition, Wesminster Lennigrad Codex, and the NET Bible. Why?? Because I am hungry for God's WORD.

Why NKJV? Well, IMO there are a lot of Sr. Adults and others who still use the KJV. It is what they grew up with. Since they are older a lot of them have a hard time following the newer translations because they do not match theirs and change is, well, tough with grandma and grandpa who are set in their ways. Using the NKJV is a happy medium because they can still follow with out getting grumpy and the updated language allows younger brothers and sisters to understand without being an old English grammarian.

That said, comparison's made in the above translations often give clarity. But I really believe that Pew Bibles would be best suited to the translation the Pastor uses or the church votes to approve. This way everyone can hear the passage in the same semantic.

God bless

[IamPJ]

Well I grew up reading the King James. That's all our parents and church used. But I now have a King James/ Amplified parallel bible that has helped me alot. I also have a NIV study Bible and English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament in the English Standard Version. I've read them all, but do most of my daily reading in the parallel bible.

Oh, I also have the Complete Jewish Bible, but haven't read all the way through it yet. From what I have read, I don't really care for it that much. Almost forgot, I also have the Chronological Bible in New King James Version...I have read through it twice.