Any Version, Except King James, Bible Discussion

Self | 4/8/2017 | madison10

[madison10]

The King James Version was the Bible I memorized as a child, but as an adult I find it unreadable for anything EXCEPT the passages I already know.

[faucetman]

Before being saved, I started reading a New King James bible. Then a friend said, “don’t read that” and bought me an NIV bible.

Thinking he was tricking me with some new fangled version, I continued to read the NKJV bible alongside the NIV. After a time I realized that the NIV said the same thing, it was just easier to read.

The first church I belonged to used NIV so that was cool. When we switched churches, they used NKJV. So, I purchased an NIV/NKJV parallel bible.

Following along with the pastors sermons (NKJV) he kept correcting it saying “in the Greek, that word means ...”. I would look at my parallel NIV scripture and inevitably it had the same translation of the word the pastor was correcting from the NKJV. This happened over and over again. This lead me to just use my NIV bible.

Now, in study and verification exercises, I use ALL versions. Usually at https://www.biblegateway.com/

I have found the New Testament, English translation of the Codex Sinaiticus (the world’s oldest bible circa 350 AD) http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ comes closest to be a mixture of KJV and NKJV.

[deks]

BibleGateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/

BibleHub

http://biblehub.com

Biblica

https://www.biblica.com/bible/online-bible/

BibleStudyTools

http://www.biblestudytools.com

[RegulatorCountry]

I attended a private Baptist school for several years in my youth and the King James is the only Bible I’ve ever owned. But, I’m not dogmatic about any accurate, faithful translation. Different people respond to different styles of writing. I do utilize online resources such as Bible Gateway, in order to compare translations, whenever there might be a shade of meaning that would help me to understand a given passage better or more fully. But, to me, the KJV is beautiful in it’s own right, sheer poetry. It’ll always be my go-to, my primary Bible.

[BlessedBeGod]

There is an earlier Catholic translation of the Bible called Dhouay-Reims. But that is as difficult to read as the KJV. Anybody here like the RSV?

That's my go-to Bible.

I also have the Oxford KJV with Apocrypha, the Dhouay-Reims, and the Jerusalem for comparison.

[SisterK]

Check on-line Barnes and Noble for the 1970s Living Bible. A few years ago I bought a large print hardback version. I use multiple Bible versions, but I like the 1970s Living Bible for the prison ministry and just relaxing with the Word.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

I like the New King James Version. Over the years I have read other translation currently have NASB on my coffee table. It’s interesting to note speaking for myself even though I find old KJV hard to read it is what I memorized as a child. For example, many of us perhaps learned the Lords Prayer as a young child and we learned the Lords Prayer using the OKJV rather than the newer translations. And now if I read a passage of the Lords Prayer from something other than OKJV it just sounds different.

[Campion]

If the Latin Vulgate was good enough for my great-great-great-great-great-Grandpappy, it’s good enough for me.

[metmom]

I like ESV.

Very easy to read English and not written at a 8th grade level.

[metmom]

Every Bible uses the same Greek and Hebrew scriptures that are preserved by the Catholic church Holy Spirit.

Fixed it for you.

[metmom]

Whatever failings the CC might have, it did make the Bible available to all, which the Jews had no such intent.

It did NOT until others forced the issue.

Once Scripture came widely available to the general public through translators like Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale, and Hus, most of whom were persecuted by the Catholic church for putting the Bible in the hands of the laity, THEN the Catholic church made it available to all.

The biggest claim it can honestly make is that as far as we know, it didn't outright destroy the Greek manuscripts it was in possession of.

Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” (-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.)

[Jonty30]

As I explained before, I realize the CC was not intending to make it available. However, without them preserving the Scriptures, there would have been no Scriptures to disseminate. God used the CC in this way.

[metmom]

Paragraphs are your friends.

Along with easier to read color font.

bd makes a great point, as does mhgintn about your posts.

Many people have requested in the past that you make your Scripture easier to read and yet you have not.

I also don’t even bother reading your Scripture gloms nor your posts. Especially when they are glommed together in a way that makes it appear that Scripture is saying something it doesn’t really say. That is duplicitous.

And since people won’t because of your lack of courtesy, you might as well not even bother wasting your time posting them any more.

[af_vet_1981]

Have you ever heard Him tell you directly -- anything? I have.

I do not see how readers can verify that your alleged private revelation is genuine and so don't see its relevance.

[ealgeone]

I believe the RM has indicated you need to post and cite Scripture in accordance with recognized formats.

http://hbl.gcc.libguides.com/c.php?g=339562&p=2286665

Yours is not one of the recognized formats.

[ealgeone]

As I explained before, I realize the CC was not intending to make it available. However, without them preserving the Scriptures, there would have been no Scriptures to disseminate. God used the CC in this way.

To say the Roman Catholic Church preserved the Scriptures is a bit of a stretch.

The OT was complied without the RCC.

The early ekklesia agreed to which books were or were not canon...not the RCC.

There is a difference.

[ealgeone]

Every Bible uses the same Greek and Hebrew scriptures that are preserved by the Catholic church.

Preposterous claim regarding the Catholic church. You do know there are different versions of the Greek??

[free_life]

ESV is a good readable literal word for word translation.

KJV is often a weak translation on many verses, old English not very readable. Any version that labels the Holy Spirit as a ghost should be questioned for reliability on beng an accurate translation.

[af_vet_1981]

I was asked to post a link to the referenced scripture, which I do.

I cannot help but notice the group animosity to Catholics here. It reminds me of this rule. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

[Salvation]

http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

NABRE

[Salvation]

I like the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible.