What version Bible do you read?
- Thread starter Chad
- Start date
- Status
trulyblezzed
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 544
New Internation Version and New Century Version are the easiest for me to understand. I really need people to break it down for me. LOL
Cody
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,639
The NIV has so many complicated words in it.
Words in the NIV
Truly quote these verses to me from your NIV.
Matthew 17:21, 18:11(Jesus came to save lost), 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7(Proves Trinity)
No wonder the NIV is easier, it takes out 17 verses, then takes away words from other verses. The NCV takes out verses too. It takes out one of the greatest verses, which is Matthew 18:11. Keep on getting those new versions that water down God's Word, I'm sure they're easier to read.:thumbs_up
Matthew 18:11
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." KJV
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,078
Did you research? You obviously didn't do your homework brother, like many here who are KJVO. The KJV has ample errors, just likely not as much as the modern translations - yet ample errors regardless.
Read this : King James Version Bible Translation Errors - Part 1
Good News Bible
The bible that I use frequently is called the Good News Bible.
This version is quite readily available here in Australia. It is written in plain English terms , by using the type of words we often use every day. I find this bible very helpful for me, as I can relate to the way it explains God's Word in a relevant manner.
Life49
The bible that I use frequently is called the Good News Bible.
This version is quite readily available here in Australia. It is written in plain English terms , by using the type of words we often use every day. I find this bible very helpful for me, as I can relate to the way it explains God's Word in a relevant manner.
Life49
david_james
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 37
New Living Translation for me. It's very easy to understand and read.
When I read a verse some where and don't understand it, I look it up in New Living Translation and then I usually understand it.
When I read a verse some where and don't understand it, I look it up in New Living Translation and then I usually understand it.
Actually, Chadster I looked at your link and they are saying that the English has changed, which it has even since the 60's when I grew up. They err when they say that these things are the correct words. Not really, we is jist ignorant.
"In addition, certain idioms in the original Hebrew and Greek are a little difficult to understand today."
Abraham's bosom was what the Jews would have called Paradise as a bosom is a place of nuture and safety which is what Paradise was versus Hell thus kingdom of God is not really correct.
NT:2859
kolpos (kol'-pos); apparently a primary word; the bosom; by analogy, a bay:
KJV - bosom, creek.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Adoption in Ephesians 1:5
NT:5206
huiothesia (hwee-oth-es-ee'-ah); from a presumed compound of NT:5207 and a derivative of NT:5087; the placing as a son, i.e. adoption (figuratively, Christian sonship in respect to God):
KJV - adoption (of children, of sons).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
versus son in Luke 3:23
NT:5207
huios (hwee-os'); apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship:
KJV - child, foal, son.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
There is a difference between a genetic son and adopted son. Indeed, an adopted son could never be disinherited whereas a genetic son could be. Using adoption drives home Paul's point in Ephesians one about our security in Him because everything we have is in Him. Now an Arminian might like the other translation since a genetic son could be disinherited but it is not a true translation of the word.
Thus the error page you cited is in error. It is like this every time I see the MV disciples try to trash the AV or the TR.
The 1881 guys were shanghaied by a couple of heretics using obviously bogus texts and yet all that mess is considered modern scholarship when is just old heresy disguised. Alexandria was the home of Origen, a philosophical father of the JWs, who had 7 ways of salvation. Can you really trust a text coming from that area? Other manuscripts were found in a monastary in the pile to be burned. Gee, could they be the first copies of a novice scribe that were scrapped because of their errors and because the monks did not rotate their stock they remained though not the ones actually used? What about the very expensive copy that left spaces for all the "omitted" passages? Sounds like a scribe who did not want his reputation tarnished but made a copy according to the order of the paying heretic who did not like those passages.
Vaticanus? Is it odd that most of Revelation is missing since Revelation slams dunk the RCs? Older is nto necessarily better and all the so called questionable material can be found in versions, lectionaries and writings of the early fathers that are much older than the texts used by the MVs. It is chicanery and a new version of "yea hath God said" not scholarship. Wisdom of this world most assuredly but not the wisdom of God.
"In addition, certain idioms in the original Hebrew and Greek are a little difficult to understand today."
Abraham's bosom was what the Jews would have called Paradise as a bosom is a place of nuture and safety which is what Paradise was versus Hell thus kingdom of God is not really correct.
NT:2859
kolpos (kol'-pos); apparently a primary word; the bosom; by analogy, a bay:
KJV - bosom, creek.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Adoption in Ephesians 1:5
NT:5206
huiothesia (hwee-oth-es-ee'-ah); from a presumed compound of NT:5207 and a derivative of NT:5087; the placing as a son, i.e. adoption (figuratively, Christian sonship in respect to God):
KJV - adoption (of children, of sons).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
versus son in Luke 3:23
NT:5207
huios (hwee-os'); apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship:
KJV - child, foal, son.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
There is a difference between a genetic son and adopted son. Indeed, an adopted son could never be disinherited whereas a genetic son could be. Using adoption drives home Paul's point in Ephesians one about our security in Him because everything we have is in Him. Now an Arminian might like the other translation since a genetic son could be disinherited but it is not a true translation of the word.
Thus the error page you cited is in error. It is like this every time I see the MV disciples try to trash the AV or the TR.
The 1881 guys were shanghaied by a couple of heretics using obviously bogus texts and yet all that mess is considered modern scholarship when is just old heresy disguised. Alexandria was the home of Origen, a philosophical father of the JWs, who had 7 ways of salvation. Can you really trust a text coming from that area? Other manuscripts were found in a monastary in the pile to be burned. Gee, could they be the first copies of a novice scribe that were scrapped because of their errors and because the monks did not rotate their stock they remained though not the ones actually used? What about the very expensive copy that left spaces for all the "omitted" passages? Sounds like a scribe who did not want his reputation tarnished but made a copy according to the order of the paying heretic who did not like those passages.
Vaticanus? Is it odd that most of Revelation is missing since Revelation slams dunk the RCs? Older is nto necessarily better and all the so called questionable material can be found in versions, lectionaries and writings of the early fathers that are much older than the texts used by the MVs. It is chicanery and a new version of "yea hath God said" not scholarship. Wisdom of this world most assuredly but not the wisdom of God.
Last edited:
I read King James Version. When I bought my first Bible, almost 6 yeara ago, I had no idea about Bibles and versions or anything, but I bought a KJV without knowing and since then I read that version.
I got a new Bible for my birthday, wich I'm very happy for, because it's a biligual Bible, and so now I'm able to read it in spanish as well as in english and that's awesome, now that I'm reading more in english now. It's a King James Version as well.
I got a new Bible for my birthday, wich I'm very happy for, because it's a biligual Bible, and so now I'm able to read it in spanish as well as in english and that's awesome, now that I'm reading more in english now. It's a King James Version as well.
I use the King James version in general but I began to use it more, after I had a chat with Cody in yahoo messenger. I do refer to the New living translation sometimes and compare it with the King James version. I use the New King James version too. Of course I do need to do a lot of homework in comparing the versions I have. I will certainly do it.
God bless you.
SavednServing
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10
New International Version
I use the NIV for my everyday study. It is easy for me to understand and I am familiar with it. I have a parallel bible featuring four popular versions side by side that is great to get a better overall understanding. When I was 10 I received a KJV for Christmas and my first impression was that it was very hard to understand. Maybe that first impression led me to another translation as I reached adulthood. The many translations are meant to reach all different types of thinkers and speakers, as long as it is generally accepted by the biblical scholars as accurately interpreted I think the variety will reach many more people.
I use the NIV for my everyday study. It is easy for me to understand and I am familiar with it. I have a parallel bible featuring four popular versions side by side that is great to get a better overall understanding. When I was 10 I received a KJV for Christmas and my first impression was that it was very hard to understand. Maybe that first impression led me to another translation as I reached adulthood. The many translations are meant to reach all different types of thinkers and speakers, as long as it is generally accepted by the biblical scholars as accurately interpreted I think the variety will reach many more people.
joshuamclean
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 31
I'm using NLT (New Living Translation) - I perfer this bible because it is more understandable in term of English (I'm not good with english). Not only it is understandable, it is also accurate.
BibleBeliever7
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 19
I use the King James only after much study of the other versions, greek texts and the King James Version. I recommend for users to study about Wescott and Hort. This is the text the new versions use. Also, try comparing the KJV with other bible versions, I think it will surprise you.
In Jesus Holy Name
In Jesus Holy Name
- Status
