User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 4:47:04 AM EDT
[#1]
King James, because that's what I grew up with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 6:07:13 AM EDT
[#2]
King James Authorized Version
Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:00:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James, because that's what I grew up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:14:57 AM EDT
[#4]
I was fond of the N.I.V. for years, the I came across N.L.T. I like it's read-ability much more. It's very clear English. I do not reject other translations, I am just comfortable with this and a couple study bibles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:21:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to solidify on a single translation, but I'm not sure which one. First, I need to decide between the Critical Texts and the Received Texts. What are you guys reading? Any particular reason why? King James Version. 4.8 reading level. Really need to read the background on other translations, the translators, the text they used, and why they are copyrighted. Also, the KJV is the only version that is aligned with the Strongs unabridged concordance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:56:58 AM EDT
[#6]
king james.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:06:13 AM EDT
[#7]
NIV. maybe just because of decades of familiarity, but no other translation reads as easily for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:13:38 AM EDT
[#8]
I use a multitude. KJV, ESV, NASB, Geneva. I have many more, but those are my go to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:16:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James Authorized Version Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:36:58 AM EDT
[#10]
ESV is my base and I also use NIV. ESV is a more literal translation and is used in many seminaries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:39:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say WAT? While I agree with everything else, and probably the bolded statement, I have never heard that before. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
King James Authorized Version Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:43:16 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use a multitude. KJV, ESV, NASB, Geneva. I have many more, but those are my go to. My daily reader is the NASB , because I think it reads better and is a better , more literal translation. I consult the others for different word choice. With Bible study software available online for free, it's easier than ever to study the Word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:46:59 AM EDT
[#13]
NIV because the Bible I'm using has margins I've been writing notes in for over 15 years. If I were to replace it right now, I would get a
Lutheran Study Bible ESV with oversize margins. For just reading purposes I still have my Living Bible from 1972. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 9:08:43 AM EDT
[#14]
New King James version. Here's a good comparison between the various translations and versions. I've probably read four or five versions including Gideon, King James, and Good News.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 11:41:15 AM EDT
[#15]
If you're trying to pare it down to just one translation I'd do a NASB or ESV because their translation philosophy is one that strives for word for word accuracy. Downside is that readability suffers because Greek/Hebrew grammar doesn't always translate well into English.
Myself, I use an NASB when I teach (for the aforementioned reasons) and a Holman Bible for day to day reading. The Holman's translation philosophy is one that strives to accurately express the ideas found in Scripture. The plus side is that its very readable, the downside is that it doesn't have the word for word accuracy of the NASB/ESB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 1:00:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James Version. 4.8 reading level. Really need to read the background on other translations, the translators, the text they used, and why they are copyrighted. If anyone can explain why the Critical Texts are better than the Textus Receptus, I would really like to hear it. The Modern English Version is the only TR-based translation to come out in the past 34 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 1:27:36 PM EDT
[#17]
I read it in the original hebrew and greek. And fwiw, greek participles suck. Paul used way too many of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 1:59:09 PM EDT
[#18]
The 1984 NIV (prior to going PC on us), and the NASB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 1:59:28 PM EDT
[#19]
King James, although I use a English/Greek Septuagint for old testament.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 3:03:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is precisely my issue, otherwise, I would just go with the NASB and call it a day. It sort of baffles me that everyone is so willing to throw out the Textus Receptus in favor of what seem to be really small fragments of really shady manuscripts. It's as if the Critical Texts have some intellectual argument on their side, but I'm really not finding it. If anyone can explain why the Critical Texts are better than the Textus Receptus, I would really like to hear it. The Modern English Version is the only TR-based translation to come out in the past 34 years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
King James Version. 4.8 reading level. Really need to read the background on other translations, the translators, the text they used, and why they are copyrighted. If anyone can explain why the Critical Texts are better than the Textus Receptus, I would really like to hear it. The Modern English Version is the only TR-based translation to come out in the past 34 years. The Alexandrian manuscripts are older - in some cases much older - which is why they're given a priority in modern textual criticism. ETA - Realistically though, there's not much difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 4:29:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, no one has "thrown out" the Textus Receptus. Its still a vital part of the Bible's textual study. But its not the only body of work on the block any more. The Alexandrian manuscripts are older - in some cases much older - which is why they're given a priority in modern textual criticism. ETA - Realistically though, there's not much difference. 1. There are a bit over 3,000 separate pieces. 2. Each piece covers a small portion. 3. The pieces generally do not agree with each other. If #2 and #3 are true, I have a hard time trusting in the work of the scholars to determine what reflects the original autographs and what does not. And I'm saying the Textus Receptus has been thrown out because almost no translation uses it anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:27:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My current understanding of these manuscripts is that: 1. There are a bit over 3,000 separate pieces. 2. Each piece covers a small portion. 3. The pieces generally do not agree with each other. If #2 and #3 are true, I have a hard time trusting in the work of the scholars to determine what reflects the original autographs and what does not. And I'm saying the Textus Receptus has been thrown out because almost no translation uses it anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
First, no one has "thrown out" the Textus Receptus. Its still a vital part of the Bible's textual study. But its not the only body of work on the block any more. The Alexandrian manuscripts are older - in some cases much older - which is why they're given a priority in modern textual criticism. ETA - Realistically though, there's not much difference. 1. There are a bit over 3,000 separate pieces. 2. Each piece covers a small portion. 3. The pieces generally do not agree with each other. If #2 and #3 are true, I have a hard time trusting in the work of the scholars to determine what reflects the original autographs and what does not. And I'm saying the Textus Receptus has been thrown out because almost no translation uses it anymore. The TR is basically the earliest attempt at building a critical Greek text. It was a assembled from relatively late Byzantine texts - we're talking 12th century stuff Erasmus was working with. For what it was and when it was produced it was amazing, but when Erasmus couldn't come up with Greek texts he just translated Latin back into Greek, so it had its issues. The Alexandrian texts are older, and more internally consistent than the Byzantine, and complete. Their discovery has been a significant boon to the lower critical studies of the Scriptures. But again, this discussion between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts is beyond splitting hairs. Its not like they say different things. ETA - If getting a Bible based on the TR is really that big of a deal to you get yourself a KJV & read it to your heart's content. It hails from the word for word translation philosophy as well & there ain't a thing wrong with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 7:47:16 PM EDT
[#23]
dbl
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 8:10:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to solidify on a single translation, but I'm not sure which one. First, I need to decide between the Critical Texts and the Received Texts. What are you guys reading? Any particular reason why? 1) New Catholic Answer Bible: New American Bible Revised Edition - although my copy is from around 2005ish I think. Why? I'm Catholic, the bible was better written than the one I had growing up, it had interesting inserts on common questions about Catholicism, and the chaplain on my ship gave them out. 2) iMissal Bible (mobile app) Why? A Catholic bible again, and the company that made this app also made my iMissal app. It's easy to search, doesn't require an internet connection, and only cost about $5 or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2017 10:28:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James, because that's what I grew up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2017 6:58:08 PM EDT
[#26]
The New Revised Standard Version based on the American Standard and English Standard versions as the starting point. Captures the beauty of the King James Version with the benefit of revising translations from newly discovered (like in the last few hundred years) papyrus and manuscripts not available when the King James was formulated. For a discussion of which bible is the best, check out Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2017 8:51:36 PM EDT
[#27]
King James
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2017 7:34:07 AM EDT
[#28]
I have two (New American and Douay-Rheims Challoner) just on my phone.
It's useful to have a few different kinds, mostly because English is such a garbage language that an accurate and good translation is borderline impossible. At least the older English forms make a good try at even having a plural you (which is pretty important in places). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2017 8:06:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was fond of the N.I.V. for years, the I came across N.L.T. I like it's read-ability much more. It's very clear English. I do not reject other translations, I am just comfortable with this and a couple study bibles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2017 9:06:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Mostly NASB, occasionally esv, largely for accuracy.
If I'm studying a particular passage, I will sometimes pull out a bunch of different translations |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2017 9:46:15 AM EDT
[#31]
I've always used the NIV or HCSB.
With the recent revision of the HCSB to the CSB and me needing a new bible, I got that translation a few months back when it became available to the public. I have found it to be a good translation of being word for word while being readable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2017 8:42:45 PM EDT
[#32]
NASB. It is a literal translation, and I like the way it reads.
ESV is very similar and used at church. NIV is common. KJV is a fine translation, but I find that I almost always mentally parse the pronouns into their modern equivalents, which leaves me half a chapter behind whenever it is read aloud. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2017 8:28:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to solidify on a single translation, but I'm not sure which one. First, I need to decide between the Critical Texts and the Received Texts. What are you guys reading? Any particular reason why? It is hard to get an actual reading from the Greek and Hebrew because the forms of the words Don't always come through. A good thought would be download E-Sword and check out all the free Bibles. The whole system is free to get. Or use one of several online study tools. Pray as you read, do the comparisons and then go for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2017 12:09:11 PM EDT
[#34]
KJV
Outside of the Pauline letters, it has a poetic quality that I enjoy. I realize that's because the translation was done in Shakespeare-ese, but I enjoy it nonetheless. As for the writings of Paul....ugh....I haven't found any that I really enjoy reading. It's almost like work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2017 10:03:33 PM EDT
[#35]
ESV cause that is what our pastors use.
I prefer the NKJV. I do wish someone would republish a 1599 Geneva without messing it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2017 1:52:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James Authorized Version Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2017 3:34:56 AM EDT
[#37]
KJV.
Got some time to kill? Are the Sinaiticus and BC Septuagint Fake? Notwithstanding his SDA beliefs, Walter Veith has two excellent videos about the supremacy of the received text.  Failed To Load Title  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2017 6:27:38 AM EDT
[#38]
New American Standard for accuracy. Like a good rifle----accuracy is everything.
I spend a lot of time on Blue Letter Bible when I'm on line.....Every translation known to man. Find I love the Latin Vulgate..... I never read the KJV.....never. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2017 6:31:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to solidify on a single translation, but I'm not sure which one. First, I need to decide between the Critical Texts and the Received Texts. What are you guys reading? Any particular reason why? NIV, or a clear word type. I'm an atheist and don't want to quibble over debatable points. I still enjoy referencing the Bible, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 4:27:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
King James Authorized Version Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 5:28:26 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me ask you a question ? Do you think they spoke Shakespearian 3,000 years ago ? Why wouldn't get a Jewish bible ? You know the King James isn't the original ? Right ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
King James Authorized Version Because It was the Bible used when I Accepted Christ as my Savior. It has found a lot wrong with me, and I have yet to find anything wrong with it. The only Bible upon its availability to the people produced true Revival. No Copyright. Intellectual property not owned by the same people that produce Porn. Not translated by people who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not translated by people who were part of the LGBT community. Not translated by people who remove the importance of the Blood sacrifice of Christ. Contrary to popular belief, the King James Authorized Version is not too hard to read. one simply has to keep a Good old dictionary and a concordance handy to realize some words do not hold the same meaning today as they did when it was translated. In the end I have Faith that the King James Authorized Version is the correct Bible for English speaking people. If one does not have that Faith, then one needs to find it. Why are you trying to get me to loose faith? What is your goal? Why not question anyone else in this thread using bibles that were translated from corrupted text, by non believers, and LGBTBBQ, or that use bibles copyrighted by the same people that produce porn. Why target a reader of the King James? How does my trusting in the Veracity of the King James, and how God has used it to completely turn my life away form the direction I was going, that would have lead to my destruction, but put me on a path where I have a great life serving him to the best of my ability, How does that hurt you so much where you feel the need to target me and my faith? OR is having a strong unshakable faith a problem for you? Oh And I don't speak Hebrew or Greek? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 6:14:22 AM EDT
[#42]
KJV primarily. For all of the reasons stated above. Some of the young people in our Bible study prefer the NKJV and I have that version on my phone as well and can switch to it instantly if I need to.
I used to like the NIV. Not so much anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 6:53:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to solidify on a single translation, but I'm not sure which one. First, I need to decide between the Critical Texts and the Received Texts. What are you guys reading? Any particular reason why? King James Version. Aligns with Strongs concordance. Do a background check on where the "newer" text (only two) came from and who translated them. Then research who translated the other versions and why they are copywrited. Then why certain verses and chapters are left out of the newer versions. Some newer versions even call Satan the angel of light and leave out the trinity. I have a Bible that has four versions side by side. A real eye opener. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 7:31:48 AM EDT
[#44]
NIV.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 9:55:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
KJV. Got some time to kill? Are the Sinaiticus and BC Septuagint Fake? Notwithstanding his SDA beliefs, Walter Veith has two excellent videos about the supremacy of the received text.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZ5WpBUGs8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_yAU9_0x3A |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 10:03:14 AM EDT
[#46]
If you have trouble with some of the archaic words used in the KJV. Get David W. Daniels booklet, The King James Bible Companion. Over 600 archaic words defined. From Chick Publications .www.chick.com
My wife and I keep a copy in all of our bibles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 10:03:52 AM EDT
[#47]
If you have trouble with some of the archaic words used in the KJV. Get David W. Daniels booklet, The King James Bible Companion. Over 600 archaic words defined. From Chick Publications .www.chick.com
My wife and I keep a copy in all of our bibles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2017 7:54:05 PM EDT
[#48]
KJV
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2017 10:40:25 PM EDT
[#49]
I use the ESV, NIV and KJV. Came across a tidbit on the editorial board of the NIV seems as two people have/had questionable histories.
I stay far away from"The Message." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2017 4:41:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Bump
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
