Which Bible Is The Best
Which Bible is the best? I have KJV version which I felt was sometimes difficult to understand. However, the deacon in my church that reads scriptures before the sermon uses the NKJV. I try to follow along, but sometimes the wording in my KJV is clearer than the NKJV.
Moderator - The NKJV is corrupt. Please do a search on the Net to get details.
Join Our Free Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
---Nan on 9/14/05
Helpful Blog Vote (10)
I prefer any translation that is English version. However, I will remember about this NKJV and keep away from it. You should warn your pastor....I don't just rely on the Bible when I study. I also use commentaries that I trust. And Bible dictionaries. I take notes.
---catherine on 10/31/09|
1) Look for a translation based on a formal equivalence / word for word, rather than a dynamic equivalence / thought for thought. 2) The received text (TR) and the majority text (MT) are better than the 'corrupted' critical text (CT). Texts: the Antiochan-Syrian preserves, the Roman-Western adds to, and the Alexandrian takes away from the word. 3) Generally, it is best to translate directly from the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and the Greek for the New Testament.
Failing: Amplified 1 & 2, NASB 2, NIV 1 & 2, NKJV 3 (O.T.). Deliberately corrupted: The Russelites' New World Translation, The Adventist Clear Word Bible, and gender bender versions.
Pastor Jim, 10/30: "The KJV is very inaccurate"... Please clarify.
---Glenn on 10/31/09|
Actually, Pastor Jim, the Geneva Bible was NOT translated by Anglicans, but by Puritans and Separatists living abroad.
In any case, Jesus said that salvation was NOT to be found in the Bible but in HIM, jerry6593.
---Cluny on 10/31/09|
Brethren: We have an enemy who doesn't care if we over or undershoot the mark, just so long as he can causes us to miss it. The devil is the master of deception, seeking always to divert our attention/focus away from God so he can bring doubt & confusion into our minds.
I believe God's will be done in all things & if we earnestly seek after Him (Matt. 6:33-34) He will work all things for our good (Ro. 8:28). In essence, God gives believers discernment to eat the meat & spit out the bones no matter what Bible version we read & study. GOD IS ALMIGHTY! The devil is defeated.
---Leon on 10/31/09|
Although I believe that salvation may be found in most any Bible translation, I've only found one version that portrays God as a fair judge. Only one version has (in 2 Pet 2:9) God waiting until AFTER the judgement to punish people.
---jerry6593 on 10/31/09|
The KJV (never authorized by King James) was not even a bible, but a revision of the Anglican Geneva Bible(1560)and the Bishop Bible(1568). It first came out in 1611 then pulled from printing due to errors. Another revision came out in 1629 (again errors) another revision came out in 1638, another revision in 1762 and yet another in 1769. It was then completely replaced in the UK.
So... which revision are you so passionately worshipping?
---PASTOR_JIM on 10/31/09|
Pastor Jim said, "I always recommend reading the Bible without any prejudice (yours, or anyones) pretend you just found a book."
Jim, does this also include the prejudice remarks you have made here. Your comments about not using a study Bible is the same as saying not to attend preaching service because it is just the thoughts of someone else.
What ever inferior version you are using it has sure prejudiced your thinking.
Humm.... does prejudice come from the words "pre judge?"
Don't call things you don't understand errors. Seek to understand why they are written like they are in the KJV. Learn to do word searches then you will understand the KJV.
---Elder on 10/30/09|
"Do NOT use a study bible....someones opinions.....read..the Bible without any prejudice" (Pastor Jim)
We just have to follow YOUR interpretation of Holy Scriptures, right?
In reality, each one interpret Holy Scriptures based upon their tradition (whether it be Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or whatever), including you, "Pastor".
The Bible, like any other spiritual writings, needs interpretation, and spiritual help, from a spiritual guide (that is why God sent spiritual teachers to the Church)(Acts 8:30-31, Heb. 5:12, 2 Peter 3:15-16,, Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11, Acts 13:1)
I do not follow my own interpretation, but rather how the first generation of Christians interpret the Holy Writ.
---Ignatius on 10/30/09|
The KJV is very inaccurate having several errors. As was posted it lists Easter not Passover. It also list me British terms in lieu of the Hebrew/Greek words. I use and recommend the NASB Reference Bible. Do NOT use a study bible, it is contaminated by someones opinions. I always recommend reading the Bible without any prejudice (yours, or anyones) pretend you just found a book.
---Pastor_Jim on 10/30/09|
i suggest reading the youngs literal translation
i believe this is the best one and the term "literal" is for a reason
---glen on 10/29/09|
I use KJV 98% of the time I read the Holy Bible, and prefer to use it with my dictionary, occasionally i read NIV. Keep using KJV because the Holy Spirit has spoken to me many times while reading KJV.
---Adetunji on 10/18/09|
Whenever anything is translated from another language, it is very likely that at least some of it's meaning is lost in the translation. Add to this that most all translators have always taken great liberties in providing their own biased understanding in translation (intentionally).
I don't believe there is ANY version that is completely accurate and faithful to the original manuscripts. The KJV was written for the Church of England (discrepancies exist but accuracy may be 90% or more). The Jews never celebrated "EASTER", only PASSOVER...
Acts 12:4 in KJV
"intending after Easter...".
Look up online...
bibles missing verses
but never fear, The Lord guides a pure heart to all truth.
---more_excellent_way on 10/18/09|
After 23 years, I still find my old RSV the best in accuracy and understandability (what good is KJV accuracy if it misunderstood??).
Probably all versions are missing some verses, sometimes explained in footnotes, sometimes they provide NO explanation at all. A SMALL sample list for the NIV follows...
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed.
Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed.
I have the RSV from 30 years ago (missing few verses) before it was made politically correct (I don't know how today's RSV has changed any words).
Yet, The Lord has ensured that a contrite/pure heart will still find the DEPTHS of God.
---more_excellent_way on 10/18/09|
Except for a few "Versions" out on the market, generally I would say that the best Bible is the one that you read, Many Christians are just not into the Word, I prefer any "Word for Word"translation
---Jim on 10/17/09|
There ie s book called "weigh the evidence" on several verision (translations) it will give you vereses that are omitted and added to some of the more popular translations. I found it helpfull and looked up the verses it would refur to and found the closet translation.
I have heard the Literal translation (it mainly leaves out the italizied words in the KJV) is the closet in the english lanugage next to KJV authorized or not.I use a KJV Greek/Hebrew it has a lexicon aide with strongs concordance "all in one" bible.
---steven-rem7000 on 10/16/09|
The companion bible, or the strongs concordance with the Kings James Bible
---larry on 10/12/09|
God confirms His Word by His Spirit.1Cor 2,1Jn5:6-12.No matter what Bible version you read.
As long as you are in flesh,use the time to study the origin of the language written,
Hebrew,aramaic and Greek.
The Anointing of God will guide,confirm and point the direction.
I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you.
As for you,the anointing that you received from him abides in you,and so you do not need anyone to teach you.But as his anointing teaches you about all things,and is true and is not a lie,and just as it has taught you,abide in him.
---char on 10/11/09|
The KJV was an excellent translation but it contains numerous words which are no longer true to the texts from which it came- e.g. the Hebrew word 'male' means 'fill.' Therefore Genesis 1:28 says God told them to 'fill' the earth.
When the KJV was translated 'replenish' meant 'fill,' but today means 'refill,' giving a totally different meaning. This has lead to the story the earth was created, and destroyed, Adam and Eve being Gods 2nd attempt. They were to refill that which had been destroyed.
Using 'replenish' today means the KJV isn't faithful to the texts from which it was transalted.
Surely the archaeic words in the KJV can be updated,keeping it true to the original.
---Warwick on 8/28/09|
The King James Translation, after researching all that went into this translation, I believe to be a gift from God. It is the best translation we have.
Lord bless you all.
---trey on 8/27/09|
In my opinion, the "King James" is the most accurate, using the best texts. Its' translators were both faithful, and were less subject to a hidden agenda than many modern translators. Probably, there are some importations from other bible verses in some places, but none that modify its' meaning. You need to take time to learn new (or old) meanings to some words. But afterward, it is still the easiest to read, and requires a lower comprehension level than most other versions.
---Glenn on 8/27/09|
Check out Gail Riplinger's video and see why the KJV is right. See who's behind the translations of some of these versions, not Godly people. Can't legally produce something without significant changes due to copyright issues..
Eph 3:9 NIV says "God, who created all things" KJV adds "by Jesus Christ".
Rom 1:16 NIV says "the gospel" KJV adds "of Christ".
Subtle changes to reduce Jesus, His blood, God's name. Study for youself and ask the Holy Spirit which version glorifies God, Jesus and His power?
There are literally hundreds of differences between the versions. KJV made major impacts on the world in it's time....shouldn't God's same word be able to do the same today?
---Dan on 8/26/09|
Modern modern translators have access to more of original language source text then any scholar between 1603-1611, especially in the case of NT Greek source text. There are only 4999 NT verses that don't have variant translations, the other 2148 do and it takes diligent comparative analysis of Papyri, Minuscules & Uncials to ascertain the oldest source text for a given verse. So in general a modern word for word translation will be more accurate then a KJV or any older English translation.
---notlaw99 on 3/1/08|
If one wants a modern KJV with the grammar updated & cleaned up, suggest you try either the Modern KJV, or the KJ21. Both are true to the archaic King James version.
Thro the NKJV is based upon the same Greek & Hebrew manuscipts as the 1611 KJV, they did correct some of the translation errors found within the old King James as well as changed the meaning of some verses in their selection of the equivalent English words.
---Lee on 1/25/08|
Everyone that I know who owns a NKJV and every Bible bookshop I know that sells them says that the NKJV is just the KJV with the Thees and Thous taken out. Is this a lie then?
Moderator - It is a BIG lie. I was duped at the beginning also until researching the subject in more depth. The bookstores are told the same thing in most cases. It's the publishers whom are profiting by selling more bibles. Research on the Net to see the major changes which change the meaning of the Word of God.
---Xanthi on 1/10/08|
r.w. - since none of us (and most likely your pastors as well )are really Biblical scholars who are we to say that any manuscript is perverted?
If you like the King James, then I would recommend that you read it prayerfully and leave the scholarly stuff to the experts.
---lee on 5/7/07|
lee, the nkjv does use alot of the proper manuscripts, but also used much of the perverted, rejected manuscripts as well. p.s. KJV is on a 5th grade reading level. the easiest of them all
---r.w. on 5/5/07|
IF possible you should get ahold of a copy of Al Lacy's cd "Open Thou Mine Eyes" I think it is still available on the web. It is a defense of one Bible which is a worthwhile listen.
---MARK on 4/12/07|
For someone like myself that has limited education The KJV is the best version of the translated word of God and I understand that people find it difficult to understand, but then reading the word was never going to be easy it takes time study and years to understand the messages and mysteries that unfold form this version, and what ever the additions they are not made to deceive the people of God or deliberately change the understanding.
---Carla5754 on 4/12/07|
I have a number of biblical translations, and have been taught that comparison between the various versions, with the KJV being the standards, aids in a better understanding of the Word. As to the NKJV being corrupt, there are some english corruptions in the KJV as well. "Rightly didvide the word..."
---Gregory on 4/11/07|
Moderator - Is the New King James true to the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts that the Old King James translation was created from? If all you have is a difference in the choice of what English words best fit the Greek, then you do not have a corrupt version in the NKJV; what you really have is your own bias against Biblical scholarship.
---lee on 4/11/07|
Moderator, I always get more out of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It seems to me that God really speaks to me through this version the most. What do you think? God bless.
---Johnny on 4/10/07|
duane--I think I know what you are saying. That is one reason, I love Bible tools. The Person of the Holy Spirit and the Bible and study tools might learn something, Get it into my Spirit now I know something. Praise God>>>literally.
---catherine on 4/9/07|
When in doubt, Check in with the Holy Spirit..There is no translation that is perfect. We cant always believe what we read in any Bible but we CAN believe what it means...thats only through the Holy Spirit.
---duane on 4/9/07|
Why is the NKJV corrupt? What passages are wrong? Thank you
Moderator - Type "Corrupt NKJV" or something to that affect in a search engine. 100,000 known changes. The NKJV isn't from the KJV as the title would lead one to believe.
---barbara67 on 4/9/07|
nor do I . but we dont have to -the originals dont exist. the KJB is for the English speaking people
---r.w. on 8/17/06|
R.W. Isaiah 9. 3
I do not need someone to tell me "those verses contradict one another one is right and one is wrong", (I know that already) but someone to give "an expalnation for the difference" (and so far no-one has sought to do so)
I had hoped it might be you who could do that, by direct reference to the original text, as I do not have the skill to check that.
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/4/06|
Just been looking at another website re the NKJV. Started checking the Scriptures they claim are left out of the NKJV and guess what --- they are all in the NKJV. This particular ministry I looked at is of note a KJV Only ministry!! Moderator I'd like to know your reaction to this as you claim that the NKJV is corrupt.
Moderator - Get a comparative Bible and view the scriptures side by side. In thought, the great majority of the scriptures are the same, however it's the small details that tend to give us bad doctrines.
---Helen_5378 on 7/4/06|
what are you looking for alan? those verses contradict one another one is right and one is wrong
---r.w. on 7/4/06|
I will use The King James Version. It is often better than the Modern version. Please note that the KJV is not Error-free. They are errors in the KJV that the KJVO people cant explain. They ignore them. The NIV,NKJV sometimes has better text that correctly say what the original Greek said. You may what to use both the KJV and the NIV (etc) for your studies.
---Ramon on 7/3/06|
2/... I honestly wonder if this is an attempt to sway Christians away from the truth of the NKJV and lead them off into the truly corrupt translations such as the NIV. Just a thought..... anyone? By the way what I read on the net re the NKJV had fear behind it, and fear is not of God.
---Helen_5378 on 7/3/06|
I just had a look on the net about the "corrupt NKJV" and could not pick anything of importance. They have focused heavily on the NKJV Logo being satanic, which it is on the web, but then on my NKJV it is not and I have a gift of spiritual discernment. Has anybody heard of Terry Watkins -- he apparently is a baptist and he kept coming up as author of the articles. Surely, way before this, somebody would have picked something.
---Helen_5378 on 7/3/06|
R.W. Isaiah 9. 3 This has been mentioned before. I have asked for an expalnation for the difference on one or two occasions, but no-one, KJV sympathiser or Modern versions person, has given me any answer.
---alan8869_of_UK on 7/3/06|
isa 9:3 the nkjv says the opposite than KJB increased their joy not increased their joy if nkjv is wrong here where else is it wrong? little leaven leaveneth the whole lump
---r.w. on 7/3/06|
To imply that the NKJV is "corrupt" is ignorant. The Bilbe wasn't written in KJV. The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. I suggest you show how the NKJV has deviated from the original Greek and Hebrew languages.
Moderator - Do a web search and find thousands of examples.
---Frank on 11/4/05|
Kings James Bible
---taylor on 10/28/05|
When in doubt, always consult the LXX or the Mishna when dealing with the OT. When dealing with the NT consult the GNT. You will never go wrong.
If you want a comprehensive look regarding older manuscripts in the NT, look into the Sacra Pagina series
---David7647 on 10/28/05|
I say the one that you can undestand. I have several Bibles and like to read one in modern language. I grew up with the KJ version and it is poetic but difficult to understand. Get a good concordance and check the different versions to get new insigts. There is a composite Bible which has 4 versions in it. Pastors often quote from different translations. "Different strokes for different folks".
---Nancy on 10/23/05|
Justin, the translators are forthright, and they did not lie when they professed that they used authentic copies of the original manuscripts to translate the Bible, they had absolutely no reason to do or say otherwise. And many literally gave their lives for their translations. i personally translate, and i have found their works to be reliable compared to the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Aleppo Codex and the Greek Textus Receptus and Constantinopolitan MSS.
---Eloy on 10/2/05|
NKJV is not corrupt.I use the KJV,NKJV. The NT of both based on the same 'Textus Receptus'. In Some places the NKJV is better than the KJV and in other places the KJV is better and more accurate than the NKJV. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. OT has a different edition of the Hebrew text.All New Translations such as the TNIV,NIV,NAS,NLT,etc. are translated from a different text than the Textus Receptus, (Nestle-Aland,UBS text) where verses are left out or changed.
---Dennis on 10/2/05|
Very good point Thomas. And no, Eloy, there is no English translation that is based on the original manuscripts because we don't have them and haven't for many, many centuries. NASB is the most reliable word for word translation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have, and though they are not originals, they are much better than they were at the time of KJV translation.
---Justin on 9/27/05|
If the version is really important to you, why compromise? Read the original Greek and Hebrew writings. All translations fall short.
---Thomas on 9/22/05|
I had nothing but the KJV when I was a young Christian trying to learn about the Word.I did have a reference Bible and learned the meaning of one verse by looking up all the references related to it.If one studies the History of the KJV you will find it is the product of those which came before,including documents in Hebrew,Latin,and Greek compared by not only Churchmen but Scholars of languages.90% of the language used in KJV was taken from Tyndales translation.I still like KJV best.
---Darlene_1 on 9/22/05|
The Bible, Geneva Version, First Edition-First Printing, 1560 edition, is the best English Bible on the market. It was translated from the Original Hebrew and Greek, and presented to Queen Elizabeth. You can purchase a digital copy from Capstone Books online for $200.00.
---Eloy on 9/18/05|
I agree with Moderator.
---sun on 9/18/05|
Stay with your KJ's Bible, any problems, use a good bible dictionary, a Tyndale Living Bible, or simply ask and wait on God for a revelation/illustration you can understand.
He [God/Echad] will not fail you, too many watered down, misleading bibles around.
If something troubles your spirit, there's usually a reason!
---Bob6749_[Elishama] on 9/17/05|
I think it is our choice to see and choose a bible that is clear and concise.
---jane on 9/17/05|
Why are we christains then reading all different versions of bible? Shouldn't we all read one same bible since we all must be seeking the truth of God?
Moderator - Not everyone that calls themself a Christian is a Christian. Few Christians read the Word in depth. Most Christians don't know the history of the different bible versions. Most have been decieved by the false teachers telling them the wrong things. I have only recently myself done the research in depth and can't believe I was duped to a degree also. I believe when more of the truth is shown more Christians will make the right choice.
---sun on 9/17/05|
Satan is the author of confusion. You see it in Genesis 3, when he questions and confuses Eve in the taking and eating of that fruit. With all these different translations, Satan is still doing the samething. Satan wants to lead us from God, not to God. Do your homework, find out about the origins and the authors of the different bibles. I stand firm on the KJV for "ENGLISH" speaking people.
---geraa7578 on 9/17/05|
Jeyapaul: Who advised you to use the NRSV? This bible is so 'PC' that even a liberal said: "the NRSV [is] liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be." It was only made for feminists and liberal churches. Believe it or not, Isaiah 7:14 is even worse in this one than the old RSV. Try the ESV or NIV at least, if not the NASB or NKJV.
---danie9374 on 9/17/05|
I use New Revised Standard Version(NRSV) which translation is quiet good and clearer than the KJV. In my theological studies I am also adviced to use this because of the close accuracy of the translation.
---Jeyapaul on 9/16/05|
I am not an expert on languages, but I do speak some Spanish, French, and ASL. It is impossible to translate exactly from one language to another because of idioms and other grammatical devices. If you are going to make the bible a law book it must be read in the original texts as that is the only way that you can know the authors intent. But as a guide book there are lots of good translations.
---randy on 9/15/05|
I also find the original KJV very difficult to read,its like the sentences are backward.
I've been a believer for 30 years and have read most translations. If you really want to understand Gods word, I find that THE NEW INDUCTIVE STUDY BIBLE which is based on the New American Standard, to be the best. Its excilerating to read it, studying word for word
---bobba4344 on 9/15/05|
Moderator: Go to this site for more information.
Moderator - I will.
---danie9374 on 9/15/05|
Right now I have serveral translations and one pharaphrase. The best one, (to me) is the New American Bible. The most important element in choosing a Bible is to make sure it's a TRANSLATION. A translation means it's from the oringinal Coine Greek - which is the language used by the folks at the time of the founding of Christianty. (It will state in the front of the Bible if it's a translation or a pharaphrase.)
---WIVV on 9/14/05|
I know for a fact, I have read other version and when I go back to the KJV, that I feel in my inner self that its the right one, I dont understand why people say they cant understand it, we are to ask the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read, his word is alive
---Jan4876 on 9/14/05|
Moderator, you've used the term Catholic bible quite a few times. What is the Catholic bible and how is it different from all the other versions we have all been discussing? I've heard Roman Catholics talk about the Jerusalem bible, but I don't actually know what that is either (or are they the same thing?)
Moderator - The Catholic bible is from Origen who rewrote the original Greek & Hebrew to fit how he understood the Bible. Origen wasn't a Christian. The Catholic Church used his translation to write in Latin. Christians also used the original Greek & Hebrew, but translated word for word versus paraphrasing the originals and placed in Latin. KJV comes for the original copyed Christian manuscripts. Most of the newer bibles reference Origen's manuscripts thereby giving different meanings on key scriptures or thoughts.
---Xanthi on 9/14/05|
I searched "corrupt NKJV" & am more sure of the NKJV. Comparing a symbol put on by a publisher isn't(necessarily)proof of content. The cross was used by MANY cult, occult, pagan, etc. religions long before Christians. The site I saw used HELL to prove NKJV false. Hell was in fact used in error in place of hades, grave, gehenna, in KJV. Seeing as many errors in the KJV as shown in the NKJV then it is simply personal preference (as it should be) which translation a person seeks God through.
Moderator - Please study the manuscripts used and the history of who wrote them.
---mike_w on 9/14/05|
I have the English Standered Version (or the ESV) It is clear & to the point.
---candice on 9/14/05|
Thank you Moderator I get my case jumped everytime I defend the KJV.
Moderator - I have just learned the history of the Bible over the past month and now know the detailed truth. There are two sets of manuscripts that are used for bibles. The KJV used the correct untampered manuscripts while the others used mostly the corrupt manuscripts. So why would anyone want to read a bible based upon corrupt manuscripts and intentional changing of scriptures to make the newer versions more like the Catholic bible?
---Rev_Herb on 9/14/05|
, if you want to use KJV, please use a modern translation along with it, so you will know what the verses are saying.
Moderator - Actually, you would use an Interlinear Bible.
---steve on 9/14/05|
, the new testament i use is a multi-translation.
it has the KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NCV, CEV, NKJV, and the Message. this is far more accurate than just one book.
Moderator - Do you use the Catholic Bible also?
---steve on 9/14/05|
Then what bible should I buy?
Moderator - KJV with the proper Interlinear Bible (Greek & Hebrew). I am starting to research which Interlinear has not been tampered with. If anyone know, please comment.
---sun on 9/14/05|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Education
Moderator - Why can't the same God who breathed Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, be big enough to oversee the work of translating HIS OWN BOOK.
One reason Jesus came to the earth (to our level) was to teach man-kind God's ways. My understanding is that He spoke the same dialect that the street people of that time spoke. Obviously being easy to understand, was important to Him. Knowing the significance of His Word to man-kind, why would an ALL-Powerful God allow Satan such a privilege?
Moderator - Good question. It wasn't until the 14th century for a English version. Why did God wait 14 hundred years to wide spread the Bible in print form? Keep in mind the Catholic Church martyred Christians by the millions for hundreds of years during the Inquistions to destroy the true Bibles and Christians. God has allowed Satan to rule this planet during the Church Age and somehow that is part of His plan.
---DoryLory on 9/14/05|
Moderator, you suggest a search on the net but to be fair, if you do a search on "KJV errors" you will find no shortage of pages that claim to demonstrate errors in the KJV. I think the best bible is the one you will use.
Moderator - Yes, one needs to do "KJV errors" also. One needs to study in all directions to know what one believes in and why so he is able to defend the faith. Please study the history of how the Bible was put together and you quickly learn that most bible versions today are demonic in nature.
---Bruce5656 on 9/14/05|
If the KJV is hard to read, use the Defined King James Bible. No text changes but the older, and harder to understand, words are defined at the bottom of each page.
---Ed on 9/14/05|