Do You Like A Parallel Bible
I've been reading everyones responses to what type of Bible that they read and wanted to know your opinion about the Parallel Edition Bible. It has both the KJV and New Living Translation.
Moderator - The New Living Translation is too far off, thereby changing the meaning of scripture. Get an Interlinear Bible.
Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Bible History Quiz
---Greta on 9/14/05
Helpful Blog Vote (9)
Check out the "Holy Bible From The Ancient Easter Text" Traslated by George M. Lamsa. Lamsa was born in the East, was brought up with most of the same traditions and customes as Jesus, and translated the Eastern Bible into English. Although there are a couple of things I question about it, I promise it will enlighten you in almost every area especially New Testament.
---david on 9/23/07|
I use it occasionally but have yet to find one with LARGE PRINT.
---Pierr7958 on 4/1/07|
do NOT believe lee's last comment
---r.w. on 7/31/06|
Ever consider the 21st century kjv bible
---billy on 5/31/06|
, i like the New American Standard, and the New Living Translation, together, side by side. unfortunately, it's not available in stores yet.
---steve on 11/7/05|
Steve .../ what on earth is wrong with the word "shall"?
It does not mean the same as "will"
Look at a dictionary
---alan8869_of_UK on 10/1/05|
I find it interesting that nearly all ministerial students in the seminaries before the advent of the modern versions, used the American Standard version of 1898 bec of it was regarded as a more accurate translation than the KJV.
---lee on 10/1/05|
I believe that at the very base of these arguments on Bible versions is the need to have a standard to which we can all view and understand. While the KJV was that standard for a couple of hundred years, it became obvious that our English language has changed sufficiently and after more and older manuscripts have been discovered, there was a clear need for a newer, easier to understand, and more accurate version of the Bible.
---lee on 10/1/05|
, i found the KJ3 Bible, and while it does modernize some words, it doesn't modernize enough for my taste. it still has words like "shall".
Moderator - I don't have a copy yet so can't comment. Did you obtain a copy?
---steve on 10/1/05|
, moderator, could you tell me where to find a KJ3 Bible? i have looked everywhere and nobody seems to know about it.
Moderator - Sovereign Grace is the publisher. I don't have a copy yet, therefore I am not pro or con on this Bible. But it did get my attention.
---steve on 9/29/05|
I was brought up on the KJV. It is a very good translation but if you were to look at the history of the KJV and what the translators stated, you would learn that they did not consider their work the ultimate but expressed a hope that others would continue and improve on what they had done.
Moderator - I wish others would do exactly that using the "Recieved Text" manuscipts. I just found a bible called the KJ3 that was just published in 2005 that translates word for word the original manuscripts with no paraphrasing, therefore no scholars or committee needed.
---lee on 9/28/05|
, i will always be a friend to those who are willing to be polite. i used to use the KJV, and switched to other translations after being convinced by all the evidence.
---steve on 9/28/05|
Steve ... I thought it was your brother Curt who was writing the paraphrase Bible. Have you taken over his task?
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/25/05|
A question was asked about Galatians 2:7 an answer was given. The person who asked the question did not appear to be confused nor did they say they were.
Any confusion came from someone else (guess who) condemning the KJV readers.
Again someone please tell me if the readers of the KJV in the 1800s got any thing out of their efforts or not.
Then came the sneaky guy with the false name.....
---Elder on 9/24/05|
, i am adding the King James version of Romans next to my paraphrase of Romans, so that people can see both versions side by side.
---steve on 9/24/05|
My parallel NT in Greek & English reads -
'For thus loved God the world so as the son the only begotten he gave that everyone believing in him may not perish but may have life eternal'.
Realize that there are different Greek versions but mine follows the Nestle's 21th edition.
I only had one semester of Greek but quit after I realized you really need at least 4 semesters to be able to utilize it to any acceptable degree.
Moderator - I have been told it is fairly difficult to learn.
---lee on 9/18/05|
lee, all these versions are inaccurate translating it perish, which is katastrefomai in Greek, or die, which is apethanon in Greek. Since the greek reads "miapolitai" or mi-apolitai, correctly translated, "not abandon" ...that everyone who agrees in him be "not abandoned", but have life eternal. And the verse requires an auxiliary between him & not, even though there is none. So "be" is fitting to coorespond with the "have".
---Eloy on 9/18/05|
Moderator, The subject from the Interlinear Bible you mentioned reads Bibles - Parallel Editions .Isn't that the same as the question posted. It does not say KJV. It does not look like a bible but more like a reference tool. Another is where can I get the real deal Bible for English speakers with the Old Testament and the New Testament included? Is the Gideons international bible good?
Moderator - A Interlinear Bible in KJV by Green has the original Hebrew and Greek words with the KJV word above and the KJV Strongs Concordance reference number above. This way one can view the words in todays lanugage in the form of a defintion. I don't know about the Gideons Bible.
---sun on 9/17/05|
Where can you get the KJV Interlinear bible?
Moderator - Through more research I found one by Jay Green, Sr. that appears to be good.
---sun on 9/17/05|
Eloy - agree that one needs to get into the Greek to really understand a verse like John 3:16. Howbeit, the different versions use different English words. In Jn 3:16, the NIV uses 'shall not perish', the KJV uses "should", the NRSV used "may", the NLT used "will not perish", the GWV uses 'will not die', etc. This can be confusing to someone that has not studied Greek.
---lee on 9/16/05|
By studying different translations you can find the one that most clearly explains the subject. In teaching this is a very good tool. Helps give clarity.
---Tsuanne on 9/16/05|
, if you want to use the KJV, fine. but if you want to make sure you are getting what the authors meant, you had better use other translations to make sure the meaning is not lost in the old wording and grammar.
---steve on 9/16/05|
, moderator, how was my comment confusing? english has changed so much in 400 years that many people don't get what a KJV verse says. do you remember the confusion over Galatians 2:7 ? i sure do.
Moderator - I just didn't understand what you were saying in the comment (not agreeing or disagreeing).
---steve on 9/16/05|
You probably could pick up any deviation from Scripture in the Parallel Edition. If we really want to get technical, I would like to see the translation of Greek/Hebrew as well as KJV and NKJV side by side. Even better, lets add the Tyndale translation in there. I am really looking for that one!!
---Elsie on 9/16/05|
your bible rocks??? My kjv doesn't rock, but teaches me what God has to say to me and is my road map for living.
---shira_5965 on 9/16/05|
I like using the parallel at times. Mine has 4 translations, however I don't usually read the Living translation.
Its my understanding that a guy used to spend his time on his train trip home from work every day rewriting scripture so his young children could understand what he considered the most important parts. THAT'S where the Living translation came from. It leaves out a LOT!
---NVBarbara on 9/16/05|
Another to consider is, Who wrote the translations, and what were the motivation in writing a new translation.
---geraa7578 on 9/16/05|
lee1538, part 1- The literal ancient Greek for John 3:16 is: For God so loved the world that his Son the single-sired he gave, that everyone who agrees in him not abandon, but have life eternal. There is no auxiliary between "him" and "not", so i would insert "be" because it cooresponds with the present auxiliary "have".
---Eloy on 9/16/05|
lee1538, pt.2- the auxiliary verb written in the Greek text in John 3:16 is "exi", which is correctly translated "have" in English. But the phrase before this has no auxiliary which is very common in the ancient texts. So we translators must judge the whole verse, and either provide the most correct current day inflection, or else omit it which would then result in a nonsensical English rendering.
---Eloy on 9/16/05|
Oh for pity's sake, if you seriously seek His face before you open it, the Word of God is opened to you by the Holy Spirit within you. Just read, God can speak though any of them.
I find the parallel interesting because they say the same thing differently and sometimes I enjoy one version over another. I have amplified in mine and that one rocks!
---Julie3763 on 9/15/05|
Some years ago I wrote a letter to Billy Grahams organization about one of his articles in Decision magazine on translations of the Bible.
View John 3:16 in the different versions, are we to believe that 'whoever believes in Him should - may - shall - or might have eternal life"?
The selection of the English equivalent from the Greek has always been a problem but there are different nuances involved. Fortunately Christian doctrine does not depend upon any one verse.
---lee1538 on 9/15/05|
(cntinued from previous)
The original "Word of God" is not print, but Jesus Christ. For more clarity, look up the meaning of words in KJV in Strongs Concordance and compare to the 'newer' versions.
---david on 9/15/05|
I see people using the phrase "original" in reference to KJV. It is NOT the original, it is more defiled "word for word" than many of the newer versions. Key word here is "version"... KJ is a "V" version. The translators of KJV used italics to show words that were 'added' to clarify Scripture. If you will read the "original" KJ"V" and leave out the italics, you will find a much different "Word".
---david on 9/15/05|
, moderator, why haven't you addressed the fact that the KJV is now a paraphrase because the english language changed so much since 1611? could it be that your assertions will forever be without evidence?
Moderator - Please be more exact because the comment doesn't make sense as worded.
---steve on 9/15/05|
In response to the person who said that man or Satan had corrupted the Word: God's Word cannot be corrupted, because it is the original incorruptable seed. The enemy may sow tears(weeds) by using his voice to quote the Word in our ears, but if we are filled with the Holy Spirit, He will lead us into all truth, and eventually that original seed will bear fruit.
If people are reading different translations, and manifesting the same fruit, isn't that what counts? Do men gather grapes of thistles?
---Samantha on 9/15/05|
I would recommend reading the booklet "The Facts on the King James Only Debate" by John Ankerberg & John Weldon.
My bible says God's Word will endure forever. Elitist infighting over translations causes piety and makes Christianity dogmatic instead of an instrument of God's love.
I personally prefer The God's Word bible for accuracy and readability.
---Dave on 9/15/05|
Which Bible then is the real one?
Moderator - KJV is the closest while using the correct original Greek and Hebrew manuscipts word for word. A KJV Interlinear bible is used to get even closer to the original language. Too many of the newer bibles since 1880 have been paraphrased putting the reader at the mercy of the person(s) that did the paraphrasing. In addition the newer bibles tend to use the old paraphrased manuscripts which were written in many cases by non-christians.
---sun on 9/15/05|
I have a Comparative study bible. It has KJV, NIV, Amplified, and NAS. It is interesting to see where and how Man (Satan) has corrupted God's word through the years. Satan started it in Genesis 3:1 with Eve, and is still doing it today. There is only one true word of God, not many, 2 Corinthians 2:17.
---geraa7578 on 9/15/05|
I use and my whole church uses NIV. I have compared it to the original King James, and they are the closest.
Moderator - It's impossible to be close. The NIV is a paraphrase and the KJV is word for word. The NIV uses different set of manuscripts. Please study further as to not be misled.
---Scott on 9/15/05|