ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Best Version Of The Bible

Which bible version is the best to read?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---jamea5375 on 10/17/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Post a New Blog



Rev_Herb:

While you can find web sites on the web to say pretty much anything you want (just as you can find books in libraries to do so, or people on the street to do so), even though you cannot treat such sources as reliable, you CAN test the objective truth of their claims.

If someone points out an error in the Bible, you can look up the verses yourself, and address it on that basis. It doesn't matter who makes the claim - the claim stands on its own, and the verses stand on their own.
---StrongAxe on 11/1/07


The publishing of the 1560 Geneva Bible should have just come out on the market now. This is the Thanksgiving Bible that our forefathers brought to America on the Mayflower, and it is more accurate than the 1611 King James Version. I highly recommend every serious student of the Holy Bible to obtain one from their local Bible Book Store, or online, or you can penpal me at eloy8876 and I can give you the contact.
---Eloy on 11/1/07


Love your answer, Jack :) I used to feel kinda guilty for reading "The Message" because it's paraphrased, but my minister says the same thing you do: if you read it, it does you more good than a version you don't enjoy.
---Mary on 10/31/07


The best version of the Bible is the one you will read.
---Jack on 10/31/07


AlwaysOn: As Jared pointed out, no English translation, even accurate literal translations, can be exactly the same as the Greek or Hebrew and still BE ENGLISH at the same time! I think anyone who hasn't seen it, would appreciate my posts in "Good Version Of The Bible" BLOG (1119212927.htm); I did a [9]-part series on 12/9/06 showing why there's really no such thing as a 'word for word' English translation by translating two short portions from the Greek.
---danie9374 on 12/30/06




I have only just begun using Young's Literal Translation (on BibleGateway) as a cross-reference in some of my studies which is why I'm asking. So far, so good, but I wanted to get the opinion of the group on which is closest overall. Some mentioned here I already use and others I've never looked at, but will because of your suggestions. Thanks all!
---AlwaysOn on 12/30/06


I thought Youngs was more of a paraphrase (like a commentary) But I haven't really read it. As far as Bibles that are closest to the original greek probably the Russian Translations since their language is based on the original greek =) but other than that I don't know. since our language structure is totally different than greek all translations have some variations.
---Jared on 12/30/06


Jared: *It is sad taht our churches don't teach history as much now. When I have new members class I try to put alittle bit in but most people don't want to hear about the church under catholic, they jump from acts to the reformations..*

"To be deep in History, is to cease to be Protestant" - John Henry Newman

;o
---augusta on 12/30/06


AlwaysOn: For most passages, I'd say the New American Standard Bible (NASB; get '95 edition, sometimes ref.'d as NAU, stands for 'NASB, Updated') is a literal, accurate translation (I use it mostly). But have run into a few passages where I prefer some others. The (free online) NET Bible has valuable translation notes! The ESV or NKJV are also versions I'd recommend for study; both literal, not dynamic. The NIV can be good for reading to get the general drift of meaning; like doing a 1-year Bible program.
---danie9374 on 12/30/06


AlwaysOn: You can download the YLT (Young's Literal) free under the Online Bible, then form your own opinion as to its qualities by comparing with some other translations. It was put together by Robert Young in 1862 and 1898; he's the same man who produced the Young's Analytical Concordance! Interesting. For some (odd?) reason, the OnlineBible lists it as being by 'J.N. Young'; can anyone shed some light on this? Did it have two different editors? Or did someone confuse Robert's name?
---danie9374 on 12/30/06




AlwaysOn - *Of all existing translations, which one is the closest to the original Greek and Hebrew in terms of translation and context? *

Probably the New English Translation Bible as it has over 57,000 footnotes and thoroughly documents the translators notes often given reason for the selection from the different manuscripts.
---lee1538 on 12/30/06


What are your opinions on Young's Literal Translation?

Of all existing translations, which one is the closest to the original Greek and Hebrew in terms of translation and context?
---AlwaysOn on 12/29/06


Lee isn't it funny how many of our debates today are very similar to the debates they had back then...I've read quite a bit about church history and i was amazed about that. It is sad taht our churches don't teach history as much now. When I have new members class I try to put alittle bit in but most people don't want to hear about the church under catholic, they jump from acts to the reformations. But there is so much in between, that is foundational.
---Jared on 12/5/06


for example when we read 1 John 5:7-8 NIV and KJV differ, the reason being is because the KJV relys quite a bit on the latin Vulgate which was translated by St. Jerome in the 4th & 5th Century. During this period of time there was a contriversy between Augustin and Pelagious. about the trinity. somehow the interpertaion of the Water Blood and Spirit was inserted. I can't say bywho but i'm supicious. Not that it changed anything but it should have been footnoted. which is what NIV does.
---Jared on 12/5/06


Jared - you are correct in that there were more Gentiles in the Antioch church than there were Jews as we read that Peter had a problem eating with the Gentiles after people from the Jerusalem church arrived at Antioch. The early church had a lot of growing pains trying to figure out what direction it was to take and that is why they had the Jerusalem Council.
---lee1538 on 12/5/06


But the gentiles were of greater number in antioch than in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was mainly Jews.
---Jared on 12/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Jared. The Gentiles first became Christians on the day of Pentecost. They came from every nation of the world. What you should say is that it was in Antioch that they first "called them Christian" There is no way of telling which countries the first ones came from.
---john on 12/2/06


Toby. The disciples did have 3 1/2 years of training on the street and in the word but they were told to stay put until the Holy Spirit baptized them. Not until they finished reading the proper version of the Bible.
---john on 12/2/06


Jared - *And Antioch was where the theology and traditions of the Gentile church was first started.*

There were competing schools of theology in Antioch and in Alexandria - differences often were debated at the various church councils but not always resolved.
---lee1538 on 12/2/06


The most accurate one is the most holy one.
---Eloy on 12/2/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


I want to make one statment most churches can trace their roots to antioch mainly because that is where the Gentiles first became Christians. And Antioch was where the theology and traditions of the Gentile church was first started.
---Jared on 12/1/06


If we go directly to the "sauce" - do you mean like the Head Sous Chef?
---R.A. on 11/20/06


Steveng. The desciples had poss 3.5 years of intensive personal training, when they heard but didnt understand they didnt sit under a tree waiting for "divine inspiration" no they went right to the sauce. Scripture is the sauce we also have to go to when we have a question. Please dont tell people to forget about the manual of life, the book which holds the keys, the words Prov30:5 Luke 4:4 They received the word personally we get it in writing.
---Toby on 11/20/06


Forget about the bibles.

Rely on God only. Develop a close personal realtionship with God and he will reveal the truth in your hearts without depending on the Bible you people depend so much on. It took the Apostles three years to learn everything they needed to know and went out into the world without script. God promises that the Holy Spirit will guide you the rest of the way to Heaven.
---Steveng on 11/19/06


Shop For Insurance


I've never even understood why a Baptist would want to lay claim to the Waldensians. The Waldensians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, considered infant baptism essential for salvation and believed in priestly absolution from sin. LOL
---augusta on 11/19/06


** aptists can trace their roots back to antioch, such as the waldensians in italy and france, etc**

If Baptists can truly claim descent from the Waldensians, why did the Waldensians who migrated to the USA get absorbed by the Presbyterians?

And why did the Waldensians in Italy officially merge with the Methodists there?
---Jack on 11/19/06


** Jared,
"(Baptism was started to symbolize going through the Red Sea.)"

What is the source of that statement?**

This statement is also made by many early Chritian writers, too.

St. Paul hints at this in 1 Cor 10.

It's nothing new, though it may be a new idea to people here.
---Jack on 11/19/06


** aptists can trace their roots back to antioch, such as the waldensians in italy and france, etc**

There is a silly booklet called "The Trail of Blood" which looks at everything that was not mediaeval Roman Catholicism and says, in effect, that these were Baptists under another name.

Obviously, the author didn't know what these various sectarians actually believed, taught, and practiced.
---Jack on 11/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


I try to read a different version every year. This year so far I almost finished the Amplified Bible but may not finish the Old testament.

Recently acquired is the Reformation Study Bible, English Standard Version. This will be the one I will be reading in the coming year.
---lee1538 on 11/19/06


baptists can trace their roots back to antioch, such as the waldensians in italy and france, etc
---r.w. on 11/18/06


Many churches are starting to put the English Standard Bible into their pews. I read that version last year and it is a good one.

There has been a dispute with the publisher of the NIV when they created the politically correct genderless TNIV causing the Baptist to adopt the Holman version of the Bible. Perhaps the NIV will see a decline after a few years?
---lee on 11/2/06


I can't remember which source I read that in but it was a book about Old Testament cultures. Or maybe it was in the spiritual Formation Bible study notes. (it was such a common book that I forget the source)
---Jared on 10/30/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Jared,
"(Baptism was started to symbolize going through the Red Sea.)"

What is the source of that statement?
---Bruce5656 on 10/30/06


**far stretch. What about those "Baptists" who were baptized in the Holy Ghost in Acts.**

How about those others who had not received the Holy Spirit as they had not even HEARD of the Holy Spirit?

Why? Because they knew only John the Baptist's baptism, and NOT the Baptism of Christ, which is in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So much for Rev Herb's and similar fairy tales.
---Jack on 10/30/06


I hope you are not confusing the Baptist started in England (traditional baptist) with the AnaBaptist (such as the Mennonites) these are vastly different denominations. Baptist believe in going to war, and the Anabaptist are antiwar like the Friends Church.
---Jared on 10/29/06


But anyways, the best Bible Version is a Translation that you can understand (parapharases are more like a commentary) But a translation has a group of people translating from the greek/latin/hebrew texts. I personally like NKJV, NIV, NESB, and NRSV. If you read several translations you are less likely to misinterperet the text.
---Jared on 10/29/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


By the way the Authorized KJV doesn't mean that it is the best it just means that King James was not going to kill those that did the translating. (before that everyone that tried was burned at the stake)
---Jared on 10/29/06


I didn't know John was a Baptist. I thought he was the baptizer. but why did he baptize? because he was telling the Jews that they were all apostate, that they all left the true faith and needed to be brought back in like a gentile. (Baptism was started to symbolize going through the Red Sea.)
---Jared on 10/29/06


"What is a baptist? They were first called Christians at Antioch.."

The Baptist denomination didn't exist until around 1609 A.D. I'm not sure if thats the correct year.
---Kay on 10/29/06


Hmmmm....my Authorized KJV doesn't say that Baptists were first called Christians at Antioch. It says that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Sounds to me, Herb, like you are "mistranslating" an "authorized version" and taking liberties that not even the scholars who translate into other versions are taking.
---Linda6563 on 10/29/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


To say those Christians were Baptists is a stretch...a far stretch. What about those "Baptists" who were baptized in the Holy Ghost in Acts. I would be interested in what you call them seeing that what happened to them is something you call moot these days. I would hazard a guess and say that if they were still around, they would still be speaking in tongues and you would have to deal with the fact that those "Baptists" had experienced Pentecost.
---Linda6563 on 10/29/06


Rev_Herb, are you suggesting that only Baptists are Christians? That sounds rather cult-like.
---Kay on 10/27/06


What is a baptist? They were first called Christians at Antioch and then many other thing throught the ages, they were even called ana-baptist and later the ana was droped. The true baptist is not a denomation and some say but only Christians. Read the trail of blood by J.M. Carroll, to see the history of the baptist.
---Rev_Herb on 10/27/06


I too like the KJV but it is not the only version I read and I don't condemn anyone for their choice as is the custom of those who set the KJV on a pedestal of some sort and elevate it higher than The Word Himself. Thank you for letting me know you don't agree with me. I wasn't looking for agreement and you certainly met my expectation.
---Linda6563 on 10/24/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


I think you should pick a bible that you like and can read, and has the study features you want.
Jeanne
---Jeanne on 10/24/06


Sounds good so far. Tell us more, MM.
---R.A. on 10/24/06


PART ONE:
"Baptist" is a denominational tag the same as any other. There is a myriad of "baptist" denominations. If belief in post-conversion baptism is the hallmark of being a "baptist", well I guess I am a "pentecostal-baptist". Or is that "baptist-pentecostal".
---Bruce5656 on 10/24/06


PART TWO:
If we were to put such tags on people in the Bible, well I guess all the "baptists" were converted to "pentecostal" on the day of Pentecost!

Someone once said: "In hell the name tags will burn off and in Heaven they will fall off."
---Bruce5656 on 10/24/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


I wrote a paper on the history of Baptist in college. Traditional Baptist were rabidly anti-clerical and have a tradition of respect for individual freedom/faith. In europe no religious group were more persecuted. Some of their idea are pre-reformation, going back to the anabaptist. Some of the ideas of Luther were inspired by the Baptist. The concept of "scripture-Holy Spirit-I" was uniquely a Baptist one earning them the hate of the RCC AND the reformation protestants, who all pro-clergy.
---MikeM on 10/24/06


Herb ... What does Baptist mean? What we all know, except perhaps you is that it means someone who beleives in Baptism, perhaps as a necessary or required part of one's life as Christian.
John was not a Baptist. He was The Baptiser ... the one who Baptised Jesus.
---alan8869_of_UK on 10/23/06


Reading Rev Herb's response, slapping myself in the forehead, shaking my head in disbelief...
---Crystal on 10/23/06


The best bible to read is one that you are willing to read and can understand. A bible that is too difficult might be more suscinct but if you never pick it up what good does it do you.

Grace
---grace3869 on 10/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Norma, you misread my post. Herb said it, and I quoted him using italics.

The rest of the post should make it clear I do not agree with Herb, OK?
---JohnT on 10/22/06


No the Bible doesn't say John was "a" Baptist, it says John "the" Baptist which is the same as saying John "the" Postman ,Clerk,or Farmer. One verse says John Baptist but used in like manner as a surname such as, Jesus Carpenter, since all surnames eventually were derived from occupation or circumstances.
---Darlene_1 on 10/22/06


"If you go to a Baptist preacher and get baptiszed into the Baptist faith so to speak you are a baptist, you joined the baptist church. Does the bible not say that John was a Baptist?"

I certainly hope you are only kidding! But no, the Bible calls John THE baptist. Not A baptist. There weren't any Christian denominations back in New Testament times. John was called "the baptist" because he baptized. I'm sure you already know this.
---Kay on 10/22/06


Linda I dont agree with you. I use the KJV for I truly like the way it was written and understood it easier than others. Thats my choice and its wrong to say I idolise it. No. You have your choice of bible and I have mine and you have no right to say I should do differently otherwise. We all have free choice
---mmadm on 10/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Crystal, I did not say that Jesus was not a Jew. I said he was a Baptist, because he went to John the BAPTIST, no John the Catholic or John the Pentiscostal. There was suspose to be some humor in that statement, but I see most of you have no sense of humor. How sad.

If you go to a Baptist preacher and get baptiszed into the Baptist faith so to speak you are a baptist, you joined the baptist church. Does the bible not say that John was a Baptist?
---Rev_Herb on 10/21/06


To clarify what I wrote,there were religious leaders involved before translation of KJV who pushed for a new translation, actual translation was done by Biblical Scholars and Linquists,47 learned men in kingdom. New translation was to be used only when it agreed better with the text than Bishop's Bible,Tyndale's,Matthew's,Coverdale's,Whitchurch's,and Geneva's. That means whatever was correct in previous Bibles was kept unchanged, and used in KJV Bible making an improved edition not completely new one.
---Darlene_1 on 10/20/06


A man who has made an idol of a particular translation of the Bible has demoted Jesus to nothing more than a translation or his own ideas. Ezekiel says that the Lord will answer that man according to his idols. The more one idolizes a translation, the more he will insist that it is the only translation the Holy Ghost can use to reveal the Christ and the more boldly he will speak against any other.
---Linda6563 on 10/19/06


As he continues to worship the idol, he will think himself more righteous (and everyone else unrighteous) because of it. He is being answered according to his idols. It takes quite a bit of self-righteous boldness to declare that Jesus was a baptist, thereby demoting Him to mere man. He is the Head of the Church, not a denominational affiliation.
---Linda6563 on 10/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


John, why do you say that the NIV was written by sodomites? I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on that. Even the KJV was traslated several times from the original Hebrew and how do you know they were not sodomites?
---Norma7374 on 10/19/06


I guess I'm the only one that prefers the NIV. I had a book with three different translations of the Bible and comparing them with the other translations I find that the NIV is the closest to the KJV.
---Norma7374 on 10/19/06


"Reverend" (MAN, do I use that term loosely) Herb LOST his crediility for me when he suggested Jesus was not a Jew, but a Baptist! How nuts is that? Now, I'm supposed to read the only version he endorses? RIGHT! Modern language does not translate into New Age!
---Crystal on 10/19/06


** The KJV,which is the one I use, was compiled by many different religious leaders and scholars of that day. **

And when they were through, the translators all continued to use either the Bishops' or Geneva Bible, depending on their churchmanship.

The KJV was originally translated for ONE purpose: to be "read in churches" of both parties.
---Jack on 10/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Herb: At least the KJV wasn't written by sodomites like the NIV.

That's a VERY general statement, and like most general statements, generally wrong. The EARLY, lower committees had some of the "ecumenical guys and gals" on them, but the higher up the translation committee the more Evangelical they were. They ediited the previous committee's work.

My Hebrew professor on the FINAL committee explained this to our class, and he is a world-reknown Evangelical scholar.
---John_T on 10/19/06


Herb, if God can use a harlot He can use a sodomite.
---emg on 10/19/06


herb: are YOU now throwing sand?? "At least the KJV wasn't written by sodomites like the NIV
---John_T on 10/19/06


Oh my, Herb. Jack, "best bible is the one you read", like it. And some Christians have only one page.
---Raine on 10/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


The KJV,which is the one I use, was compiled by many different religious leaders and scholars of that day. No one can say what their morals were. Ninety percent of the language used in KJV was taken from the Tyndale Bible. What matters is whatever translation we use we must seek the guiding of the Holy Ghost to teach us. Jesus sent us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all truth and He will if we let Him no matter the Bible Translation we read.
---Darlene_1 on 10/19/06


At least the KJV wasn't written by sodomites like the NIV.
---Rev_Herb on 10/19/06


I have researched the Septuagint and it is riddled with hyperboles and adulterations and corruption. The best Hebrew Scripture is the Aleppo Codex, and the best Greek is the Constantinopolitan MSS.
---Eloy on 10/18/06


**Every Bible has good and bad stuff because the translators are humans; despite good intentions they sometimes err.**

Very true. This includes the translators of the KJV.

They no more channelled this (or any) translation than the original authors of the Bible channelled their writings, though there are many people who believe either or both of these superstious notions.
---Jack on 10/18/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Jack, I bet if God wrote a book someone would find errors in it as well and post it on the web. Oh! He did write a book, it is called the bible. And by the way, I have found sites on the web that says there are errors in the bible. My point being, you can find anything on the web to back up your beliefs.
---Rev_Herb on 10/18/06


I myself like the rvsv but there are a lot of others out there just a good but I do find that the King James has added vss not found in the Hebrew and Greek, but it does not take away from the word of Salvation
---kenne8883 on 10/18/06


WHICH FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM IS BEST? Depends upon the need of the end user.

Every Bible has good and bad stuff because the translators are humans; despite good intentions they sometimes err.

In seminary, my Hebrew prof assigned a difficult passage. He was on the final committtee of the NIV. After going around the issue, one student asked, "How did YOU translate that?"
Looking at the passage in the NIV, he scratched his head saying, "I dont know why I wrote that!"
---JohnT on 10/18/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.