Which version of the Bible shall I use?

[willieH]

willieH:  YO!  :afFro:

Recently I have noted a "dissing" of the KJV version of the Bible, as if it deserves disrespect for any good reason...  I would like to discuss TRANSLATIONS and why you might use one or the other... and if you use SEVERAL in making your points, the reasons one might have for doing so...

I don't wish to establish the KJV as "the" version in this topic... rather, I wonder why so many would disrespect anyone for using it?  Comments such as: ..."KJV people"...  :omg:

In studying the "WORD", ...which "Word" does-ya use?

It is my opinion that NONE of the versions are "error-free"... so which to use?

Some will have an explanation "WHY" they use this one or that one...

Some use one to make a point here, and another to substanciate their belief elsewhere (a different version)...  Why is that?

To me, the many different English translated versions are just displaying men, sometimes in sincerity, just confusing the issue... There is one excuse or another used, but I say, if GOD is one's guide, does it even matter which one one uses...

I can hear it already... "so which do you use willie, and WHY?   :dontknow: ...So glad you asked!   :laughing7:

I use the KJV @ all times...  That way, I don't need to backtrack and remember which version I used to base my current viewpoint on a given subject...  This does not mean that the KJV is any "better" or worse than others... for ALL of them are works of translation by men...  What it does mean, is that I dont have to use one version to prove this belief and another to prove that one...

Another reason that I use the KJV is the comparitive tool, Strongs... which isolates each word in the Hebrew and Greek, and verses committed to memory that might not be remembered by Chapter & verse, can be quickly found using a KEYWORD in the text...

I might point out that RELIGIOUS biases of the translators are within ALL of them...

For example, ...I recently had a discussion about "HELL" on another forum, and in Is 45:7... many replying to my objection noted that the word "RA" meant "CALAMITY", using another translation (cant remember which it was)... I then went to the version they quoted, and in every other  instance I looked up (15 or 20) other than Is 45:7, "RA" was translated "EVIL" in that translation!

How about you?  Which version do you find most compatible with your study methods?  Do you have a particular reason for using it (other than getting rid of "thee's & thou's")?

PeACe...

...willieH :hithere:

[Nathan]

I'll throw in a quick thought on this Willie . . .I read KJV . . .but I don't read it "only".  And I'm not against people who do . .but I think some of the "attacking" comes in response to the spirit behind the translation readers.  And to be honest . . .I think there may very well be some credibility behind the accusations of UR people being a bit vindictive . .but I think that is true of any sect within the body . .we get a little too passionate about our rightness.

A couple of my favorite translations are Message and New Living . . .but my reasons are simply because they are easy to read . . .I like the way Message puts the difficult passages of KJV into perspective . .and it causes me to do more word studies as a result.  When I preach . . .I use either New King James or New American Standard . . .and I've played with the Message from time to time also .  . mostly, it's because that's the Bible that's the handiest. . .not because I think the translation is most accurate.

My whole belief on the translation thing is . . .if you read it spiritually, you'll get what the Spirit wants to reveal.  But if you read it literally, then yes, you need to pay special close attention to the translations . .but even then, there's no guarantee . . .I've said this before . .but the scribes and Pharisees were the most knowledgable men on the entire earth when it came to biblical matters . . . but they ended up being the very ones that rejected and crucified Jesus . . .so much for the importance of translations?

[sven]

I quess the Concordant Literal New Testament is far the best.

about the Old Testament, I like the Darby Transalation, quite literal, some forevers and evers, eternal etc. but often translated with ages and only gehenna translated with hell, so no hell in the whole OT, always Sheol

As I'm German i use the German CLNT and an old Jewish Tanakh Translation, but Darby/Elberfelder is my favorite online bible.

This might help:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Matthew+10&section=0&translation=reb&oq=Matthew%252010&new=1&nb=ge&ngt=Go+To%3A&ng=1&ncc=10

[WhiteWings]

Another reason that I use the KJV is the comparitive tool, Strongs...

NAS also has linked Strongs.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I like the KJV, but it does have it's flaws, like all the rest. I also sometimes look at other versions, including the Complete Jewish Bible. I agree with Nathan though, if the Spirit of God wants you to get something you will get it one way or another. Blessings....

[sparrow]

My whole belief on the translation thing is . . .if you read it spiritually, you'll get what the Spirit wants to reveal. 

That's how I see it..
I read the KJV just because it's the one I've always had.


What I'm getting ready to say, I know some will look at me and go.. :mshock: :msealed: WHAT?! but.. I'm just not a huge bible reader. His word, (to me) is kinda all over creation. I hear Him through the bible, and I hear Him through His creation. I guess we're all different.

well... there you have it.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Don't feel bad sparrow; I've had Him teach me some things TROUGH the creation first, and then show me where it lines up with scripture. The two witness each other. Blessings....

[sparrow]

:cloud9: Don't feel bad sparrow; I've had Him teach me some things TROUGH the creation first, and then show me where it lines up with scripture. The two witness each other. Blessings....

I agree!  :HeartThrob:

(and I don't feel too bad.. I know He teaches His kids through various methods.. :happy3:  :laughing7:)

[jabcat]

My favorite literals are Young's, Greek Interlinear, and The Christian Bible...my favorite readers are The Christian Bible and the New American Standard.  I am one that likes to compare different translations, trying to get back as close to the literal greek as possible...All translations seem to have their own issues/inconsistencies.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I really don't like the Greek at all. I rarely look up any Greek words. I know the NT was written in Hebrew, and I look up Hebrew words that are most closely related and find the stream of thought that came from them and then find that stream in the English of the NT. It's sorta "backwards", but it works. Blessings....

[jabcat]

Backwards is OK as long as it works...sometimes even best!   I'm under the understanding that the NT was written in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew...I really haven't looked much at the Hebrew, and from what little I have looked at, it's Greek to me :)

[WhiteWings]

A few parts of the OT are in written in Aramaic.
Some parts of the NT are possibly written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Thanks for the link Whitewings. I'm not basing my statement on any known fact (shame on me  :winkgrin: ), but on my own observations concerning the "streams of thought" that go from OT to NT. The Greek does not have the same depth of meaning as the Hebrew does; it's a completely different mindset and so some things don't translate well.

For instance, eye, color, and fountain are all the same word in Hebrew, but in the Greek part, they would pick one English word for translation and leave it at that, and you'd miss the subtle connection between the other words that the Hebrew reveals. God's thoughts have so many layers, the Greek just does not keep up with it. Blessings....