Which Bible Version should a Christian read?

[onelazyguy]

I personnally enjoy the NIV but have also read and like the AMPLIFIED, the New Living, and yes even the message. in reality if we want accuracy we better all learn greek and Hebrew so we can read the real deal, otherwise all of the different tranlations are a little bit off. I Believe that the the exact words are not the same God can still speak to us through any of these versions trust Him and that his word is God inspired.

[HaveFaith2005]

For me the King James Verison is easier to read and understand.

[Queen Esther]

I found this humorous post on "Stuff Christians Like" and thought that a few of you all would enjoy it. It really adds nothing of substance to the debate but we need a break from all of the intensity. :P

#228. NIV vs. KJV vs. ESV (Bible wars told via GI Joe) Stuff Christians Like – Jon Acuff

[dreamergirl818]

This was my favorite of those:

3. Message = Wild Bill
Wild Bill was the crazy helicopter pilot on the show. He wore a vest and a huge mustache and was always saying crazy things that perfectly summed up the situation. Wild Bill could summarize in easy to understand language situations that all the other Joes needed to hear about. He wasn’t the only opinion that mattered, you still had to balance out his ideas with those of Flint and Duke, but he did have something valuable to say. Same with the Message. It’s a good read. It makes things easy to understand. Is it the only Bible I’d read? No. But it’s still a good one to have on board.

My sister once picked up a "hippie" Bible as some call it. She thought the talk was quite.... different

That was so funny! Thanks for posting it! It also does sort of get you to thinking. Really when it all boils down to it, is it worth it? This whole discussion, I mean. It's obvious that some prefer one translation to another. While I don't particularly like NIV myself, it is still a translation of God's word, and though not perfect, it still should be treated with respect just as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and so on. Any of these versions can be used by God. They are still His Word, and it only causes divisions when people insist that one translation is the only good one. They all have errors! Some more than others, but still. I just think if He is in it, it will be good no matter what.

To God be all glory!
Elizabeth

[xspinningisfun]

NIV Bible @ kjv.biblediscernment.com

Oh boy. If you guys don't know about this, I suggest you check it out.

There was an example on there and it said that KJV has John 5:4, but NIV took John 5:4 right out.

I checked my NLT if there was a John 5:4, there isn't. It just skipped it. Here's what it say in my NLT:

3 Crowds of sick people - blind, lame, or paralyzed - lay on the porches. 5 One of the men lying there had been sick for thirty-eight years.

[ErynBritt]

Katie, I would urge you to look into this deeper before worrying or jumping to conclusions. A lot of these verses have been omited because they are not found in some of the original manuscripts that have been found since the writing of the KJV. While I'm not saying that this might not be an issue, I am saying that it should be studied more before it is made into a conspiracy theory.

[Geulienne]

I took a class on Christian Beliefs last semester, and one of our units was on the Bible and how it came to be and such.

During the time the KJV was written, it was the best for its time. But since that time new, older, "purer" manuscripts have been discovered, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these are utilized in the NIV.

In all reality, the different versions of the Bible are not that different. They contain the same basic message, and they are all God's word. Try to find one that won't be super biased, but mostly it is a matter of personal preference and what you are used to already.

I personally have used NKJV most of my life, and that is probably my favorite because I am the most used to it. Some of the current Bibles just don't have that "Bible flavor" of the KJV and NKJV. I do, however, enjoy reading some newer versions once in a while for the sake of a fresh perspective. I also enjoy reading one version and listening to someone else read another.

[ebaggabe]

I read the ESV becuase it is easy to understand and allows me to study the word without being or spending more time studying the writing than the concepts of the word.

[AliveInHim]

Originally Posted by Geulienne

I took a class on Christian Beliefs last semester, and one of our units was on the Bible and how it came to be and such.

During the time the KJV was written, it was the best for its time. But since that time new, older, "purer" manuscripts have been discovered, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these are utilized in the NIV.

In all reality, the different versions of the Bible are not that different. They contain the same basic message, and they are all God's word. Try to find one that won't be super biased, but mostly it is a matter of personal preference and what you are used to already.

I personally have used NKJV most of my life, and that is probably my favorite because I am the most used to it. Some of the current Bibles just don't have that "Bible flavor" of the KJV and NKJV. I do, however, enjoy reading some newer versions once in a while for the sake of a fresh perspective. I also enjoy reading one version and listening to someone else read another.

What kinds of newer versions are you referring to (those as opposed to the NKJV)? What do you mean exactly by "Bible flavor"? I don't really follow that at all, so I just looking or clarification. Thanks!

Amanda

[Rejoice23]

Originally Posted by Zipster

After re-reading this, I feel I should make some more comments, for the entire point of these questions were missed in the responses given. I shall elaborate:

If the AV 1611 KJV is absolutely inerrant then everything within the AV 1611 would have to be inerrant, correct? The AV 1611 had the apocrypha, verse numbers, chapter headings, and marginal notes - along with differing translations for certain words.

Why is this important? Well, the claims being made by KJV-only advocates are all over the map. As has been exemplified in this thread, a vast majority of KJV-only supporters believe that the AV 1611 KJV translators were "inspired."

So, if these men were inspired, then wouldn't everything they write be inspired? Wouldn't the Apocrypha thus be inspired? Wouldn't the verse numbers, the marginal notes, and the letter from the translators in the first pages of the book also be inspired?

Or, were they only "partially inspired?" For, if this is the case - how do we know that the AV 1611 is inspired? If the "inspired" translators write one thing that isn't inspired, then are they really inspired?

So, yes - there's a huge issue here. Either everything that was written and translated that appeared in the AV 1611 is inspired, or none of it is. I can see no mixing of the two available, for a mix compromises the position far too much - something I could easily prove if I wanted to resort to conspiracy theories and other inane arguments.

And, also:



"I went out and cought some fishes today." - This sentence is not grammatically correct.

"I ate some fishes" - not grammatically correct.

"Look at all the fishes" - not grammatically correct.

"I caught a bunch of fishes" - not grammatically correct.

As far as I am aware - and, I could very well be wrong about this - "fishes" is only grammatically correct when it's used as a Verb (The bear fishes his prey out of the water) or when it's referring to many kinds of fish.

But, at the same time, "fish" is an interesting and unique word - it's both singular and plural. The answer given loses a lot if you replace "fish" with any other word that doesn't simply add an "s" to the end of it to make it plural.

Is "deers" correct?

Is "Mices" correct?

Is "Geeses" correct?

So, why would "Cherubims" be correct? The singular form of Cherubim is "Cherub."

"Cherubims" - thus is a grammatical error.

So, does God inspire Grammatical errors? Or, is this just more advanced revelation?

I in no way support KJV only, but you cannot apply contemporary grammatical standards to language written almost 500 years ago.