Bible Translations

[5stringJeff]

For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

1. NKJV
2. AV1611 - KJV
3. If not the above, I don't use them although I have used them to cross reference a thought or point.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

1. NIV/Amplified
2. sure - If away from a computer I use what's at hand.
3. KJV/NKJV

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

For me,

1. ESV (English Standard Version)
2. I have NIV and NASB study Bibles that I read regularly.
3. KJV and The Message.

 

[deciophobic]

1) King James Version
2) No
3) No

 

[Shazbot]

1) KJV
2) Reina Valera (spanish)
3) NIV

-Douglas

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

KJV
Yes when i want clarification.
Maybe the JW version.

 

[Avatar4321]

Le reina valera es una buena biblia.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
KJV
Yes when i want clarification.
Maybe the JW version.

Hadn't thought about that one... the New World Translation. I've never read it, but it apparently misinterprets quite a few verses in order to make the Bible "fit" Jehovah's Witness theology.

 

[dmp]

I wonder how people can relate to what they read in KJV...to me, the english seems so...foreign.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was once told that the reason the JWs call it the New World Translation of the Holy scriptures was because it was changed so much they couldnt call it a Bible. But that might just have been a rumor.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by -=d=-
I wonder how people can relate to what they read in KJV...to me, the english seems so...foreign.

Actually its pretty easy to understand and it makes you think about what your reading.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by -=d=-
I wonder how people can relate to what they read in KJV...to me, the english seems so...foreign.

It is poetic IMO but yes somewhat difficult to follow, but not read. The NKJV keeps some of the poetic feel, but is a little easier to follow.

I have the Nelson Open Bible of the NKJV. Has great literary translations from original Hebrew and Greek words; also has historical data to put things in perspective.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have both the New King James (and the even newer Modern King James) and I think those are fine. The original KJV that I find in hotel rooms is too hard for me to understand, and I've been reading the Bible all my life. I can't imagine someone inquiring about Christianity trying to learn from the KJV.

 

[Shazbot]

I don't find the form of the english language in the KJV that hard to understand. The difficult part is understanding the symbology of the scripture, seeing as in some instances, what is written should not be taken literally. I guess the solution, then, becomes God himself. I feel that if you read and study scripture with the right spirit and with an open, teachable attitude, He will help you understand it. I have read much of "newer language" bibles, such as the NIV, the JW bible, and the modern KJV, and my personal opinion is that in the effort to make the text more readable, much of the inward meaning is lost. For that reason, I avoid those texts, and instead, do my best to understand the older stuff. If I knew hebrew, I would probably go there, but I'm too lazy to learn it, I guess .

-Douglas

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
For those who read the Bible on occasion (or frequently), some questions:

1. Which translation do you prefer to read?
2. Do you use other translations?
3. Are there any translations you do not/will not use?

1. AV1611
2. NO....EXCEPT when proving translations/versions.

At that point, I already have the Book of Mormon, NKJV, NIV, a Catholic Bible...(at least 3 generations old), and will go online for others.

3. I will use none other for anything except proving other printings false. AV1611 or any other one proving absolutely in line with the Textus Receptus is the TRUE PROVEN word of God. Any version with a discrepency cannot BE an "INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD" as it would then be a contradiction.

If anyone else can figure out how people worldwide can hear His message before Revelation fulfills, and do it without a public domain version, I am willing to listen.

I started out with an NIV, went to NKJ when the NIV was proven contradictory.

I looked up the NKJV and found the text again EDITED.

I then switched to the AV1611. By comparison with original Greek for New testament, and Hebrew for Old, the Textus Receptus not only shows the EXACT literal and figurative in English, but the AV1611 is the ONLY that has the POETIC integrity maintained as the original Greek and Hebrew.

No other language before or since can do that by nature of said language.

 

[5stringJeff]

OK, I'll bite: why the Textus Receptus?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, I'll bite: why the Textus Receptus?

Boy, this will be interesting. I am Gnashing my teeth with excitement!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Boy, this will be interesting. I am Gnashing my teeth with excitement!

-I didn't anticipate that one!
:cof:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, I'll bite: why the Textus Receptus?

To quote myself:

" I then switched to the AV1611. By comparison with original Greek for New testament, and Hebrew for Old, the Textus Receptus not only shows the EXACT literal and figurative in English, but the AV1611 is the ONLY that has the POETIC integrity maintained as the original Greek and Hebrew.

No other language before or since can do that by nature of said language."

Were you looking for a technical response?

I broke it down in an editorial piece I did about 6 months ago.....I am trying to dig it up.