View Poll Results: Which Bible do you use the most? (more than one choice allowed)

Voters
127. You may not vote on this poll
  • New International Version

    29 22.83%
  • English Standard Version

    24 18.90%
  • New Living Translation

    7 5.51%
  • King James (Authorised Version)

    57 44.88%
  • New King James Version

    33 25.98%
  • The Message

    0 0%
  • American Standard Version

    7 5.51%
  • Good News Bible

    2 1.57%
  • Other (Explain!)

    14 11.02%
  • I read the Bible in another Language (explain!)

    5 3.94%
  • New American Standard Bible

    28 22.05%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 148

Thread: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    516

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiKnife View Post
    NASB and ESV are not the same, but both are excellent.
    Right. Both are word-for-word translations, as nearly as that can be accomplished given that the tenses and the voices of both the Hebrew and the Greek cannot easily be rendered in English. The NIV, on the other hand, is thought-for-thought for the most part. That makes for a dynamic, though less literal, rendering whereas the NASB and ESV tend to run to a scholarly reading, the NASB more in the formal realm and the ESV more in the idiomatic realm. Sometimes it seems to me, though I'm sure it's not deliberate, the ESV takes a bend in its rendering that fails to completely convey the original meaning, but it isn't often enough to concern me. For that matter, the NIV is excellent even though less literal. All are solid English translations of the word of God.
    If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. -- 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    In the slave pits of manmade Christianity, setting the captives free.
    Posts
    17,053

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    I concur.......................

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    4,899

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Me three.........
    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
    George Orwell

    www.r2ucv.com




  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Used to read mainly in the NIV but after a few years started to find that it felt inadequate - not in terms of accuracy, I just felt the langauge lacked strength in the way it felt.

    After trying several versions I developed a preference for the ESV. But my eyes are quite bad now and the only large print ESV bibles I can afford are heavy bulky hardbacks that are a pain in the backside to use. So because my local christian book shop had a large print NASB that perfectly matches my needs, I've now switched to the NASB. Despite the spelling issues (I'm british haha) I really like it.

  5. #65

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    New American Standard. It seems closest to the Greek, and has fewer screw-ups than the others.

    For instance --- the "me" (pronounced "may") construct in 1Cor12 should be translated, "All are NOT apostles, are they? All are NOT prophets, are they? All do NOT speak in tongues, do they?"

    It's a negative question expecting only an answer of "no"; so why then does NASB get James2:14 wrong? It should be, "That faith (which tries to exist without causing good works) can NOT save you, CAN it!"

    When I use "Blueletterbible.org", I often hafta look things up in King James (translated from Textus Receptus), it's the only one that gives verb tense links.

    NASB translates from Nestle-Wescott; you can see differences like in Luke21:36:
    NASB "pray that you may KATISCHUO-HAVE-STRENGTH to escape these things"
    KJV "pray that you may KATAXIOO-BE-COUNTED-WORTHY to escape these things"

    (both translations use the contraction "ekpheugo-flee-away-from" for "escape")

    And, 2Pet2:18 NASB "they will entice those who have OLIGOS-APOPHEUGO barely escaped"
    KJV has "they will entice those who have ONTOS-APOPHEUGO truly escaped"

    Really don't like NIV. Had an electronic computer Bible that was NIV, imagine searching for "Jehovah" and the screen saying "Jehovah is not in the Bible"

    I hacked the main ROM in it, and changed:
    "New International Version Bible"
    ...into...
    "New Int Version is SORRY!"

    Every time you powered up the thing the screen proudly declared "NIV IS SORRY!"


    I seem to remember there being a more egregious error in NASB, but can't recall exactly where it was; when you get old your memory goes first, and then --- uhhh, I forget!

    ;-)

  6. #66

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    I use the KJV with the New Century Verison, to be sometimes that KJ is to hard to understand and with the Century I get it

  7. #67

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    I use the KJV only because it is the only English bible that is the inerrant word of God. The newer translations are full of errors and contradictions.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    9,228
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_1965 View Post
    I use the KJV only because it is the only English bible that is the inerrant word of God. The newer translations are full of errors and contradictions.
    I love the KJV but it is hardly inerrant. It isn't faithful to the Greek or Latin texts it's based on in many places. My position is that the original manuscripts were inerrant and the minor deviations we currently have do not dispute any orthodox Christian doctrine. It is almost cult like to claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God because that statement simply isn't true and leads other astray. I don't mean that as an insult just as a general FYI.

    Peace
    2 Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

  9. #69

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by shepherdsword View Post
    I love the KJV but it is hardly inerrant. It isn't faithful to the Greek or Latin texts it's based on in many places. My position is that the original manuscripts were inerrant and the minor deviations we currently have do not dispute any orthodox Christian doctrine. It is almost cult like to claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God because that statement simply isn't true and leads other astray. I don't mean that as an insult just as a general FYI.

    Peace
    Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,859
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.
    Hello, brother.

    Just a couple of things. I’ll make two posts for clarity’s sake.

    The King James Bible, which I like very much but don't use exclusively, is NOT the 7th and final word of God. There is only ONE word of God - not a first, second, seventh, or final. (see my second post) The word of God was God-breathed once in the originals, but translated a myriad of times and still is miraculously being translated today.

    The King James Bible is not even the 7th translation. It isn't even the 7th English translation.

    You said that the King James Bible “gives a greater revelation than the originals” because it is a “rewrite, not a translation.” In effect, what you are saying is that the King James writers – mortal, sinful men – are superior authors than God, Himself. Be careful that you do not give God’s glory away to mortal men who translated the man-made Textus Receptus (itself translated in part from the man-made Latin Vulgate) into man-made Jacobean English. That’s scary ground you are treading there. The glory of God goes to GOD for God-breathing the originals. The originals are the only superior text.

    All others, including the King James are man-made but CONTAIN the word of God.

    The translators of the King James said this –

    Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in it that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there. They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.

    Decades were spent editing the King James and making corrections to it after it was published.

    It’s a very good Bible translation. I like it. It’s not my preference and hasn’t been for a long time.

    The translators were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common (vulgar) man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

    Here's are some of their vertabim words.

    • “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”
    • “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
    • "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”


    Finally, they believed that other translations were also the Word of God – just like theirs.

    "...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
    ".....it's your nickel"

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,859
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.
    I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where God said His words are “pure words, tried in a furnace of the earth 7 times.” The only thing that is remotely close to what you are saying is Psalm 12 where it says that God’s words are pure LIKE silver that is smelted 7 times. But this isn’t talking about the Bible. Here is Psalm 12 in context.

    "Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
    They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

    The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said,
    With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

    For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him
    in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."


    • This whole chapter is about the evil men do with their words, the oppression of the poor and sighing of the needy because of evil tongues. These evil people have even claimed that all power is in THEIR tongues and declared that no one is lord over them!!!
    • God compares His words with the words of the wicked - His being as pure and as we can understand the meaning of the word pure (silver smelted 7 times).


    What was to be "preserved from that evil generation forever?" What was in need of being preserved against "that evil generation"?

    • The King James Bible? How could the King James Bible be in need of God's preservation against those evil people in David's day if it wouldn't even be written for another 2500 or so years? The evil people of that generation weren't attacking the King James Bible.
    • Was it God's word that needed preservation from that evil generation of people? No - this Psalm is all about comparing how God's word is totally pure and how He will "cut off" the flattering lips. God and His words need no protection or preservation from evil man.
    • Who or what are the victims in this passage?
      • It's the oppressed and the poor who are godly.
      • It's the remnant of God who are attacked by the evil generation "forever" - meaning that there will always be evil people speaking evil about God and His people, but they will not prevail because God will always preserve his spiritually oppressed remnant from their evil generation.


    God's word had NO NEED of purificiation!! Not one time nor seven times.

    God's word is 100% pure - LIKE that smelted silver used as an analogy - from the moment He speaks it.

    If Psalm 12 is talking about the King James Bible being God’s pure words and superior to the originals - then Psalm 12, from the time God supernaturally inspired David to write it until 1611 - was inferior and impure.

    This passage is NOT claiming God's words to being spoken less that 100% pure and getting purer and purer as evil mankind translated it and becoming finally 100% pure in 1611.

    Do you see how that makes no sense?
    ".....it's your nickel"

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_1965 View Post
    Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.
    Hi Robert and shardsword,

    We have much better translations today than the KJV, those translations being based on the original manuscripts, the ancient copies, early copies and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which weren't around when the KJV was translated. Personnally, I'm not concerned so much about the translations and that because I have the ability to see a parallel view of all the major translations of any given verse side by side, including the KJV. I also pay more attention to the actual Greek words that are used, looking up the definitions and how the word was used in other places within Scripture. What is also important in understanding the meaning of words is to pay attention to the context.

    Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV
    Really? I can name a number of them. For example: In the book of Matthew, regarding Jesus' encounter with the demons collectively called "Legion", Matthew records Two men who were possessed, while Mark and Lukes account has one man possessed. Another example would be the account of the blind man who was healed, where Matt.20:22 records two blind men and both Mark and Luke record one blind man whose name was Bartimaeus. Try comparing the account of the morning of Jesus' resurrection with each of the four gospels. Then there is the account where in one gospel it has the faithful centurian himself going to Jesus to ask him to heal his servant and the other accounts have him sending representatives to ask him. To be fair, this is not only true for the KJV, but for all of the translations and that because that is how they were originally written. However, those differences do not deminish the validiy of the events that took place, if anything, they confirm them.

  13. #73

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by jayne View Post
    Hello, brother.

    Just a couple of things. I’ll make two posts for clarity’s sake.

    The King James Bible, which I like very much but don't use exclusively, is NOT the 7th and final word of God. There is only ONE word of God - not a first, second, seventh, or final. (see my second post) The word of God was God-breathed once in the originals, but translated a myriad of times and still is miraculously being translated today.

    The King James Bible is not even the 7th translation. It isn't even the 7th English translation.

    You said that the King James Bible “gives a greater revelation than the originals” because it is a “rewrite, not a translation.” In effect, what you are saying is that the King James writers – mortal, sinful men – are superior authors than God, Himself. Be careful that you do not give God’s glory away to mortal men who translated the man-made Textus Receptus (itself translated in part from the man-made Latin Vulgate) into man-made Jacobean English. That’s scary ground you are treading there. The glory of God goes to GOD for God-breathing the originals. The originals are the only superior text.

    All others, including the King James are man-made but CONTAIN the word of God.

    The translators of the King James said this –

    Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

    By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in it that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there. They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.

    Decades were spent editing the King James and making corrections to it after it was published.

    It’s a very good Bible translation. I like it. It’s not my preference and hasn’t been for a long time.

    The translators were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common (vulgar) man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

    Here's are some of their vertabim words.

    • “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”
    • “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
    • "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”


    Finally, they believed that other translations were also the Word of God – just like theirs.

    "...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
    Hi Jayne. Let me try to clarify a bit.The entire word of God has always existed, it's eternal. The entire word of God was given to mankind in the Old Testament scripture. The entire New Testament is also contained in the Old Testament, but it's concealed in the shadows of the stories of the Old Testament. The New Testament came along and gave greater revelation to what was already in the Old Testament, in other words, the things that were hidden in shadows of the Old Testament were openly revealed in the New Testament. Step forward to the King James bible, and honestly I don't know all the details of the translation methods used because it really doesn't matter to me because I see the divine Inspiration in the KJV. Anyway, the KJV translators used many resources to write the KJV, not just the Textus Receptus. I know they used the Bishop's bible, Septuagint and several other resources, again those things really don't matter. But even when they used the Textus Receptus, they didn't translate Greek and Hebrew words the same way each time. A good example would be pascha, I think almost every time they translated it as Passover accept in the book of Acts where it is translated as Easter, which by the way is the only correct translation for that passage. Wow... every bible that translates that a Passover is wrong.

    Point is, the KJV is not a translation of the Textus Recuptus, there are quite a few differences between the two. As I said earlier, the KJV gives greater insight into the word of God, I wont go into the details here because more than likely you wont be able to understand it. One thing to keep in mind, the KJV translators didn't translate the bible, God did. God is the only one capable of handling his word, he wrote the originals through men and he translated it through men.

    Could you please post all the changes that have been made to the original KJV over the years?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,859
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert_1965 View Post
    Step forward to the King James bible, and honestly I don't know all the details of the translation methods used because it really doesn't matter to me because I see the divine Inspiration in the KJV.
    Why don't you see divine inspiration in the Bibles before the King James? What's wrong with the Tyndale, the Geneva, or the Coverdale? By your own admission you know little about the word of God from the original inspiration through 1611.

    By-the-by, do you read the AV1611 or the King James 1769. Just curious.

    Anyway, the KJV translators used many resources to write the KJV, not just the Textus Receptus. I know they used the Bishop's bible, Septuagint and several other resources, again those things really don't matter.
    Yes, I am aware of all the resources they used. I state the TR via the LV in case you weren't aware that they didn't have originals. Some KJVO's teach that the King James translators had the originals.

    As I said earlier, the KJV gives greater insight into the word of God, I wont go into the details here because more than likely you wont be able to understand it. One thing to keep in mind, the KJV translators didn't translate the bible, God did. God is the only one capable of handling his word, he wrote the originals through men and he translated it through men.
    God divinely inspired the originals. Man translated the rest.

    If God divinely inspired the translations, then which divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 12:28 is correct?

    • AV1611 - "And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helpes in government, diversities of tongues."
    • KJV 1769 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."


    If God divinely inspired both the AV1611 and KJV revision of 1769, then which time did God make the error?

    Did he take away a spiritual gift in the AV1611 or did he add a spiritual gift in the 1760 version of the King James?

    Brother - as I said, I like the King James. But it's a translation that is man made. God has used it for great purposes and still will. And he has and will use other translations as well.

    Could you please post all the changes that have been made to the original KJV over the years?
    Let's deal with the one above before I list more.
    ".....it's your nickel"

  15. #75

    Re: Bible Translations Poll and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmcal57 View Post
    Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV
    Really? I can name a number of them. For example: In the book of Matthew, regarding Jesus' encounter with the demons collectively called "Legion", Matthew records Two men who were possessed, while Mark and Lukes account has one man possessed.
    There are no contradictions nor errors in any of the scriptures you posted. Let's take them one at a time.
    We know for a fact from Matthew's account that Jesus encountered two men possessed with devils.
    We know for a fact from Mark's gospel that one of the possessed men wanted to be delivered because when he saw Jesus, he ran to him and worshiped him.
    Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke gave an account of what happened to the second man possessed with devils. I would assume he remained possessed and unsaved.
    So where do you see an error?
    [/QUOTE]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Bible Translations
    By redwind in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: Oct 30th 2010, 04:33 AM
  2. Bible Translations, again
    By onecalled in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 22nd 2010, 03:42 AM
  3. Bible Translations how to tell
    By CRJarvis in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr 2nd 2010, 12:58 AM
  4. Bible Translations
    By dirtball in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Oct 16th 2008, 04:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •