Bible translations?

[blkmage]

So, I was wondering, since this is a Christian board, what translations (English) of the Bible do you all use?

The last time I got a bible was last year. I was looking for the NLT since my pastor loved it to bits. I couldn't find any NLT student bibles, so I settled for an NIV one. I got an NLT bible anyway at baptism, but it didn't have any study notes.

Another 'translation' that I want to get would be the Message. That seems interesting, from the bits that I've read already. I have a friend who loves it to bits too.

[Azier the Swordsman]

I got a copy of 'The Message' recently and I absolutely love it! I now use it as my prefered version for my morning Bible reading time. At church, I use the NIV to follow along, as everything is taught from the NIV. I enjoy reading the New Living Translation sometimes too.

[ssj2gohan61]

i have the NIV version

[SManBeyond]

I use the NIV. I also love and use The Message, but I think of it as a paraphrase rather than a true translation.

[madphilb]

Mostly I use the NIV. When studying with bible software I'll usually use the KJV (aka the AV) since it has the strongs numbers linked to it.

I avoid most study notes, though I do like the Student bible that was given to me years ago (when the paperback version I had started to wear out I even bought it in a faux leather cover version which I still use as my primary bible, going on 15 years not or so).

The Message is a great paraphrase (which is why I think blkmage put translation in quotes), though I've not gotten a copy yet. Have they finished it or is it still just a smattering of OT books along with the NT ones?

[Lehn]

NIV or NLT, although I can quote KJV if I wanna sound smart

I got a Student Life Application Bible about 3 years ago that's a NLT, and that’s my favorite if I doing a Bible Study with other 'teens.

[true_noir_chloe]

I use the NKJV, the NIV and the NASB for studying. My favorite Bible that I use in my morning devotions is the one I was given to by a friend at Biola University and it's an NASB version. It was her graduate Bible from Biola, and it was quite a kind gift. ^___^

[Dirge]

I have a bible that shows 4 different translations..
you look on each page and there is a column for kjv niv ..and 2 others.. its neat.. I like NIV the most cuz you can actually understand it ^.^ Never heard of the "message" tho.. I'm gonna go check it out

[neoassassin2078]

No matter what trnslatin you use for the bible, its still going to be all ambiguous and left to the opinion of the reader. If its not verbatim, it won't be TOO big a loss.

[Angelchick]

i use the NIV and The Message. they finished writing The Message madphilb.

[Mangafanatic]

I would disagree with you Neo, as would many of our members I'm sure. Believing that the Bible is the word of God, anyone saying it's ambiguous would imply similar things about its inerrant author.

[true_noir_chloe]

Neo, we all know you have no belief in the Word of God, so I wonder why you even came to a thread about which version you read. Would it matter what version you read? I know it wouldn't, since you care nothing for His Word. Either you believe it or you don't, and you don't.

[Slater]

I will read any version of the Bible that passes this 25 question test and gets 100%.

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:

7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"


Test your Bibles, and remember not to use footnotes, because footnotes aren't the Bible.

[Bobtheduck]

I use either NIV or the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible)

I love the CJB because of a lot of insight it offers that most commentaries and "greek studies" don't... It may be true that the NT was greek, but it was made by Jews, so there are a lot of, um, Hebrewisms with the Greek language in the NT text, including many when Jesus spoke. It's just so much more interesting to know that the woman with the menstrual disease didn't touch the hem of Jesus' garment, because it had no hem, but she touched the cerimonial tassles. She touched the tzitzit of his robe, which meant she accepted his authority as a priest. A lot of little touches like that make this version very enlightening.

Despite that, there are some things I do not like, one of which being the rendering of Cross as "stake" and crucifixion as "execution on a stake." He didn't mean anything similar to what Jehovah's witnesses believe, but he used those words to avoid the pang that occurs as a psychological respons to a non-messianic Jew hearing the words crucifixion and cross (as it makes them think "crusade" and "christ killer" and "holocaust") I understand the reasoning, but I still disagree with it. It wasn't just an execution... Crucifixion means an inflicting of severe pain. Crucifixion wasn't just about killing, but about keeping them alive and in pain for a while first... It was the most severe form of torture in existance, keeping the victims alive for a long time unless the executioners were "kind" enough to break their legs and suffocate them (because they couldn't stand to catch a breath) Of course, the word crucifixion doesn't make people think of that, but hopefully things like "The Passion of the Christ" and even Harry Potter (potter heads will realize that crucio, the torment curse, is related to "crucifixion") will restore some power to the word...

Anyhow, there are other minor things I don't like... Also, anyone in here who is catholic or other denominations that believe in sprinkling babtisms won't like this version (he says that the word translated as "babtism" which was a Jewish tradition long before the Christian church showed up, never meant anything but immersion, and he renders it as such) as well as a few other things such as use of the word Jehovah (he says it's a erroneus transliteration of the tetragrammaton, Y-H-V-H the unspoken name of God)

One other feature I like in this version is the bolding of all refferences to the Old Testament in the New Testament (even though some of them are in question, particularly when Paul is speaking) and the use of the original Hebrew names for all the Jewish figures (Yeshua for Jesus, Kefa for Peter, Miryam for both Mary and Miriam, since they were originally the same name...)

As for the NIV, it is the "standard" translation that I'm most comfortable with... I really don't like the "Living Bible" because of the assumptions it makes... For instance, making "Leviathan" into "Alligator" Answer me, does an alligator breathe fire? Does a "hippo" have a tail that sways like a cedar? Phbbt... So NIV and CJB.

Oh, and I don't like KJV because it is rather inaccurate and the language is very outdated.

[Bobtheduck]

I will read any version of the Bible that passes this 25 question test and gets 100%.

{shortened}

Test your Bibles, and remember not to use footnotes, because footnotes aren't the Bible.

What is your "source" for accuracy? KJV? I wouldn't use that, because they King James schollars weren't as great with their greek as they could have been, and they even admitted to some mistakes...

As for footnotes? They're not "the Bible" but they do help you understand, particularly the ones that explain the original Greek in ways that don't translate consisely in English.

BTW, the thing about the trinity, I wonder what you're getting at... Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are the EXACT SAME THING. Ghost was just the word for spirit in Middle English, and now Ghost to our english refers to the wandering spirit of a dead person, which would NOT refer to the Holy Spirit, so it is an outdated translation, but not worthless.

[Mangafanatic]

The foot notes are the bible if they refer you to other verses. I mean-- well, that really requires no further explanation I suppose. And along with Bob, I'd be interested to know the source for your answer key . . .

[shooraijin]

Not that anyone has been particularly rude or less than courteous thus far (with the notable exception of neo, which has since been dealt with), but just a reminder to keep everything even-tempered since I smell some possibility of this becoming a little more than a "what translation do you like?" thread.

[TrigunX89]

I use a NIV Bible that I got from Church for graduating 3rd grade. Lol it's a kids' Bible, but I still use it anyway.

[Bobtheduck]

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

Ok... Mine says ""But I tell you , love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you."

2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

I don't even have to check... It says the same thing in KJ as it does in NIV and CJB... Prayer and Fasting

3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

To save the lost, but this verse is not in every manuscript... Is the the "footnotes" you're talking about? NIV translators, and later CJB translators, felt the need to mention that it is not in all manuscripts because it is possible these were added by overzealous scholars. Not that this is wrong (It's only sinfull to add to Revelations, not to change something to match with another witness when it fits) but that we only know the original for sure, so the possible discrepancy is brought up

4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

Hmm... This doesn't have a first name... Well, let's check good old King James... Pontius... Big stinking deal. Honestly, this is not even an issue... So they mention only his last name, if pontius is even a name and not merely a title of some sort (I honestly don't know) I'll check NIV... Same thing, no pontius. Well, you're basing your "accurate/not accurate" undoubtedly off KJV which is just another imperfect translation, and this is a very minor point not even worth worrying about... It mentions his name elsewhere. Besides that, If neither the NIV nor the CJB have it, I'd think that perhaps the original greek didn't have it either, and the King James schollars simply added it in because it was listed as his full name in other places. So, in other words, it would be the KJ and not the NIV that added to that verse.

5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

Once again, this was not in the earliest manuscripts so it was likely the addition that occured later and not written by Matthew... While that doesn't make it false, it is a good thing to point that out.

6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:

I don't know about this one, but I can guarantee you I'd not trust the KJV just because it came earlier than the NIV... The KJ could be the one that made the addition there (oh, and thanks for saying "devils" that tells me you are arguing this using the king james as your base)

7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

Another case of a verse that was not in all of the Greek Manuscripts... The King James writers felt the need to put it in if it was in any manuscripts, the NIV writers thought it better to alert people that those verses were not in every manuscript.

8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

Considering the different translations that don't say prophet, I'm assuming that the King James authors added that in, or it was another case of manuscript differences that was too small to mention since it clearly states he was a prophet (IN THE NIV AND CJB) in other verses, so that case of it's non-existance is a moot point.

9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

More of the same... Manuscript discrepancies, probably due to additions to later copies rather than removal from older copies. Additions that were put in to make it fit with other gospels, but additions nonetheless...

10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

Ditto... It's said in other gospels, but it was in later manuscripts that this was added to Luke

11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

I must point out, while I say "older doesn't mean more accurate" i'm reffering to an older x generation copy, not an older manuscript which is a different generation than an older manuscript... It is assumed by most schollars that the older manuscripts are older, but KJV and NIV are translated directly from the same set of manuscripts, so being an older translation is a moot point since they are just different interpretations of the same source material minus the discrepancies in manuscripts that NIV addresses and KJV does not.

This verse is more of the same

12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

this was added by KJ schollars and didn't occur in the manuscripts for Luke, though it was in other gospels which is why it was added by King James schollars...

13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

I thought I'd note that the KJV has a grammatical errror here... Funny commentary for all the KJO people... Anyhow, don't need to repeat myself because this is more of the same (type 2: too small to bring up)

14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

Remember when I said the langauge is outdated? yeah... This would be one of those cases... It did not mean he was still in Heaven, and saying that doesn't prove his deity... There are many many other things that prove he claimed to be God, but that wasn't one of them...

15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

Ditto... Not in the earlier manuscripts... What I don't get is why you're upset that it's mentioned in footnotes but not in the text? Don't you think are responsable for alerting people to things like that? I think it was unfortunate the KJ schollars didn't do that, but I'd imagine footnotes didn't exist in Middle English literature

16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

Ok.... It doesn't say night there because that was established in John 3... In other words, it is a redundat statement and is only a valid problem if you take the Bible verse by verse, but I should tell you it was man and not God that separated the Gospels into verses.

[Bobtheduck]

17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

I hate to repeat myself... It's another manuscript discrepancy


18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

"But get up, go into the city and you will be told what to do" that's CJB. The copy of the NIV I have doesn't have the verse, and it has a thing to direct you to a footnote that doesn't exist... So, I can't explain why the NIV doesn't have it because this one I have had a printing error that wouldn't count footnotes made on the left column of the page. I'm assuming it's just more discrepancies... Why the CJB left it in? Well, schollars do disagree from time to time...

19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

Ditto (type 1)

20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

The translation of the word mentioned there is unknown. Both the NIV writers and the KJV writers gave an educated guess, and they guessed differently. That's all... Of course, profane and desecrate mean about the same thing, I think... Desecrate has a tone of physical destruction, and profane sounds more philisophical, but they are close enough...


21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

type 1

22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

Read the verse prior... SO they used a pronoun when the "He" was allready known... That sounds incredibly nit-picky. Notice they used capital "H" which is known to English speaking Christians to refer to God.

23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

Man, are you nitpicky... So upset that the NIV writers weren't redundant like the KJV translators were... SO they said it twice... That really makes Peter sound like he's rambling, in my opinion, and this is an entirely moot point.

24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

This wasn't found in any greek manuscript before the sixteenth century... Do you know what that means? That means that someone in King James time added that to the manuscripts... in other words, I think this verse is entirely erroneus. Of course, to be fair and thorough, the NIV translators included it with that note, but you have some sort of phobia against footnotes because they don't exist in the KJV

25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"

This was very likely added by the King James translators so that the mostly illiterate audience would not have to think as hard as to realize who it was, so they used language from later in the book. Of course, I can't say, since the footnotes say nothing about this. I do know that King James and his schollars were likely trying to make the word accessable to those who were not of high intelligence... Who had no literary background, didn't have the reasoning abilities that the rich educated did. SO, while I find this entirely valid, it is by no means required as it is stated later on.

"Test your Bibles, and remember not to use footnotes, because footnotes aren't the Bible."

Well, you should perhaps test your King James version as well, and do read the opening message from the Schollars... Good people, and intelligent and Godly I'm sure, but not the most skilled in matters of history and translation. And admitedly flawed in their translation, which is ok, because the message is not changed. If the message is added to or removed from, then it is a curse, but a change in wording (such as, oh my, translation) is not such a change if prayer and thought went into it. King James was a good translation for its time, but it's outdated both in understanding of the languages and cultures and in the language written in it.

Be aware, too, that the King James versions available today are not the original versions authorized by King James, but second generation translations that fixed some problems and updated the language a bit. In other words, even the King James schollars knew the value of updating the language...

[CDLviking]

I prefer literal translations to paraphrases. I use the Douay-Rheims Version, I hope to one day have the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, since that's the closest you can get to the originals without reading one of the codices.

[madphilb]

Kudos to Bob for doing his Homework.... I was going to bring this up.... let sleeping dogs lie and all I decided to avoid something that didn't contribute to things.

While I understand people have preferences, that's ok, but such things as the KJV only issues smell of Ellitism, and frankly I think it's a poor attitude for Christians to have (that's not to say that those who are KJV only are, but it gives me that impression).

I stand by what I've been saying for years.... if you really want to study the true Word of God you need to learn Greek and Hebrew and read it in the original.


BTW, I'll have to see about getting a copy of "The Message" if they've finished the whole thing.... It seems to be a good version for non-study... no worse than reading comentaries on the books really, though it is subject (like all paraphrases) to the author's understanding of the original verses.

[Slater]

oops, forgot about this thread...
anyways, you did not test your Bible. I didn't have to look past your answer for the second question to see that. the NIV does not have that verse.
also, people can hardly say that the KJV is at fault. A study went forth in which well over 3000 pages of research, comparison, and study happened, and they found that the KJV is without a doubt the most accurate translation of the Bible. I can post it somewhere on the web if you want.
I did use the NIV for the longest time. That's before I came to realize all of its errors and changes from God's true Word. I even came to realize that it was blasphemeous in places, such as calling Joseph Jesus' father. Also, I don't like a Bible that claims in its preface that it is impossible to depend fully on God's Word as being accurate (as the NIV does) and then includes Matthew 5:18. Also it comes to mind that a number of those who wrote the NIV were openly homosexual. Chances are that your NIV says Zondervan in it. If you don't know the sins that that company has committed... well... let's just say that it's time to find out. Zondervan produces the Satanism Bible.
One more thing that drives me to believe that the KJV is the most accurate (and in light of Matt. 5:18, the perfect) translation is the fact that it has no copywrite and is the ONLY translation that is officially considered as the Authorized Word of God. It does not contain a preface that claims that it is imperfect as the NIV does.
Now, to clear any misunderstandings, I am not saying that anybody who doesn't read the KJV is going to hell or committing some grave sin or anything like that. Those versions (NIV, NAST, NKJ...) do contain the word of God and a person can come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But they are tainted and imperfect, unlike the true Word of God. I am not against every translation of God's Word that there is, but I think it's reasonable for a person to want to get the whole, true truth.

[shooraijin]

I find a number of your statements to be quite controversial, and I think backup is mandatory, particularly for the statements indicting Zondervan and the NIV translators.

One misconception to be dispelled immediately: the only figure who may make any assertions as to whether something is the Authorized Word of God is God, period. The fact that the KJV is called the "Authorized Version" only refers to the fact that it was produced with official royal permission, and nothing more.

[Slater]

Well, if anyone wants to read the doccuments I have, IM me. I'll be happy to send them to you. I will warn you however that it is the length of a small book, .txt files. I'd be honored to pass them on.

[The Grammarian]

So, I was wondering, since this is a Christian board, what translations (English) of the Bible do you all use?

I use the following:

Kenneth Wuest's Expanded New Testament
King James Version (the common, 1769 Blaine edition)
Contemporary English Version New Testament
Revised Standard Version
New International Version (ok, I own it, though it's one of the last ones I would use)
New American Standard Version (Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible; also have a KJV of this)
King James Version, 1611 edition reprint
God's Word translation End Times Bible
New Living Translation
Analytical Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland 27th ed./UBS 4th ed.)

And if I'm on the road, I have an NASB and a KJV New Testament/Psalms & Proverbs pocket edition.

I like reading more than one translation, just for getting the complete picture's sake.

[Rev. Doc]

KJV, If it was good enough for Paul...

Anyway, I use the NIV.

[Gypsy]

I read mostly the New Living Translation for quick reference. When I'm actually studying, and digging into the Bible, I use the KJV so I can use my Strong's and Vine's. I also like to read The Message, but purely for devotional value. I don't read The Message as the actual Word of God.