Which Bible translation should I be reading?

Christian Post ^ | 01/13/2020 | Jim Denison

[Romans Nine]

Oh man, how many people really think that.......

I have no patience for the KJV only crowd, especially the ones that actually own commentaries.

[Responsibility2nd]

ppPLl Pleaz.

Dis is only virgeon you shud be reading. With cheezburger.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190327161227/http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

[trebb]

I use the versions that speak plain current day English for most stuff - the site SubMareener offered looks like a perfect way to access multiple versions on same topics/verses

[fidelis]

Where We Got the Bible

[fatboy]

I may be that Jermome spent 30 years translating the Bible. Funny thing is many those who hold Jerome in such high regard spend little or no time actually reading the Bible regardless of the translation or version.

[Responsibility2nd]

Every time I hear a preacher reading from the KJV, they always restate and rephrase the passage into language the audience can understand.

So why not preach from a modern English Bible???

[circlecity]

I strongly recommend an essentially literal translation. The KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and RSV are all good choices. Clearly, a modern reader may have trouble with the outdated language of the KJV, but it you like it, it is a solid translation. If you can find a 1973 or 1984 version of the NIV it is acceptable, especially for those new to reading scripture. Stay away from current versions of the NIV. Stay away from paraphrase translations for your primary bible as they are as much of a commentary as they are a translation.

[RichardMoore]

And what does that have to do with what we are talking about here?

Jesus commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. What is truly amazing is how few Christians realize that fact.

[fatboy]

Actually, the ESV is a revision of The New Revised Standard Version. In other words they didn’t start from square one. The term “essentially literal” is a made up word by the publisher Crossways. Having said that it is a good translation for English speaking people that want a reliable translation for study. You can certainly do worse!

[Spirochete]

I have been looking into translations in the last few weeks, thanks to some Freeper who mentioned Westcott and Hort.

They were heavily involved in the modern New Testament translation of 1881. They were believed for years to be upright Anglican clergymen.

Any web search for Westcott Hort will turn up a wealth of hair-raising information on these two heretic communists. Their work has influenced nearly all modern bible translations.

[sasportas]

KJV for me. Which does not mean that the KJV translators always translated the TR (Textus Receptus) rightly. Most of the time they did, but in important critical passages you should go back to the TR Greek text to see if it they translated right. Some they didn’t.

Its not the English KJV, per se, its the Greek text it is translated FROM, the TR, that is the issue. I totally reject the other versions, which are translated from Greek texts I have no confidence in: the Alexandrian, the RCC Vulgate, etc.

[sphinx]

Those who deny the Body and Blood in the Eucharist need to reflect upon the reasons God became incarnate.

"Reasons," yes, and the plural is important. But I've always thought that the primary reason is that the incarnation -- a prerequisite to the crucifixion -- is God's way of saying "follow me" while removing the excuse of, "Lord, you ask more than a mere man can do."

[circlecity]

“ Since its publication in 2001, the ESV Bible has gained wide acceptance and is used by church leaders, numerous denominations and organizations, and millions of individuals around the world.“

For the most part I like the ESV. However for hard core, in depth, study I often go to the NASB - It has some very nice features. For example, whenever the NT quotes the OT it uses all caps.

[fatboy]

RichardMoore you have proven my point.

[ealgeone]

dude....CONTEXT on this issue....CONTEXT.

[ealgeone]

Ideally, one is using an interlinear. However, that's probably beyond most.

The most literal translation available today is the NASB.

[Spirochete]

For the most part I like the ESV. However for hard core, in depth, study I often go to the NASB

I also use these versions. I have n third NASB as well as a KJV/NASB/NIV parallel bible on order. I compare these two against the authoritative King James because the concerns over Westcott and Hort I mentioned in a previous post.

[HossB86]

ESV here also.

Hoss

[circlecity]

“ For serious study of the Bible, “Strongs’ Exhaustive Concordance” is very useful.”

or to go even deeper you can get a reverse interlinear bible along with a copy of “The Complete Word Study Dictionary” by Zodhiates.

[Spirochete]

The most literal translation available today is the NASB.

Young's Literal Translation is still available. It's so slavishly literal, it can be somewhat difficult.