Kings James Version

[Boaz]

I will adhere to as newer version of GOD's word . Will no longer post by KJV . Understanding , clarity is paramount . Without clarity there is confusion . Bear with me . It is hard . Thank you . Change is hard .

[jmort]

Everyone picks the translation they like best
Amplified for me
So what is your choice?

[Bzcraig]

How about the NKJ?

[WRideout]

I think they all have their place, at times. I studied a little Greek, but can't say I am really able to read the original New Testament. It is interesting to pick apart words in the original writing, though.

Wayne

[TXGunNut]

Not sure I understand. I prefer to read the KJV's antiquated language possibly because it forces me to slow down and think about what the scripture is saying. Reading aloud is another matter as I'd probably have trouble reading a grocery list coherently. I guess like any public speaking opportunity it takes practice.

[dverna]

I am using the NIV Quest.

Don Verna

[Ickisrulz]

I like the RSV, NRSV and ESV. They are all pretty close to one another. They are good readable word-for-word translations.

The Amplified is very useful in that it provides a word-for-word translation with "explanation" built in to the text.

The best translation is one that can be read and understood easily. When the books of the Bible were originally written they were in the everyday language of the people. The King Jame Version seems to create an unnecessary distance between today's audience and the Bible. While poetic, it is very formal and archaic English. It was also translated using newer manuscripts than the modern translations.

I'd bet for most casual readers, they'd get the most from reading a Bible specially translated for children (e.g., New International Reader's Version).

[Preacher Jim]

New American Standard mostly because all can follow me. stay with a translation by a known group. And I too like amplified as it give most of the meaning of a word.

[Boaz]

I was raised on KJV . My Sunday school teachers , my parents taught the difference in the , thou , thine . Times have changed. New word . New generation . New opportunity for salvation . Simple would be his choice , but who be to me , more figuring out . I will be hard put , bear with me .

[Ickisrulz]

I was raised on KJV . My Sunday school teachers , my parents taught the difference in the , thou , thine . Times have changed. New word . New generation . New opportunity for salvation . Simple would be his choice , but who be to me , more figuring out . I will be hard put , bear with me .

The one thing the KJV does that newer versions do not do is differentiate between when one person is being addressed (the use of "thou") vs a group of people being addressed (the use of "you"). This can help the reader understand a passage more clearly.

[Hogtamer]

I use the NKJV. It eliminates some of the archaic language uses of the early 17th century but retains the majestic prose the King James scholars were able to transcribe from the texts available. Lots of study helps available. Still love the old Matthew Henry commentaries but not averse to Eugene Peterson's paraphrase, The Message. ESV is very good. The one you read is best.

[Boaz]

My GOD My God . GOD's Word not understood ? A failing !

[Boaz]

Read his word in your way , you bible . be steadfast . yours to think , yours to live by , yours to. Go in peace .

[Ithaca Gunner]

I read the KJV and sometimes a 1611 version. Either can be mastered in very little time. I don't have a problem with other versions. Just prefer KJV.

[BNE]

I grew up with the King James version. I still love it, but I use an ESV now. (And understand it better....)

[Tom W.]

I read the KJV and sometimes a 1611 version. Either can be mastered in very little time. I don't have a problem with other versions. Just prefer KJV.

Me too.

[1johnlb]

I read the nkjv on a regular basis, but when I'm studying a subject or matter I include several. 2 of which I keep copies close by, which are Christain athletes and God's Word versions. I also like referencing niv, nlt, amplified and several others from time to time. I generally don't like study bibles with all the commentaries, it clusters up the pages and breaks up the Spirit of the Word to me.

Before I read, there's always 1 thing I have to do. I have to pray. I start by reminding Him of what is written in John, that He would send us a helper, a teacher. Then I ask Him to teach me and I allow Him. I guess what I'm doing is inviting Him in and allowing Him His will/way. What I don't do is read with my understanding, I read with the full assurance that every word is true. I was never a English scholar as some may have perceived, but I thing that dealing with the bible and Christains or just people in general. Is that we all have been brain washed in our lives by words and depending on how and where you grew up, was educated and or the company you kept, has a impact on how we perceive words of the English language.

I tend to believe the verse, "I will confound the wise". So I'm sure not to think of myself as being wise, other than following Christ

[Alabama358]

KJV all the way here!

Here is an example...

KJV Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

NIV Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A16&version=NIV#fen-NIV-31097a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

That seems kind of close. Right? Jesus refers to himself as the Morning Star in both KJV and the NIV.
But...

KJV Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations

It appears that the NIV calls Jesus the morning star in Revelations but has him being cast from heaven in Isaiah.
Don't be hood-winked by these rewrites. Why would you... for the sake of easy reading? God's word does not need rewritten.

[shoot-n-lead]

KJV all the way here!

Here is an example...

KJV Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

NIV Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A16&version=NIV#fen-NIV-31097a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

That seems kind of close. Right? Jesus refers to himself as the Morning Star in both KJV and the NIV.
But...

KJV Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations

It appears that the NIV calls Jesus the morning star in Revelations but has him being cast from heaven in Isaiah.
Don't be hood-winked by these rewrites. Why would you... for the sake of easy reading? God's word does not need rewritten.

Yeah, I saw this at this link....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHUfOjjrFZo

[koehlerrk]

I like the New King James myself, wife likes NIV, daughter likes the ESV.

I think the nicest bible I own, for reading purposes, is the one on my tablet, e-Sword.

I can configure it in numerous ways, one of them being a parallel bible of multiple versions. Read a verse in KJV, NKJV, ESL, NIV, Amplified, etc... take your pick. Having that at my fingertips is a very nice option, and my tablet is a lot smaller and lighter than dragging 3-4 full size study bibles around with me everywhere.

[Alabama358]

I like the New King James myself, wife likes NIV, daughter likes the ESV.

I think the nicest bible I own, for reading purposes, is the one on my tablet, e-Sword.

I can configure it in numerous ways, one of them being a parallel bible of multiple versions. Read a verse in KJV, NKJV, ESL, NIV, Amplified, etc... take your pick. Having that at my fingertips is a very nice option, and my tablet is a lot smaller and lighter than dragging 3-4 full size study bibles around with me everywhere.

Compare the Genesis 3:16 in the KJV and the latest ESV

KJV Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

ESV Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3%3A16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-72a)] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

So we went from KJV "thy desire will be to thy husband" to ESV "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband"

[WILCO]

Never had an issue with King James Version. If I didn't understand it, simply reread it and thought about it. Also prayed for clarity before reading.

[shoot-n-lead]

I enjoyed reading what Billy Graham had to say about the different translations of the Bible.

He says the differences in terminology are completely normal given that all of the versions we have today, have been revised many times sinces their original translation.

https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-king-james-bible-the-only-reliable-bible/

[alamogunr]

I use the KJV and NIV about equally. Have been considering the ESV. I've heard all my life that the American Standard Version is most accurate. It is not very popular and the only copy I have is printed so small I have trouble reading it for extended periods.

I don't care at all for the paraphrased versions.

[1johnlb]

KJV all the way here!

Here is an example...

KJV Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

NIV Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A16&version=NIV#fen-NIV-31097a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

That seems kind of close. Right? Jesus refers to himself as the Morning Star in both KJV and the NIV.
But...

KJV Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations

It appears that the NIV calls Jesus the morning star in Revelations but has him being cast from heaven in Isaiah.
Don't be hood-winked by these rewrites. Why would you... for the sake of easy reading? God's word does not need rewritten.

I wouldn't be so quick, to judge versions. I'm not trying to start a debate, but if you close your mind to quick you may just miss something. This is the perfect example of why we should read more than 1 version.

First you have to know who satan is and who lucifer is. Lucifer was the anointed cherub and the only anointed cherub. The greatest of all cherubs. Created with great beauty and song.

Satan is fallen Lucifer, that took 1/3 of the angles with him, when he fell.

Now we need to know a little something about the anointing. There's a reason God places His anointing on anyone. It's so they have absolute power and athority from God to fulfill His will in any given task.

So then Lucifer had an original purpose in God's plan and it wasn't evil. So what was it. Well our Christain bible doesn't directly say, so anything said would only be a guess.

Have you ever wondered why in the beginning God created light and darkness on 2 different days? On the first and the fourth day. Well I believe one of those days the light He created was absolute truth, but that's just me. And lucifer was the carrier of that truth/light and it wasn't until Jesus hung on the cross died and raised with the keys that He became the Morning Star/ absolute truth. But that's just me.

Alright I said all this for 1 reason and could have given you the short version, but the short version wouldn't have given you something to thank about, but it'll probably give me some grief.

The name Lucifer means morning star.

[1johnlb]

I've been looking for the teaching about this but can't find it, but did come across this.

Lucifer*(/ˈluːsɪfər/;[1][2][3]*loo-sif-ər) is the*King James Version*rendering of the*Hebrew*wordהֵילֵל*in*Isaiah*(Isaiah 14:12). The*Vulgatetranslation uses the*Latin*word*lucifer, but with a lower-case initial,[4]*The Hebrew word, transliterated*Hêlêl[5]*or*Heylel*(pron. as*HAY-lale),[6]*occurs once in the*Hebrew Bible[5]*and according to the KJV-based*Strong's Concordance*means "shining one, light-bearer".[6]*The*Septuagint*renders הֵילֵל inGreek*as ἑωσφόρος[7][8][9][10][11](heōsphoros),[12][13][14]*a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[15]*The word*Lucifer*is taken from the*LatinVulgate,[16]*which translates הֵילֵל aslucifer,[17][18]*meaning "the morning star, theplanet*Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".[19]




The*Latin*word*lucifer, corresponding to Greek φωσφόρος, was used as a name for the morning star and thus appeared in theVulgate*translation of the*Hebrew*word הֵילֵל (helel), meaning Venus as the brilliant, bright or shining one, in*Isaiah 14:12, where theSeptuagint*Greek version uses, not φωσφόρος, but ἑωσφόρος. As a translation of the same Hebrew word the*King James Version*gave "Lucifer", a name often understood as a reference to*Satan. Modern translations of the same passage render the Hebrew word instead as "morning star", "daystar", "shining one" or "shining star". InRevelation 22:16, Jesus is referred to as the morning star, but not as lucifer in Latin, nor as φωσφόρος in the original Greek text, which instead has ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός (ho astēr ho lampros ho prōinos), literally: the star, the shining one, the dawn.[3][4][5]*In the Vulgate Latin text of*2 Peter 1:19*the word "lucifer" is used of the morning star in the phrase "until the day dawns and*the morning star*rises in your hearts", the corresponding Greek word being φωσφόρος.

WARNING
The following may offend you


https://youtu.be/S-lRMO8vHT0


My apologies, to much time on my hands at work. Although I did get my lugs lapped on my savage action.

Thank you
Jesus

[1johnlb]

Compare the Genesis 3:16 in the KJV and the latest ESV

KJV Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

ESV Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3%3A16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-72a)] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

So we went from KJV "thy desire will be to thy husband" to ESV "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband"


I don't know about the rest of you gents, but ESV more reflects my wife's attitude 90% of the time:roll:

[GhostHawk]

I have the King James in a 1611 red letter version on my laptop. That is my bible.

But I was an early adopter of Ebooks, I am comfortable with them.
I like the table of contents, right click scroll through the list till I find the one I want, select and BAM, I'm there. No flipping pages, no getting lost, no sweat no hassles.

But your mileage may vary.

My laptop is a little Asus 100 convertable.
I read Ebooks with Book Baazar free at the microsoft store.

https://archive.org/download/KingJamesBibleRedLetter/1611-Bible-RE-KJV.epub

I like the archaic language, it suits me for some reason. If that makes me weird, fine I'm weird.

[Ickisrulz]

KJV all the way here!

Here is an example...

KJV Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

NIV Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A16&version=NIV#fen-NIV-31097a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

That seems kind of close. Right? Jesus refers to himself as the Morning Star in both KJV and the NIV.
But...

KJV Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,you who once laid low the nations

It appears that the NIV calls Jesus the morning star in Revelations but has him being cast from heaven in Isaiah.
Don't be hood-winked by these rewrites. Why would you... for the sake of easy reading? God's word does not need rewritten.

Have you read why the translators made their decisions? While you might not be able to read the original languages they can and their word choices are based on their skills and ability. Any good scholarly commentary will provide a discussion on why a particular verse is translated the way it is and give possible variations.

A translation is not re-writing God's word. It is taking the original texts (or copies of them anyway) and translating them so you can read the material in your own language. There is a difference.

The KJV was not inspired by God. Just because it is one's preferred translation doesn't give it infallibility or even make it the best. It is merely a preference based on familiarity. The fact that the KJV was translated using more recent manuscripts has caused more than a few errors.

The KJV should really be shelved and not pushed on any new generations of people.

[William Yanda]

" It was also translated using newer manuscripts than the modern translations."

Herein lies my problem with the translations since the Civil War. That argument assumes older manuscripts are more accurate. It has been argued that the "older" manuscripts were determined to be polluted and were abandoned, hence their survival. In a perfect world, a KJV equivalent, in current English would be the solution. In 20 years or less it would be out of date. In our technology oriented society, references to animal husbandry and agricultural practices, easily understood from Bible times to the early 20th century have become obscure.

[Ickisrulz]

I wouldn't be so quick, to judge versions. I'm not trying to start a debate, but if you close your mind to quick you may just miss something. This is the perfect example of why we should read more than 1 version.

First you have to know who satan is and who lucifer is. Lucifer was the anointed cherub and the only anointed cherub. The greatest of all cherubs. Created with great beauty and song.

Satan is fallen Lucifer, that took 1/3 of the angles with him, when he fell.

Now we need to know a little something about the anointing. There's a reason God places His anointing on anyone. It's so they have absolute power and athority from God to fulfill His will in any given task.

So then Lucifer had an original purpose in God's plan and it wasn't evil. So what was it. Well our Christain bible doesn't directly say, so anything said would only be a guess.

Have you ever wondered why in the beginning God created light and darkness on 2 different days? On the first and the fourth day. Well I believe one of those days the light He created was absolute truth, but that's just me. And lucifer was the carrier of that truth/light and it wasn't until Jesus hung on the cross died and raised with the keys that He became the Morning Star/ absolute truth. But that's just me.

Alright I said all this for 1 reason and could have given you the short version, but the short version wouldn't have given you something to thank about, but it'll probably give me some grief.

The name Lucifer means morning star.

Lucifer was the king of Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel. People claim the address to this king applies to Satan. So taking anything said to "Lucifier" as being a description of Satan is by application rather than interpretation.

[Ickisrulz]

" It was also translated using newer manuscripts than the modern translations."

Herein lies my problem with the translations since the Civil War. That argument assumes older manuscripts are more accurate. It has been argued that the "older" manuscripts were determined to be polluted and were abandoned, hence their survival. In a perfect world, a KJV equivalent, in current English would be the solution. In 20 years or less it would be out of date. In our technology oriented society, references to animal husbandry and agricultural practices, easily understood from Bible times to the early 20th century have become obscure.


The original text were lost due to probably being just worn out. Copies of those texts were made and circulated. As new copies were made they were hand written word-for-word. When copies were made, errors were introduced. I doubt this was intentional; people just make mistakes. The idea is that a manuscript made closer to the time when we had originals will have less errors than later copies. Additionally, we have more than one copy of some texts. If these texts agree, we know they are probably what the original said.

[garym1a2]

My most used readings is the KJV version on my Amazon Fire 8hd tablet. I can find it easy to read by making the text large size. In church I use the same KJV version on my S5 phone. My printed Bible the text is too small to read anymore. Plus the Electronic devices are easy to read at night.

[Wayne Smith]

Language transmits culture, and culture is embedded in language. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from one language to another because the cultures are different and embed different assumptions. A couple examples - the word translated 'body/soul' from Hebrew has no separation of the two concepts, there is only body in Hebrew and it includes the concept of 'soul'. Greek separated the two concepts. Second - the Hebrew assumption of the person is "I am what I do" while the Greek concept of the person is "I am what I think". We are very Greek in our thinking. We thus take what are very active doing verbs in Hebrew and turn them into thinking verbs in Greek/English.

As you can see, there are many and complex issues in the translation from one culture to another, and many opportunities to overlook something or carry over an erroneous assumption. Those who study these things are much more qualified to handle them than I. The more we know of the original cultures the more complete our understanding. This is a good part of my current study.

Another example - Joseph and Jesus almost certainly were not carpenters. The word translated simply means "builder". At that time in history the city of Sapphoris was being rebuilt within three miles of Nazareth. It was built of stone. It is more likely they were stone masons but the European (German/English) translators saw 'builder' and thought 'carpenter' because houses were built of wood then and there. Thus we have an assumption that is probably not literally true.

Earlier copies of the scripture were not "abandoned", they were lost. Given wars and upheavals that were mostly constant through a good part of our history since the Roman Empire it is only through God's grace we have what we do of the earliest copies. They were mostly found in Mid Eastern monasteries where the copies were made and kept.

[USMC87]

I use KJV, NKJV, ESV NASB, NLT mostly.

[Ickisrulz]

Language transmits culture, and culture is embedded in language. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from one language to another because the cultures are different and embed different assumptions. A couple examples - the word translated 'body/soul' from Hebrew has no separation of the two concepts, there is only body in Hebrew and it includes the concept of 'soul'. Greek separated the two concepts. Second - the Hebrew assumption of the person is "I am what I do" while the Greek concept of the person is "I am what I think". We are very Greek in our thinking. We thus take what are very active doing verbs in Hebrew and turn them into thinking verbs in Greek/English.

As you can see, there are many and complex issues in the translation from one culture to another, and many opportunities to overlook something or carry over an erroneous assumption. Those who study these things are much more qualified to handle them than I. The more we know of the original cultures the more complete our understanding. This is a good part of my current study.

Another example - Joseph and Jesus almost certainly were not carpenters. The word translated simply means "builder". At that time in history the city of Sapphoris was being rebuilt within three miles of Nazareth. It was built of stone. It is more likely they were stone masons but the European (German/English) translators saw 'builder' and thought 'carpenter' because houses were built of wood then and there. Thus we have an assumption that is probably not literally true.

Earlier copies of the scripture were not "abandoned", they were lost. Given wars and upheavals that were mostly constant through a good part of our history since the Roman Empire it is only through God's grace we have what we do of the earliest copies. They were mostly found in Mid Eastern monasteries where the copies were made and kept.

These are all great points and highlight the need for and value of professional biblical scholars.

[Blackwater]

When copies were made, errors were introduced.

I know that this is a popular perception today, but I'm not convinced it's true. If by "errors," one means the handwriting and style of writing might change, then I'm OK with that. But when copies were made that translated the original language into another, some word choices will always be arguable. But the main thrust of our concerns, I believe, ought to be toward the proposition of whether the translations are SUFFICIENT to give us the idea that is central to the verse/word. This, I think, should vary MUCH less than specific arguments over which word is best, for the simple reason that reading the Bible, whatever version we have, depends much more on our inspiration and intent, than it will ever depend on the exact wording used.

So I'm ambivalent about the various versions, and just use my KJV simply because I like the rhythm and beauty of the prose in it. I think we depend MUCH more in inspiration than we ever could on specific word choices in interpretations. Inspiration is what edifies us. And that's the key to it all, at least for me. I believe that if we truly read the Book with the right approach and attitude, and a sense of reverence and respect, inspiration will pave the way for us to understand and be edified. It's our approach and attitude that makes MUCH more difference than a word choice here, a punctuation mark there, etc., etc.

That's my view, at least.

[1johnlb]

Lucifer was the king of Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel. People claim the address to this king applies to Satan. So taking anything said to "Lucifier" as being a description of Satan is by application rather than interpretation.
In the new testament Jesus call Peter Satan. It's safe to say Peter was doing the work of Satan or at least working through Peter. Could this be the same application of the name. I think so, the king of Tyre was a real man just doing satan's work.

It's also written on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Sodom and tyre. Than for these religious persons.

[jmort]

Young's Literal Translation is also useful. As has been rightly noted. But, I will add that I have been blessed by having an Amplified translation and putting it to use.





extremely literal (on the extreme formal equivalence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_equivalence) end of formal and dynamic equivalence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_and_dynamic_equivalence) spectrum: possibly most literal English rendering)

[1johnlb]

I know that this is a popular perception today, but I'm not convinced it's true. If by "errors," one means the handwriting and style of writing might change, then I'm OK with that. But when copies were made that translated the original language into another, some word choices will always be arguable. But the main thrust of our concerns, I believe, ought to be toward the proposition of whether the translations are SUFFICIENT to give us the idea that is central to the verse/word. This, I think, should vary MUCH less than specific arguments over which word is best, for the simple reason that reading the Bible, whatever version we have, depends much more on our inspiration and intent, than it will ever depend on the exact wording used.

So I'm ambivalent about the various versions, and just use my KJV simply because I like the rhythm and beauty of the prose in it. I think we depend MUCH more in inspiration than we ever could on specific word choices in interpretations. Inspiration is what edifies us. And that's the key to it all, at least for me. I believe that if we truly read the Book with the right approach and attitude, and a sense of reverence and respect, inspiration will pave the way for us to understand and be edified. It's our approach and attitude that makes MUCH more difference than a word choice here, a punctuation mark there, etc., etc.

That's my view, at least.

To date I have never encountered anything that man has made to be infallible. There's flaws in it all, especially the English language. But that's what we have to work with.

But God's word is infallible and you can only see it with the writer, the Holy Spirit

[Ickisrulz]

In the new testament Jesus call Peter Satan. It's safe to say Peter was doing the work of Satan or at least working through Peter. Could this be the same application of the name. I think so, the king of Tyre was a real man just doing satan's work.

It's also written on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Sodom and tyre. Than for these religious persons.

Like I said, some people apply the description of the king to Satan. They have reasons for doing this, but it is not by simply reading the passage in the simplest way.

Additionally, you cannot find the name "Lucifer" applied to Satan anywhere in the Bible. So there is no passage to back up a claim that the address to the king of Tyre has a secondary meaning the way we see some passages or ideas used (e.g., Isaiah's wife giving birth or even Jesus' rebuke of Peter).

This of course is a very minor point in the grand scheme of things, but it does call into question the proper way to interpret scripture.

The person we know as Satan or The Devil is not given a personal name in the Bible. The terms applied to him are descriptions of his character and what he does. He is the adversary, the accuser, the father of lies, the slanderer, etc. A definite article accompanies each of these terms showing him to be the apex sinner.

[cga]

King James Version, Septuagint and the Apocrypha.

[Ickisrulz]

I know that this is a popular perception today, but I'm not convinced it's true. If by "errors," one means the handwriting and style of writing might change, then I'm OK with that. But when copies were made that translated the original language into another, some word choices will always be arguable. But the main thrust of our concerns, I believe, ought to be toward the proposition of whether the translations are SUFFICIENT to give us the idea that is central to the verse/word. This, I think, should vary MUCH less than specific arguments over which word is best, for the simple reason that reading the Bible, whatever version we have, depends much more on our inspiration and intent, than it will ever depend on the exact wording used.

So I'm ambivalent about the various versions, and just use my KJV simply because I like the rhythm and beauty of the prose in it. I think we depend MUCH more in inspiration than we ever could on specific word choices in interpretations. Inspiration is what edifies us. And that's the key to it all, at least for me. I believe that if we truly read the Book with the right approach and attitude, and a sense of reverence and respect, inspiration will pave the way for us to understand and be edified. It's our approach and attitude that makes MUCH more difference than a word choice here, a punctuation mark there, etc., etc.

That's my view, at least.

Translations and copies are two different things. Both are done by people and people make mistakes. Inspiration is typically understood as applying to the original documents.

Biblical understanding should not come from focusing on single words in any passage. A translator's choice between "happy" and "glad" will probably make no difference. Understanding should come from getting a clear picture of what the original author intended to convey to the original audience and how that fits into the revelation of the entire Bible.

[Blackwater]

Ick and John, your points are well taken. All I mean, really, is that it's not the exact, specific words that edify, but the spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit that can overcome any minor shades of meaning, if we really have it to use in our studies. A pure heart, and a truly focused mind on the meaning BEHIND the words has, at least in my experience, been the main determinant of what we either do or do not understand. The Bible is a rather unique book, in that one's perspective, mood and focus, can and regularly DOES determine what, if anything, we get out of it.

For instance, a haughty atheist could read the whole Bible from cover to cover, and not get the least thing from it at all. Whereas, one with a pure heart and a real desire to know, could get all he really needs from one of those miniature copies of the bible with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in them, and have a wonderful experience in it with that minimal sampling of the whole book. So I just don't see a lot of fruit to be had from parsing words here and there. Yes, it DOES serve a purpose occasionally, but much more unnecessary squabbling and haggling is caused by it than the real good that comes from it.

So mostly, I just shrug, and can take or leave it. I'm just more focused on understanding and executing the advice of our Lord than I am in arguing over this or that small point. Remember, Jesus rebuked the scribes and pharisees for doing things like that, so .... I will probably carry my regard for these matters unless and until someone shows me better fruit from it all. I need to put my studies and efforts in more fruitful areas, the vast majority of the time. When info is presented within the context of a lesson of some kind, it DOES add to the lesson often, but generalized opining about the various translations seems to me to be rather more contrived than it is useful. That's all I mean by what I've said about the matter. It's more a matter of focus than fact, IMHO, and all facets of study ARE useful, but all can ALSO be misused, to drive wedges between God's people, and that can't EVER be a good thing. THAT is where my focus is, at least.

[Wayne Smith]

We know there were additions. The end of Mark in the KJV where it talks of handling serpents - does not appear in any manuscript prior to the third century. It is an additon that crept in sometime in the third or forth century. It does not appear in any of the 'modern' translations.

The NASB was produced by the Holman Corp. I attended classes at Talbot Seminary when I was in grad school for Psychology - part of the program. Several of my classmates from the Seminary were involved in, I think, the fourth level of proofreading the text from the Hebrew, Greek, and Amaric, the students who were fluent in those languages.

My primary Bible is now the Holman Study Bible, but when I study I use multiple translations and commentaries to attempt to come to an understanding of how the original hearers heard the passage. I have almost finished a book Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by an author who has spent 40+ years teaching at Beruit University and other Middle Eastern Universities. I'm planning on finding some of his other books as well. (I'm at work or I'd give the complete reference.)

Author is Kenneth E. Bailey; ISBN 978-8308-2568-4

[1johnlb]

It never cease to amaze me, that the more I learn, that the more I know, how little I really know about His word.

[jcwit]

Folks, the King James Version was written for the church of England which was formed by Henry the VIII who started the church of England for the simple reason the Pope would not allow him an annulment.

[Boaz]

That's true J C !

[rl69]

True understand comes from the Holy Spirit. The best interpretation is the one you read.

Pray pray pray pray he will give you understanding

[GhostHawk]

Amen!

[Boaz]

Agree !

[Ickisrulz]

Folks, the King James Version was written for the church of England which was formed by Henry the VIII who started the church of England for the simple reason the Pope would not allow him an annulment.

What does that have to do with the quality of the KJV translation? There are translations that have been overseen or sponsored by many organizations to include the Roman Catholic Church. A translation must stand on its merit not the circumstances surrounding its creation.

Even with some of it's problems, it was the best English translation until around 1888 which saw the completion of the Revised Version (and its virtual twin the American Standard Version of 1901).

[jcwit]

What does that have to do with the quality of the KJV translation? There are translations that have been overseen or sponsored by many organizations to include the Roman Catholic Church. A translation must stand on its merit not the circumstances surrounding its creation.

Even with some of it's problems, it was the best English translation until around 1888 which saw the completion of the Revised Version (and its virtual twin the American Standard Version of 1901).

The current Catholic Bible is the NAB Bible and was translated from original Latin texts, if were not for the Catholic monks handwriting the Bible we would not have a Bible! This all goes back to around the 3rd century AD.

[rl69]

A few years back the wife and I where reading I was in the NKJ she was in the KJ we where in acts 1:13 the KJ calls judus drop her of James while NKJ calls him his son in the original text it translates of James

again in in the book of Esther 5:14 in the KJ Haman built a 50 cubic gallow in other transliterations it was a 50 ft pike in that time in that region I think pike is more likely

my point is what does it have to do with your salvation? This is Gods word! it is how he wants it to be! He is a sovereign God there is nothing we can do to undo his will.

God has has moved in the harts of men to carry on his word! man has not done this.

Boaz as ive said use the translation you are led to use. it will reach those God intends for it to reach. The work is ours the results or his

[jmort]

"my point is what does it have to do with your salvation?"

There is not much that is critical to salvation that is argued and discussed. We can argue around the edges but there is little to no profit in it. The Nicene Creed, in part or whole, pretty much covers it





First Council of Nicea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)


We believe in one God (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity), the Father Almighty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father), Maker of all things visible and invisible.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_(Christianity)) and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.


And in one Lord (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrios_(biblical_term)) Jesus Christ, the Son of God (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God), begotten of the Father [the only-begotten (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogenes); that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantial);
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ) (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;


By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
by whom all things were made;


Who for us men, and for our salvation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity), came down and was incarnate (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)) and was made man;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;


He suffered (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_(Christianity)), and the third day he rose again (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus), ascended into heaven;
he was crucified (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entombment_of_Christ), and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Christ), and sitteth (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_of_Christ) on the right hand of the Father (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Hand_of_God);


From thence he shall come (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Christ) to judge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Judgement#Christianity) the quick and the dead (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)).
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_and_the_dead_(idiom)). ;



whose kingdom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God_(Christianity)) shall have no end.


And in the Holy Ghost (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Ghost).
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.



In one holy catholic and apostolic Church (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church); we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_the_dead), and the life of the world to come (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_come). Amen.


[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

[Ken in Iowa]

Interesting thread.

My experience;

I grew up in an RSV church.

When my wife and I married, we attended her home church which was KJV. I struggled.

I attended a non-denominational bible study. NASB was popular. I bought one. Still use it.

We moved to a new town. New church NIV. Our pastor had helped with the translation of the NIV which was quite interesting.

A friend introduced my to the parallel bible concept. He used one on a PDA. Remember those?

Current church uses ESV primarily, but references many other versions.

My study bible is NASB. I use a parallel bible on my smart phone (You Version) with dozens of versions available. I use it a lot, exclusively in church now.

My recently used versions;
NASB
KJV
ESV
NIV
ASV
GNTD
MSG

I find the ASV to be a good bridge between the KJV and the later translations. I wish that I had found it earlier in my walk at the King James church.

[Pine Baron]

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. There seems to be a common theme here. It doesn't matter what version we read, the Holy spirit reveals God's words to each individual.
I believe the OP is looking beyond the individual and towards making the message understandable to others, who may be just awakening and full of questions. I understand.
When sharing our various insights, it's important to be clear and our definitions consistent. As mentioned above, we can nibble around the edges of translations and meanings, but the important thing is the "Message", that is immutable.

[Ken in Iowa]

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. There seems to be a common theme here. It doesn't matter what version we read, the Holy spirit reveals God's words to each individual.
I believe the OP is looking beyond the individual and towards making the message understandable to others, who may be just awakening and full of questions. I understand.
When sharing our various insights, it's important to be clear and our definitions consistent. As mentioned above, we can nibble around the edges of translations and meanings, but the important thing is the "Message", that is immutable.

Totally agree!

[Blackwater]

Well, guys, it's my understanding that the KJV was prepared and tranlated under King James, NOT Henry VIII. He was a devout believer, and was troubled and perterbed by all the sects at that time, and forced the best scholars from each sect to sit together, and argue out the words involved, and parse them until they could all reach a fair concensus on the best way to translate it all. Each sect at that time had their own version of "the Bible," and James' intent was that one, unified Bible be used by ALL Christians. I believe what motivated him to do so was simply the realization that factionalizing and parsing out the various sects would WEAKEN Christianity significantly and maybe severely, and he simply wasn't, as a devout believer, going to allow that to happen. The leaders of each sect resisted him tooth and nail, but he was a powerful king, and was NOT to be told "No" very many times, so he basically just forced them, however reluctant they may have been to do so, to work it all out. And when it was completed, all the sects were satisfied that they'd done the best job they possibly could have, and most came to respect James for forcing them to do what they'd done. Aftersight is always 20/20, or at least it usually is.

So that's the real story of the origin of the KJV, at least as I've leanrd it. Had it been done by Henry, it'd be known as the KHB.

[jcwit]

Wonder what is ment by "all sects" as Henry the 8th only allowed the church of England. If this is not true, post links.

[TXGunNut]

I'll admit one reason I like the KJV is because the Bible I generally read was used by my late father in his later years of lay ministry. It's also the version I grew up with. I don't read the Bible as much as I should; I do something I call "random Bible study". Quite often the page I first open to speaks to what's on my mind, other times it gives me something to consider. This past week I had a particularly bad day and the bad aftertaste followed me home. The evening improved with a good dinner and a big mug of tea. Then I opened my father's Bible with no particular destination in mind and it opened to the first chapter of Job. Didn't take long to realize that my day hadn't been so bad after all. ;-)

[Wayne Smith]

Wonder what is ment by "all sects" as Henry the 8th only allowed the church of England. If this is not true, post links.
Scott Presbyterians - and that was a significant addition given their democratic governing. Yes, it was a political issue too.

For those who are interested I posted the reference for the book I mentioned in my earlier post.

[Blackwater]

JC, at that time, there were a number of divisions, each claiming THEY were THE right ones, and each had their own Bibles. They were the beginnings of sects like the Quakers, the Pilgrims, and others, and there was more than a little unrest caused by their bickering and competition for members and money to support their views. When any king saw stuff like this, if they were wise (and King James seems to have been one of the better ones in this respect) they are compelled to at least try to nip any big rifts in the bud, before they become wars. So .... he did as I described. That's my understanding, and I wasn't there, so can't give personal testimony on it.

Mostly, I just like the cadence and poetry in the KJV, and it's written enough differently from the way we actually speak today, to keep us ever mindful that it IS a translation, and this helps keep us mindful to keep searching for the meaning behind the words, rather than just taking it quite literally all the time. I believe the key to gleaning real meaning from ANY version of the Bible is a real, earnest and deep yearning for that understanding, and I believe it often has to be sustained over what can sometimes be a long time before it's revealed to us.

I also believe not one of us really has perceived ALL the meaning, or the COMPLETE meaning of it all. I believe there are many things contained in many single verses, and we probably just don't have the mental talents, as humans, to really understand it ALL. But we are bound and instructed to try, and it's in the trying that we become edified by it. Understanding for us humans, has never been a destination, but a process, and one that seems to never end. Whenever I've learned one thing, that gives rise to two or three new questions, and it becomes a geometric progression that I don't believe anyone can absorb in total.

That's just my view, and I'm open to any other input anyone wants to give. I have no corner on understanding it, and can only offer what I've come to think and see and believe from my own personal searches and experiences. That's all any of us can do, really, but some have spent much more time at it and with more talent than I have, so chip in if you have a different view. I hold NO beliefs, except in Christ, that are unchangeable.

One of the prime reasons I'm here and contribute, is to learn more, and hopefully better. How else can we ever expect to really learn, if we don't throw out what we have, to see how it measures up to what others have? And I don't care what another person believes, other than that they DO believe in Christ. The rest is just some sort of step along the highway to understanding more and better, and hopefully, more completely, at least in a comparative sense. This is what I think a real search has always been composed of.

But again, if someone else has a varying thought, throw it in here, please! How can we ever learn, really, if we don't test each other's mettle and beliefs? And my ego's not wrapped up in my beliefs. One of the prime traits that Christ tried to teach us was to be and stay humble, for I believe only a truly humble man CAN receive much of the message that Christ wants to give us. Big egos act as a fence, blocking the light from reaching us, just like a big, high fence keeps sunshine out of our yards at home. Christ tried His best to teach us, and we often create SO many ways to block ourselves from knowing anything but what WE have conceived. I want to know what IS, in reality, to the greatest extent I'm capable of understanding it. The awe and wonder of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit is grand enough to keep ANYBODY humble, if they really stay focused on them. That's my belief, anyway. Chip in with yours if it differs.

[Boaz]

JC ..you figure , not up to me but where you are lead . Not my call ..your call . But I love you .We all travel the same path .

[MT Gianni]

I believe Aramaic like many of the Eastern languages is filled with poetry. I find Wm Tyndale did a more than acceptable job of integrating the Books that became the KJV and the poetry that for me gives the Word flow. I'll stick with that.

[Boaz]

I'm bout to figure there is no universal message . Script , translation . Yea though they spread the same message ! Each must be the 'right' one though we know not . All say the same thing ? ...yea maybe we should argue with what we are 'comfortable' with ? Comfortable ! Is worth a lot !!
Do not deviate , do not try to accommodate another , don't believe they have faith . Denigrate them , persecute them , chastise and torment them because they do not read ...YOUR translation .

[Ithaca Gunner]

I'll just add, reading a 1611 version of the KJV can be a fun challenge, the KJV was updated in the 1800's to correct for the letter "jumble" that occurred about the time our Constitution was adopted, (late 1700's we adopted the alphabet we have today). U and V were reversed, F and S were also. Take the word, "lesson" for example, it was spelled "leffon", "unite" was "vnite". Funny how the mind so quickly adapts to these little differences and reading becomes smooth and effortless.

[retread]

I read the KJV at night before bed, but use the NIV for Bible studies beause it is easier for me when I need to read out loud. I like the two for comparisons also.

[Wayne Smith]

Slightly off topic - Years ago I was meditating on God's Infinity. If God is truly infinite ... then everything my poor brain can understand is one small corner of an Infinite God. If your corner is different than mine then we need to learn from one another, not argue to prove I'm 'right' and you are 'wrong'! God's Righteousness can be seen as that boundary between what is God and what is not God (sin). As long as we stay away from that boundary we are both 'right'. Doctrine helps us stay inside those boundaries.

[jcwit]

JC, at that time, there were a number of divisions, each claiming THEY were THE right ones, and each had their own Bibles. They were the beginnings of sects like the Quakers, the Pilgrims, and others, and there was more than a little unrest caused by their bickering and competition for members and money to support their views. When any king saw stuff like this, if they were wise (and King James seems to have been one of the better ones in this respect) they are compelled to at least try to nip any big rifts in the bud, before they become wars. So .... he did as I described. That's my understanding, and I wasn't there, so can't give personal testimony on it.

Sounds a lot like today with all the different "churches??"

I don't like "whatever" so we'll start up our own church!

I know of churches that split over nothing more than the covering a women wears!

We are living in a mumbo jumbo world, and if I don't agree, too bad I'll fix it with my own way!

[Blackwater]

Amen, JC. We have on too many occasions, and for far too long, split due to differing perceptions of some meanings, rather than study and discuss and work it out. NOT much like what Christ encouraged us to do! But .... I guess it reflects our "humanity" and our willfulness as such???

One thing I've noted, is that all these versions of the Bible seem to mean something to various folks that seems to be generally positive. Any time folks are enabled to understand The Word better, I'm all for it. As I said, I think it's that spark within us that perceives when we discover a real truth in it all, and the semantics, which is by far the biggest portion of "interpretations" (though not ALL there is to it, of course) really doesn't matter NEARLY as much as the purity of our heart in seeking the real and true meaning of what's been written for us.

We all have varying degrees of ability to learn from the written word, and this can vary widely from person to person. But that too, I think, doesn't matter all that terribly much. What DOES matter is the attitude and expectations we go into the reading. THAT, I believe, is THE greatest determinant of what we get out of our reading.

I also think that, no matter who we are and how much we've read and studied, we need to discuss it all one with another, in order to see things that others noticed, that we might not have fully "got." Little things DO matter, of course, and the differing translations do vary, and variances DO tend to threaten some degree of "danger," but if it helps someone who just doesn't like the KJV or any other, then I'm all for it.

We all, I think, "see through the glass darkly," and thus, will only know the REAL Truth when we've passed from this world and shed these very limiting bodies we wear here. That's my take on it, anyway, and I have no corner on Truth. It's just my perception based on all I've seen and learned in my time here. YMMV, and likely does. But the key to following Christ, I am more and more convinced, is that we all realize that we are one group, who worship one God, with one Redeemer, and we try to LEARN from each other rather than ARGUING the "small stuff" one with another.

My view is that we should each pursue the edification, as we were instructed to, and discuss and test it with that of others. In this way, we can identify any mistakes or shortcomings we may have, and "plug any holes" in our perceptions, should we identify any. Edification involves a lot more than just reading the verses. We have to see it at work in our lives or those of others to REALLY understand it, and get to a point where we can expand it, and fit it in with all the other stuff we have read and come to perceive.

There's enough there to keep us busy, and if we practice it, it ought to keep us from the error of needlessly and haughtily arguing among ourselves about who's right and who's "wrong." Would that we could learn THAT lesson, and practice it more often! That would be such a great thing. But .... I suspect we'll have to shed these mortal bodies before we can really get to that point???? Sure seems to be what our actual behavior indicates, on far too many occasions.

"Above all these is love," and arguing over perceptions of things we can't possibly, truly "know" doesn't look much like love to me.

[castalott]

I love the KJV above the rest... Poetry in motion to me... I am lacking as a scholar though.....

I am much amazed at the giants here in boolet knowledge that also have great Faith and Knowledge in this area.... It warms an old Sinner's Heart...


Dale

[LAH]

I love the KJ. Grew up with it. I've been preached to but a very few times from anything else. I study the KJ an hour or 2 each morning preparing my Sunday sermons. There are very few Churches I go in that use anything else. I do have a Living Bible from the early 70s & a NASB but seldom read them. Guess I'm KJ all the way. I just feel lost with anything else. The Bible that gets preaching duties the most is a plain ole Rainbow that belonged to my wife. It's like my sixgun, I know my way round in it.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/Creekerpics/Church/20150414_124815.jpg (http://s66.photobucket.com/user/Creekerpics/media/Church/20150414_124815.jpg.html)

[MT Gianni]

I'll just add, reading a 1611 version of the KJV can be a fun challenge, the KJV was updated in the 1800's to correct for the letter "jumble" that occurred about the time our Constitution was adopted, (late 1700's we adopted the alphabet we have today). U and V were reversed, F and S were also. Take the word, "lesson" for example, it was spelled "leffon", "unite" was "vnite". Funny how the mind so quickly adapts to these little differences and reading becomes smooth and effortless.
Some of that was holdover from Latin as Spanish written in the 1500's has the same issues. I believe the KJV did more to unify the English language than any other act. It is why we can read and understand Shakespeare and not Chaucer.

[Blackwater]

I've heard that poetic thing about Aramaic before, but unfortunately, will probably never have the pleasure of experiencing it. I'm just thankful for all the understanding I've been able to glean from the KJV. This universe and world is SO big that none of us will ever get to know even half its wondrous pleasures. But I'm satisfied and busy with what I DO have and know, and am just thankful for the answers I've found within it. Not to mention very richly blessed by it.

For me, it's kind'a like in the military, when we were told "smoke 'em if ya' got 'em." Whatever we have, we just need to USE it more, I imagine. It's surely that way with me, I know!

[Boaz]

WC Whit seems to have problems with the KJV , actually many seem to not be able to understand it . I understand to an extent . Old English is not spoken today but to me (may not be a fair comparison as I was raised on it) it just does not seem that hard .

[Wayne Smith]

KJV is not "Old English"! Chaucher in the original is Middle English (I have a copy, Middle English on one side, modern on the other), Old English is almost identical to Old German. KJV is old Modern English.

[Blackwater]

So many good points to be made with regard to the versions of the Bible. Let noone of faith, though, be sullied in their belief because of some pretty minor arguments over the exact meaning of any given word or sets of words in them. For me, a Bible is a Bible, and whatever variations there may be within it, are just more evidence that we CARE what's in it, and want to get all we can out of it. And if one person's education and training lets them have a preference of one version over the others, I see no problem there, but only an asset to us all. The more folks understand the Word better, the better off we all are. And as to gaining a "perfect" understanding of all that's in any of them, I doubt any of us mortals will EVER achieve that, so I try to keep my focus on what CAN be gleaned, and don't worry about the rest. I have a young cousin who's Down's syndrome, and she's a real, honest believer, and one of the sweetest and generally mannerly young ladies you'll ever meet. She obviously cannot know much that someone with higher cognitive abilities can. But the key is, she has ENOUGH. And if that isn't a miracle of a pretty high order, what could be?

I believe still, that what we get from any of the various versions of the Bible, depends much more on our attitude and real intent when we read it, rather than which of the many versions of it we have in hand. And THAT, my friends, is what it has always been about. It's WHY Christ came down and sacrificed His perfect self as an atonement for OUR sins. He was perfect, and thus, the only sacrifice that COULD be acceptable for all the sins mankind has committed for the past 2,000 years! None of us nor all of us together, could EVER repay Him for what He did for us, or even for the great advice and counsel and record He left us in the Bible. We could NEVER be worthy of what He did, but He did it anyway, simply because He and the Father loved us the way they do.

If one person has one preference, and another man has another preference, one that "speaks" to him more fully or better, then that can only be an asset to all of us. And arguing over interpretations CAN be instructive and fruitful, and can sometimes increase our understanding and appreciation of the message Christ had for us, but to argue over it in a struggle for predominance, isn't worthy of any Christian, and should be avoided, and abandoned if ever started.

This is what I make of it all, anyway. We argue sometimes, with nothing to really be gained even if we "won" the argument. That's not edifying, and steals from us the time we once had to spend in things that DO edify us. Wasting our time in such pursuits isn't a worthy pursuit of any Christian. Decide for yourself what "speaks" to you, and hopefully, they'll ALL have something worth while to say. it should, if only we're prepared righteously to receive the messages contained therein. So again, I think attitude is the real key to understanding ANY scripture.

Ever since the Gutenberg press was invented, and people could soon hope to have a copy of the Bible in their homes (often even if they couldn't read - at least they could let their kids use it as a tool in learning to read), the Book has been translated into every language in the world. And we all know that languages differ, and that there are always words in one that can't fully be transferred into the other. But don't let that concern you, for I truly believe, and think almost all will find, that the meaning BEHIND the words CAN be gleaned if only we're truly receptive of it.

Why does one woman, out of the three billion plus in this world, pique our interest so that we fall in love with her, out of all the others? I believe it's because at some moment, we're allowed to see them in a very different light, than the rest of the world can see them in. It's as if a portal opens up, just for us and us alone, and for the first time, we see that woman as she truly is, and not just the "surface" of her and what she appears to be like to everyone else. This, I believe, is a real blessing, and it comes from God. What else COULD it be? We do nothing special to cause it. It just comes to us. I believe much of the understanding of the Bible comes to us in a very similar if not the same fashion. I don't know exactly how it works, but I can see its results. And even science, the most limited and finite pursuit we have, recognizes results as a legitimate reason to infer the cause of it. And if it can't come from a finite source, it MUST come from a supernatural or as yet undiscovered source. So I think my belief in this is well founded, and solid.

Sometimes, when we've been sufficiently PREPARED, God lets us see more than just the surface of things, whether it be the woman we marry, or the meanings behind the words in the Bible, or whatever else He chooses to reveal to us. I don't think we can do more, on our own, that glean an approximation of what it says. Really understanding the Bible is a supernatural gift, and we all have that gift, just like all our other gifts, in varying degrees. Much may well depend on how well we prepare ourselves to understand it, but even my little Down's syndrome cousin can find more than ENOUGH to get to Heaven and change their lives, if they just let it do that.

So read whatever version you wish. I have no problem with that, even though I also have a preference, borne more of habit and tradition than anything else. The whole question that really applies is "What are you gleaning from it," whichever version you use. That's my take on it anyway. YMMV.

[LAH]

(may not be a fair comparison as I was raised on it) it just does not seem that hard .

My point also. It's not that hard. The word differences are points of study. And regardless of the language used to translate no one will really get what the Bible says without study.

[EMC45]

I like NKJV, NASB, and NIV. Blue Letter Bible online is an excellent resource that has all the versions as well. The wife got me a 3 version cross reference bible a couple years back. Cross reference 3 versions on one page. Really neat.