What version Bible do you read?

[Stickz]

Hey, sojourn4Christ

I read from the KJV. I voted for the KJV in this poll. Sometimes, I like to compare the scripture from the KJV to the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe, the Douay-Rheims translation, and many others to see how the translators of those versions translated it. When I learn Greek and Hebrew, I will look at some of those translations too. And, I have looked at an NIV, because I do own one.

Are you saying that you never look at anything else? Ever? What do you make of the "Baasha Contradiction"?

And, no, I'm not interested in arguing with you, sojourn4Christ.

 

[smitty]

what bible do you read

i personally think the best translation of the bible you read s the one that help's you draw closer to God. if we are not all the same why should we think that only one translation is all we need, and do you not think God was involed in all of the different bible's. that are out there. i have come to realize that God knows what is better for us than we do. so my point, whatever bible you read to become more like Jesus and walk closer to God is the one you should read, and we do not need to judge each other in this.

 

[sojourn4Christ]

The Creed of the Alexandrian Cult

1. There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God.

2. Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled.

3. Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

5. However, this series of writings was LOST, and the God Who inspired them was UNABLE TO PRESERVE THEIR CONTENT through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word "CHRISTIAN" originated (Acts 11:26).

6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called HIS SON OUT of Egypt (Mat. 2), JACOB OUT of Egypt (Gen. 49), ISRAEL OUT of Egypt (Exod. 15), and JOSEPH'S BONES OUT of Egypt (Exod. 13).

7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate - though, of course, there is NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY FOR DETERMINING TRUTH AND ERROR: it is a matter of "preference" - are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although NOT QUITE.

8. The most INACCURATE TRANSLATIONS were those that brought about the GERMAN REFORMATION (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide MISSIONARY MOVEMENT of the English speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

9. But we can "tolerate" these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY THAT ANYONE CAN READ, TEACH, PREACH, OR HANDLE, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what WE prefer: let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

This is the creed of the Alexandrian Cult.

Sometimes, I like to compare...

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. (2 Cor 10:12).

Are you saying that you never look at anything else? Ever?

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes... (Psa 10:3).

...Take heed what ye hear... (Mark 4:24).

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen... (Jer 10:2).

What do you make of the "Baasha Contradiction"?

Baasha died in the 26th year of king Asa's reign in Judah, just as the writer of 1 Kings tells us. What then, are we to make of the reference to Baasha coming up against Judah in the 36th year of Asa?

Since Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign, he could not have come up against Judah 10 years later. It is likely that the reference to the 36th year in 2 Chronicles 16 means the 36th year since the division of the two kingdoms, which fell during the reign of Asa. Note, Rehoboam reigned 17 years, Abijah reigned 3 years, and at the occurrence of this conflict, Asa had reigned 16 years. Baasha would die 10 years after this event.

There is no contradiction.

Similarly, others have stated it thusly:

A possibility as to why the numbers in 1 Kings 16:8 and 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 seem contradictory is because the numbers may refer to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years after the division of the United Kingdom (which would have been Asa’s fifteenth and sixteenth years), rather than the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Asa’s reign (Thiele, 1951, p. 59). The Hebrew word for “reign” (malkuwth) also can mean “kingdom.” In fact, 51 out of the 91 times this word appears in the King James Version of the Old Testament it is translated “kingdom” (cf. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; etc.). In their commentary on 2 Chronicles, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown favored this explanation saying, “The best Biblical critics are agreed in considering this date to be calculated from the separation of the kingdoms, and coincident with the 16th year of Asa’s reign” (1997). [The number 16 is obtained by subtracting the reigns of Rehoboam (17 years) and Abijah (3 years) from the 36 years mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:1.]

Finally, a third twist:

The 36th year of Asa was the TOTAL amount of years he CO-OCCUPIED as king with his father (9 years dual occupancy).

 

[Stickz]

Hey, sojourn4Christ

I just wanted to say: I find your criticism of me, admitting that I sometimes use other sources for comparison when reading the Bible, a little hypocritical due to the fact that you have taken almost your entire post ( many of your posts from the looks of it ) from other internet pages, including your answer to the "Baasha Contradiction" question that I posted. So, directly using other translations of the Bible is wrong for a professing Christian, but taking information from other sources via "Copy & Paste" is the "Absolute way of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

You seem to make such a big deal over people using only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible and nothing else: I asked you a question pertaining to the King James Version and you resort to the internet for an answer?

 

[sojourn4Christ]

Thanks for replying.

I just wanted to say: I find your criticism of me, admitting that I sometimes use other sources for comparison when reading the Bible, a little hypocritical...

It wasn't criticism, and it's not about "other sources." The Truth, the one and only Holy Bible, is without compare! It's a wake-up call, a warning about the origin of the modern so-called bible "versions" that you and millions of others peruse in ignorance of their corrupt origin.

A few folks are ready to handle meat; others are yet on milk.

...due to the fact that you have taken almost your entire post ( many of your posts from the looks of it ) from other internet pages, including your answer to the "Baasha Contradiction" question that I posted

Whether I have or have not is of absolutely no concern. The standard against which all posts are measured is the Holy Bible. And there can be only one such Holy Bible, and it isn't any of the modern 400+ copyrighted for-profit books which tickle the ego but leaven the truth.

I answered all your questions but apparently that is insufficient for you.

And, no, I'm not interested in arguing with you, sojourn4Christ.

O contrare. Ignorance is easily cured, but indignancy requires repentance.


Again, the problem is that most folks do not have all the information necessary to make an intelligent decision. If I was told that my bible (so-called) was based on the less than 1% corrupt manuscripts and compiled by unsaved authors, I would resolve to research the issue as if my life depended on it.

The true born again believer desires reproof and admonition that he may move from the milk to the meat. Let's get back to the bible "version" topic.

 

[sojourn4Christ]

corruption abounds outside of the KJV

The problem is that most folks do not have all the information necessary to make an intelligent decision.

For example, a little research reveals the hand of a heretic behind the corrupt...

...Greek Septuagint.

There are absolutely no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament. Quotations by Jesus and Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint. These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians, Jerome, Hort, and our contemporary D.A. Carson, would agree that this is probably true. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and Paul! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand — a hand which recast both Old and New Testament to suit his Platonic and Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts — which are in fact Origen’s Hexapla — and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to
match these. Alfred Martin, who was a past vice- president of Moody Bible Institute, called Origen “unsafe.” Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament.

The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on fables. All of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla, in kind. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling “the letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect.” It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and Platonic readings.

The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit letter of pseudo-Aristeas. It said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint “committee.” The fable further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-two. The Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. “But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.”

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.

The NIV’s three letters could be changed to OOO, “Old Origen’s Oracles.”

 

[Donnie Ducati]

The Expositors Study Bible (KJV)


The 'Message bible'.....lets stay clear from that one.

 

[bbear24-7]

I read NIV because it’s easy for me to understand! does it make a difference witch you read??...just wondering...
God is good!

 

[Donnie Ducati]

I read NIV because it’s easy for me to understand! does it make a difference witch you read??...just wondering...
God is good!

It does make a difference. Most paraphrased Bibles take away the reverence of Scripture by using street slang and other off colored wording, all just to make it more "likable". The Message bible has done a good job at this.

 

[bbear24-7]

It does make a difference. Most paraphrased Bibles take away the reverence of Scripture by using street slang and other off colored wording, all just to make it more "likable". The Message bible has done a good job at this.

thank you! that makes sence! I like NIV theres nothing Wrong with version is there?
God is good!

 

[Donnie Ducati]

thank you! that makes sence! I like NIV theres nothing Wrong with version is there?
God is good!

The NIV is fine. The New KJV and the regular KJV are the closest word for word translation there is.

Example : The Message Bible > John1:14...
14The Word became flesh and blood,
and moved into the neighborhood.
We saw the glory with our own eyes,
the one-of-a-kind glory,
like Father, like Son,
Generous inside and out,
true from start to finish.

KJV >
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

NKJV >
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[B-A-C]

The NIV is fine. The New KJV and the regular KJV are the closest word for word translation there is.

Actually most scholars agree that the NASB is the closest.

 

[JRFifty]

KJV

I think we as christians should get on board with the KJV, There is so many little changes in each translation to where the words have now changed meaning. That is confusion.

 

[farout]

I think we as christians should get on board with the KJV, There is so many little changes in each translation to where the words have now changed meaning. That is confusion.

Dear brother: The KJV is a good Translation. It has been a solid reliable Bible for so long. In 1611 the way people spelled was not unified, it was mostly a sounded out type of spelling. The KJV has had many revisions, to update spelling and grammar. Some translations were taken from the KJV.

That being said the KJV has some words that over the centuries have their meaning. The one most quickly and most know of is the word "gay". There are many more besides thia one one noted. From 1611 to our present time we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls, older manuscripts have been found and have better reliability. The KJV will always be a great translation, but the New American Standard Bible is even more literal and more accurate. That is not to say the KJV is nolonger reliable, the NASB is just a better trabslation.

To give a everyday example, the Model A Ford was a really good car. The 2012 Fords are sure a lot better. Given the choice to drive accross the United States in either car, the 2012 would be my choice hands down.

There another good translation is the English Standard Version Bible. The EVS is a literal translation as well. I don't like it because it uses the Revised Standard as the text it works from, and the National Council of Churches was involved with it. I do not say its not as good as the NASB, I just have my reasons for not using it.

The NIV and the CEV , are pretty much a Dynamic thought for thought version, where the NASB and the ESV are more of a word for word. Keep in mind there is no perfect word for word translation, because English does not have all the words that the Greek and Hebrew have.

Hope this gives you a reason that we have been blessed by so many readable Bibles that NO ONE has an excuse for not reading the Bible.

I was raised on the KJV, and many verses that I learned by heart are in the KJV. And if seconnnnnnd graders could learsn to read the KJV back in the early 1950's than there is no excuse for not using a Bible today! Blessings.

 

[farout]

The NIV is fine. The New KJV and the regular KJV are the closest word for word translation there is.

Example : The Message Bible > John1:14...
14The Word became flesh and blood,
and moved into the neighborhood.
We saw the glory with our own eyes,
the one-of-a-kind glory,
like Father, like Son,
Generous inside and out,
true from start to finish.

KJV >
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

NKJV >
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Brother in Christ. I understand your bias to theNKJV and the older more reliable KJV. I do not mean to argue but, the NASB and the ESV English translations are used by many more Theologians. Generally Bible Scholars use the orginal language scrolls and manuscripts when available, other wise most Biblical Scholars use actual Greek and Hebrew texts books.

The NIV Bible is a Dynamic thought for thought version. At times the NIV seems to run an muck and for me almost misses the true meaning. The NIV is a fine Bible it's reading level is about forth or fifth gade. The newest revision of the NIV is notas good as the orignal NIV. I believe, and so do many otheres, the new NIV is much like the TNIV that was widely rejected by most Evangelistic and Conserative. Zondervan stopped publishing the TNIV about two years ago. Some believe the New NIV will see similar results. If you have a NIV (not the NewNIV) take good care of it,it's a good Bible. Blessings.

 

[Tribulation]

Awesome topic!

I have 4 Bibles.

NKJV
ESV
NIV
Message Bible --- hardly a Bible... more like a book

I enjoy the NJKV most. I was shopping for a 1611 KJV today. Might get one soon. I feel like the KJV is more accurate than the rest I already own.

NIV is watered down to me.
ESV is good, but is missing certain stuff
The Message Bible is just another reference book to me
I mostly read the NJKV when I'm trying to memorize & quote scripture. It doesn't have all the THUS, THOU, THEE stuff that makes it sound out of date. Like the KJV

I need to invest in a KJV Bible soon

 

[agua]

Awesome topic!

I have 4 Bibles.

NKJV
ESV
NIV
Message Bible --- hardly a Bible... more like a book

I enjoy the NJKV most. I was shopping for a 1611 KJV today. Might get one soon. I feel like the KJV is more accurate than the rest I already own.

NIV is watered down to me.
ESV is good, but is missing certain stuff
The Message Bible is just another reference book to me
I mostly read the NJKV when I'm trying to memorize & quote scripture. It doesn't have all the THUS, THOU, THEE stuff that makes it sound out of date. Like the KJV

I need to invest in a KJV Bible soon

e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge

Great free software and bibles.

 

[philosopher]

I've been sticking with the King James 1611 for some time now. I've tried also reading the ECV, and it didn't feel like I was receiving the same kind of spiritual edification.

 

[dannibear]

I like New King James, it has most of the complete
not summarized verses, but in a way I can understand it.

 

[WantToKnowHim]

Mine's Today's English Version and Pastoral Bible Version..Pastora Bible explains the verses (it has footnotes with explanations) and Today's English Version is easy to understand..