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

What Bible Do You Use

What Bible do you use? Why?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Vee on 1/28/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog



Alan, Cluny and Jim: Alan, there are ten digits on the hands counting up to 10, then by tens counting up to 80: 8 was considered eternity, or new beginnings and 8 souls were saved on the ark: then by 100s up to 800 Omega, the great O which is the end. After many generations, digamma, 6, was dropped from the alphabet, which is that number who was fallen. Cluny, I am into the study of other alphabets. Jim, the original Greek Constantinopolitan MSS literally has, cxs, chi xi digamma (short for Gk: hexakosioi hexekonta hex) which is literally, six hundred and six by six: and numerically, six hundreds, six tenths, six= 666.
---Eloy on 2/4/10


Cluny //IT was not necessary for Erasmus to look as mss, as there were printed liturgical books in the Greek speaking Churches at the time of the Reformation.


But was there Greek speaking churches in Northern Europe Rotterdam where Erasmus did his work?

It seems Wikipedia as well as other sources state that Erasmus was in too much of a hurry in getting his Greek compilation published.

One thing for certain, he got stuck putting the Johannine comma (1 Jn. 5:6f) into the text w/o any Greek source and he did not have the final pages of Revelation, so translated from the Latin Vulgate resulting in some other mistranslations.
---lee1538 on 2/3/10


\\Likewise the holy scripture is a blessing, but Satanists take verses of holy scripture and recite them backwards for curses, but the scripture itself has nothing to do with satanism nor curses.
---Eloy on 2/3/10\\

Have you ever actually met anyone who did that, Eloy?

Or are you simply reporting the usual paranoid rumors about this?
---Cluny on 2/3/10


alan8566_of_uk:

Positional number systems, such as we use today, were a fairly recent invention. If the numbers were allocated only from 1-26 (say), it becomes very unwieldy to represent larger numbers. You would have to write 100 as ZZZV, and 999 as ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZK, which is not very effective. By lumping the numbers as digits, they could represent all numbers 1-999 using only 3 letters in Greek, or 3-5 in Hebrew.

For larger numbers (which were very rarely used), several different standards were used. For example, writing groups of numbers in groups of 1000 and separating them by apostrophes (much like our use of commas to separate groups of three digits).
---StrongAxe on 2/3/10


Thanks, but why were the numbers allocated not straightforward ... i.e. just 1 to 26 (for our alphabet) Why do some have values in the hundreds?
---alan8566_of_uk on 2/3/10




ELOY, Hate to burst your bubble. Nice fuzzy math....

but the orginal manuscript had 616.

OOOPS! Time to recalulate your Fuzzy Math
---PASTOR_JIM on 2/3/10


\\ Alan, In the beginning when the alphabet was first established, each letter cooresponded to a number and also a thing: a= aleph, ox, 1, and b= beth, house, 2, and so on for each letter.\\

Eloy, what do you mean by "THE alphabet"?

Are you not aware that there are many alphabets?

Furthermore, not all languages use an alphabetical system of writing. Some use ideographs, some pictographs, others syllabic, and so it goes.
---Cluny on 2/3/10


Alan, In the beginning when the alphabet was first established, each letter cooresponded to a number and also a thing: a= aleph, ox, 1, and b= beth, house, 2, and so on for each letter. This establishment of the alphabet has nothing to do with witchcraft nor numerology. Many generations later pagans used the alphabet in their occultic practices, but the establishment of each letter coorelating to its equivalent number is what the Bible calls wisdom, and has nothing to do with numerology nor with witchcraft. Likewise the holy scripture is a blessing, but Satanists take verses of holy scripture and recite them backwards for curses, but the scripture itself has nothing to do with satanism nor curses.
---Eloy on 2/3/10


A table of the Greek alphabet with the numeric equivalents can be found on the web at: en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Greek_alphabet.
---Eloy on 2/3/10


AS I said before Numerology is witchcraft.
And naturally those under the mark of 666
would operate in numerology seeing a number represents them. There are no number prophecies ever given by Prophets. Their prophecies are literal and metaphorical. The literal can sometimes be used both ways, but only as the Holy Spirit reveals it. Such as stammering lips used literal at the time it was given for the invasion of Israel by heathen nations and metaphorically by the invasion of the church by the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.
---exzucuh on 2/3/10




alan8566_of_uk:

Before our positional numbering system (Hindu-Arabic numerals), many lanuages (like Hebrew and Greek) had systems where letters represented values 1-9, 10-90, 100-900. Numbers were letters added together. Thus, all word had numeric values too.

Hebrew:
Alef=1 Bet=2 Gimel=3 Dalet=4 He=5 Vav=6 Zayin=7 Chet=8 Tet=9
Yod=10 Kaf=20 Lamed=30 Mem=40 Nun=50 Samek=60 Ayin=70 Pe=80 Tsade=90
Quf=100 Resh=200 Shin=300 Tav=400

Greek:
Alpha=1 Beta=2 Gamma=3 Delta=4 Epislon=5 Digamma=6* Zeta=7 Eta=8 Theta=9
Iota=10 Kappa=20 Lambda=30 Mu=40 Nu=50 Xi=60 Omicron=70 Pi=80 Qoppa=90*
Rho=100 Sigma=200 Tau=300 Upsilon=400 Phi=500 Chi=600 Psi=700 Omicron=800 Sampi=900*
(*obsolete letters used only for counting)
---StrongAxe on 2/3/10


\\C (kappa) = 20
H (eta) = 8\\

Once more Eloy shows his erudition.

K (not C) is the Greek Kappa.

And Eta is a VOWEL, not the English consonant H.

And just how is spelling a Babylonian name in English transliteration with mis-matched letters from the Greek alphabet going to arrive at "wisdom"?
---Cluny on 2/3/10


Eloy:

Where do you get that spelling of Nebuchadnezzer in Greek, using a Kappa (K) and Eta (long E), and also two Zetas? While the name has two letters 'CH' in English, it has only one in Hebrew (Kaf) and only one in Greek (Chi) (see my Feb. 1 post). Similarly, English 'ZZ' corresponds to single letter Tsade or Sigma.

For example, from Daniel 1:1:
Hebrew: Nun=50 Bet=2 Vav=6 Kaf=20 Dalet=4 Nun=50 Alef=1 Tsade=90 Resh=200 (total=423)
Greek: Nu=50 Alpha=1 Beta=2 Omicron=70 Upsilon=400 Chi=600 Omicron=70 Delta=4 Omicron=70 Nu=50 Omicron=70 Sigma=200 Omicron=70 Rho=100 (total=1757)
Neither of these remotely resemble 666.
---StrongAxe on 2/3/10


Eloy ... I've never understood how these name values are arrived at!

How did the different letters get their values?

I can see why A = 1, B=2, d=4) but why should C (kappa) have a value as high as 20? And what letter has the value of 3? And then c = 20, and why does N=50? z=7 seems illogical too. Then we have u=400. What letter has value 399?

It seems contrived to produce the answers someone wants.

Where do thes values come from, and who allocated them all?

Thanks!
---alan8566_of_uk on 2/3/10


Here is wisdom, Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man, and his number, Six hundred threescore six. Rev.13:18.
N (nu)       =  50
E (eta) = 8
B (beta) = 2
U (upsilon) = 400
C (kappa) = 20
H (eta) = 8
A (alpha) = 1
D (delta) = 4
N (nu) = 50
E (eta) = 8
Z (zeta) = 7
Z (zeta) = 7
A (alpha) = 1
R (rho) = 100
666
Also JESUS in Greek is IESOUS:
I (iota)     =  10
E (eta) = 8
S (sigma) = 200
O (omicron) = 70
U (upsilon) = 400
S (sigma) = 200
888
---Eloy on 2/2/10


Trav:
So just what does the word "peacemaker" mean to you then, and to whom would it apply? If peace is only due to "those like us" and not to those outside, ---StrongAxe on 2/2/10

Ok, in your scenerio...you would be unequally yoked...as you are now. You claim Christian...but, defend an pervert voting leader. A supporter of abortion, etc, etc. br>Who do you think the sword is for the Lord advised them to sell their garments and procure?
Is a dog a neighbor? Christ specifically called a woman a dog? He did heal her daughter. And even a dog has a special place.
Matthew 15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
---Trav on 2/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


\\I believe Friendly_blogger has the right answer to your question.\\

No, he doesn't.

IT was not necessary for Erasmus to look as mss, as there were printed liturgical books in the Greek speaking Churches at the time of the Reformation.
---Cluny on 2/2/10


//And where do you think Erasmus compile it from?

I believe Friendly_blogger has the right answer to your question.

Erasmus's hurried effort (Erasmus said it was 'rushed into print rather than edited') was published by his friend Johann Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the 1st published Greek New Testament.

Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. Most of the manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the oldest manuscript the least because 'he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text.' He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal. from Wikipedia on Erasmus
---Lee1538 on 2/2/10


\\
Actually if you know Bible history, the TR was not a compilation before the Dutch scholar Erasmus compiled it. And being short of source documents, he had to use the old Vulgate as a source for some of his Greek compilation.
---Lee1538 on 2/2/10\\

And where do you think Erasmus compile it from?

The Evengelion, Apostolos, and other liturgical books of the Orthodox Church.
---Cluny on 2/2/10


About the best thing that can be said about Textus Receptus was it was a quick hack job compiled by Desiderius Erasmus in 9 months in 1513. He used inferior damaged Greek text. When he encountered damaged or unreadable portions he simply back translated from the Latin Vulgate in to Greek to get a quick fix for his manuscript. His motivation was purely profit. He need to get his manuscript to the printers before the Spanish Polyglot [A team of outstanding scholars had been working on for that for 12 years] was completed irrespective what errors it might contain.

There were three revisions between 1514 and 1522 and Erasmus was quite willung to make textual corrections to meet the theological expectations of the highest bidder.
---Friendly_Blogger on 2/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


KJV because that is what my congregation uses & I also have a NKJV,but hardly used. I use to think I needed the other versions like NIV NASB etc, but KJV works out just fine.I'm not against others just I donot use them.
---candice on 2/2/10


Cluny//Actually, the Textus Receptus has been the received text (whence the name) of the Greek Churches ever since it was penned by the Apostles themselves.

Actually if you know Bible history, the TR was not a compilation before the Dutch scholar Erasmus compiled it. And being short of source documents, he had to use the old Vulgate as a source for some of his Greek compilation.
---Lee1538 on 2/2/10


Cluny:

Since all the existent manuscripts are several hundreds of years more recent than the original Apostolic manuscripts, how can we know that, of several textual variants, Receptus is the closest to the originals?
(To anyone who prefers a different favored text, the same question applies to that one as well).
---StrongAxe on 2/2/10


\\I would reckon that if the translators of the King James had better Greek & other sources, they would not have used to corrupted Textus Receptus and would have made better choice of the English equivalents.
---Lee1538 on 2/1/10\\

Actually, the Textus Receptus has been the received text (whence the name) of the Greek Churches ever since it was penned by the Apostles themselves.
---Cluny on 2/1/10


Locate Education Jobs


Ed//Sounds like myopia to me.

The problem lies with the fact that the KJV fan club members simply refuse to acknowledge that the King James version is simply that, a version of the word of God.

We have come a very long ways in our knowledge of Greek & Hebrew and more source documents have been discovered since the days of the King James.

I would reckon that if the translators of the King James had better Greek & other sources, they would not have used to corrupted Textus Receptus and would have made better choice of the English equivalents.
---Lee1538 on 2/1/10


Hebrew and Greek both use a single letter (Chet=8 and Chi=600, grand total 698). Even though English spells it with 'C' and 'H', Greek would never use Kappa=20 and Eta=8, since Eta is a vowel (long E). Such a confusion could only occur if one goes by the spelling in English translation rather than the name as it originally appears in Hebrew or Greek. Also, in the Old Testament, there are several different variant spellings, all of whose numeric values would differ slightly from each other.
---StrongAxe on 2/1/10

Thanks for that information.
---exzucuh on 2/1/10


I use the King James Bible not because I think it the only true translation or any other high sounding reason. I use it because 60 years ago when I gave the Lord God my life it was the only Bible you ever saw. We didn't have a choice. To my knowledge there were no other translations in this part of the Country then. Besides I love the King James language in the Bible. It is like an old friend very comfortaable for me to be around and hear. It is always wise to stick with what speaks to one in their heart and the KJ does that for me.
---Darlene_1 on 2/1/10


Eloy: Why would I want to do that? Your opinion does mot make me a liar! You think that because I will not believe in numerology that everything I say is a lie.Do you think because I believe in the Father God and that he has a Son that he gave so I could become the son of God also, that what I say is a lie? Or That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Father, the Son and myself are one in the God's Holy Spirit, that makes me a liar?
The word of God say's those things, exactly and to the point. So what makes me a liar?
Because I will not teach your trinity doctrine
that you do not believe yourself, you are a oneness believer! You don't even know what you believe.
---exzucuh on 2/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


exzucuh, why do you merely stop at this one lie of yours in calling the truth witchcraft, and rather not go all the way like many others already have in denying the Lord whom bought them, and have called Christ the devil?
---Eloy on 1/31/10


king James 1611 Only ...other were just revisions, meaning already changed and tampered.
---ROSALIE on 1/31/10


\\ Strongax, as I have had said before, "I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make you drink."
---Eloy on 1/31/10\\

Eloy, as I have said before, Balaam's ass spoke in a language she had never spoken in before either, and was the same ass when she finished as before.
---Cluny on 1/31/10


exzucuh:

Even though I didn't any posting by Eloy on 1/13/10 about that particular Greek spelling of Nebuchadnezzar, I do remember him posting this same evaluation sometime last year.

Hebrew and Greek both use a single letter (Chet=8 and Chi=600, grand total 698). Even though English spells it with 'C' and 'H', Greek would never use Kappa=20 and Eta=8, since Eta is a vowel (long E). Such a confusion could only occur if one goes by the spelling in English translation rather than the name as it originally appears in Hebrew or Greek. Also, in the Old Testament, there are several different variant spellings, all of whose numeric values would differ slightly from each other.
---StrongAxe on 2/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Strongax, as I have had said before, "I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make you drink."
---Eloy on 1/31/10


Lee1538. myopia??

Matthew 7:14(New King James Version)
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Sounds like myopia to me.
---Ed on 1/31/10


Eloy:

Regarding the Septuagint:

If the New Testament where Jesus and Apostles quote the OT, in several places, the exact wording differs from our OT. It does, however, agree word for word with the LXX Greek.

Also, recent discoveries (such as the dead sea scrolls) have turned up manuscripts of many OT books, several centuries older than our Hebrew Masoretic text. There are some textual differences, and the older mannuscripts agree with LXX.

In other words, the Septuagint was made from older, more accurate manuscripts that the Masoretic Hebrew that we use today. (Either that, or original manuscripts were corrupt and scribes "improved" them over the years? I don't think you want to open THAT can of worms!)
---StrongAxe on 1/31/10


\\Apocrypha is Greek, and not Hebrew, meaning "hidden" (writings or "outside books" that were hidden because of their questionable content to the church).\\

WRONG!

They were used reguarlary by ALL Christians until some of the Reformed Churches removed them (on flimsy grounds) in the 16-17 centuries. Rather late, isn't it?

The Christians of the East still use them.

It's only some (not all) Protestants who have removed them.
---Cluny on 1/31/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


.
---Eloy on 1/30/10

N (nu) = 50
E (eta) = 8
B (beta) = 2
U (upsilon) = 400
C (kappa) = 20
H (eta) = 8
A (alpha) = 1
D (delta) = 4
N (nu) = 50
E (eta) = 8
Z (zeta) = 7
Z (zeta) = 7
A (alpha) = 1
R (rho) = 100
666
God has never revealed the truth through numerology, it is a form of witchcraft. God uses metaphorical pictures of things that mean what he says they mean and must be revealed by the Spirit. Bible code and numerology is of the Antichrist. It is a diversion tactic to lead men away from what is the true Antichrist.
---exzucuh on 1/31/10


Apocrypha is Greek, and not Hebrew, meaning "hidden" (writings or "outside books" that were hidden because of their questionable content to the church). The Apocrypha are in the Latin Vulgate and in the Septuagint which are accepted by Catholicism: but the Apocrypha are not found in the Hebrew TaNaK and they are of doubtful authorship and their content is contrary to sound doctrine, and therefore the Apocrypha are entirely rejected in Judaism and Christianity. The Apocrypha, like the Septuagint, are uninspired and rightly kept out of both the New Testament and the Old Testament.
---Eloy on 1/31/10


Cluny, Paul Kahle (a famous OT scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint has found that "The letter of Aristeas" is mere fabrication, and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the OT into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of NT - OT quotation, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text. What scholars refer to as "Septuagint papyri" are 24 pieces of paper, written 200 years after the death of Christ.
---Eloy on 1/31/10


\\Cluny, you speak falsehood, the Apocrypha is not in the Hebrew Torah and never was, it was not found in Hebrew and it is totally rejected by the Jews.\\

Then why was it translated as part of the LXX some two centuries BEFORE Christ by Jewish scholars themselves?

In a day when all books had to be copied by hand, do you think that the translators simply thought it was cool to make up more things to be copied?
---Cluny on 1/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Get close to God and you wont need different versions of the bible. You will know before you read.
---duane on 1/30/10


I used to read a different version every year and have completed 15 different versions. While they all have their weaknesses and strongs, I find the one I like best is the English Standard Version as it corrects the faults found in other versions. Currently I am reading the ESV Study Bible which has all the tools I need to do an indepth study.

As to the old King James, particularly no one in the church today that truly seeks the truth of His word reads that version any more. The only people that demand Christians read the Old KJV are those suffering from acute myopia. Fortunately those churches are dying out.
---Lee1538 on 1/30/10


\\who slanted their translation." Taken from the internet.
---mima on 1/30/10\\

And of course, everything you get from the internet is always 100% accurate and trustworthy, right, mima?
---Cluny on 1/30/10


amand6348:

U posted:

Most Bibles don't have the original translation anyways, including KJV, but that is the one that I am using right now.///


Very true!

It is best for you to USE a Hebrew/English INTERLINEAR BIBLE! You will catch all the bad translations by the apostates.



---Paul9594 on 1/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Cluny, you speak falsehood, the Apocrypha is not in the Hebrew Torah and never was, it was not found in Hebrew and it is totally rejected by the Jews. And it is also purposely kept out of the Greek New Testament also, for all learned people know that they are uninspired writings from man and not inspired from God. People have the liberty to read whatsoever they choose, myths and fables, apocryphas and pseudepigraphas, encyclopedias and dictionaries, but my faith resides wholly in the proven Word of God and not in any corrupted words from clay.
---Eloy on 1/30/10


Mima ... Can you tell us who was the authoritative source of that quote?
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/30/10


Cluny, you speak falsehood, the Apocrypha is not in the Hebrew Torah and never was, it was not found in Hebrew and it is totally rejected by the Jews. And it is also purposely kept out of the Greek New Testament also, for all learned people know that they are uninspired writings from man and not inspired from God. People have the liberty to read whatsoever they choose, myths and fables, apocryphas and pseudepigraphas, encyclopedias and dictionaries, but my faith resides wholly in the proven Word of God and not in any corrupted words from clay.
---Eloy on 1/30/10


mima, I know I am missing something of your post. Are you suggesting that because the internet says something that it is right? hmm...What are you saying?
---Rod4Him on 1/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


"THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED "KING JAMES VERSION" IS THE ONLY TRANSLATION THAT HAS NOT USED THE FAKED CODACES (SINAITICUS, ALEXANDRINUS, AND VATICANUS), or was "edited" by individuals or organizations who slanted their translation." Taken from the internet.
---mima on 1/30/10


\ I grant no creedance to any of these uninspired writings from man.
---Eloy on 1/30/10
\\

Even though the Jews, Apostles, and first generation Church did, and the majority of Christians still do.

They are not uninspired writings of man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit, as much as the rest of the Bible.
---Cluny on 1/30/10


I read the KJV w/Strong's numbers on the Blue Letter Bible website. Our hardcopy of Strong's was lost, but it is convenient and enlightening to study words, meanings and contexts, in a click, as I read.

I alternate btwn the KJV, ASV and the Message on my BlackBerry at church or when I'm reading for leisure. I like that, this way, I have the scriptures at hand no matter where I am.

Sometimes, I'll use the NIV on BibleGateway (or on another phone app), if I'm looking for something specific in that version, as I don't have a copy elsewhere.

As for hard copy versions, I read from the KJV and the Living Bible, though we have multiple versions here at home, including the Tanakh in Hebrew and English.
---AlwaysOn on 1/30/10


Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,

The Greek New Testament (UBS4),

The Apostolic Bible LXX

The English Standard Version
---Friendly_Blogger on 1/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


              Strongax, The 3 KJV Bibles I use are:
the Reference edition, NELSON 2005 (Thomas NELSON Publishers)
1611 edition, NELSON 301
Santa Biblia - Holy Bible, Version Reina-Valera 1960 - King James
Version, Broadman and Holman Publishers

The latter I use when attending Spanish services. But I favor the Geneva Bible, 1560 edition. Eventhough the Apocrypha is inserted between the testaments and not any part of either testament, I grant no creedance to any of these uninspired writings from man.

---Eloy on 1/30/10


Strongax, The 3 KJV Bibles I use are:

1) the Reference edition, NELSON 2005 (Thomas NELSON Publishers)
2) 1611 edition, NELSON 301
3) Santa Biblia - Holy Bible, Version Reina-Valera 1960 - King James Version, Broadman and Holman Publishers

The latter I use when attending Spanish services. However, of the English translations I favor the Geneva Bible, 1560 edition over the 1611 KJV. And eventhough the Apocrypha is inserted between the testaments, and not included in any part of either testament, I grant no creedance to any of these uninspired writings from man.
---Eloy on 1/30/10


Any and all.

With a close eye on the original languages and a wary eye on some of the very loose paraphrased editions (as well as renderings that indicate that theology has influenced the translation process).
---scott on 1/29/10


Even though I have several translations of the Bible, the one I like the best is, "The New American Standard Bible" Why? To me it's the most accurate translation from the Koine Greek - the written language in the time of day of Christ and the early church.
---WIVV on 1/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


People, the only reason there are so many different versions that say slightly different things is because that it is extremely difficult translating the bible from its original language. there are words in the original language that we do not have a word for. making it hard to get the exact translation.
---emily on 1/29/10


\\ In fact, the 1611 version included the Apocrypha (which I recall you having said in previous posts that you do not accept).
---StrongAxe on 1/29/10\\

Actually, every revision of the KJV including the last two in 1769 and 1904 (this by the ABS normalized according to American spellings) have included the Apocrypha.

The real question is why some people want the whole Bible, and others a Bible full of holes.
---Cluny on 1/29/10


I use a New International Archaeological Bible mostly for the archaeological and historical insights presented in conjunction with each passage.
I use a Complete Jewish Study Bible for insights to Hebrew thoughts of interpretation.
I use NKJV because it was a free download for my Ipod. It also is easy reading.
When I memorize scripture, I use KJV because it is easier to memorize, and it has a poetic flow to it.
I also use a revised standard with an interlinear Greek, side by side, when I am investigating a Greek word and the way it is used.
I use the New American Standard most the time for reading and study.
I have different versions lying around handy, and I read whatever is convenient at the time.
---Rod4Him on 1/29/10


To Whosoever Has An Ear To Hear?

Brethren, I don't put stock in one Bible over the other b/c we've received not the spirit of the world, but of God so we might know the things freely given to us of God : no matter which Bible we have before us or choose to use !! 1Cor.2:12

The Holy Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, revealing them unto those who Love Him b/c our sufficiency to Hear is of God.

We're ministers of the NT. Not of the letter, but of the Spirit b/c the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life manifestly declaring us to be the epistle of Christ, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the Living God : not in tables of stone nor paper, but in fleshy tables of the Heart. 2Cor.3:3,5,6
---Shawn.M.T on 1/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Eloy:

Which version of the KJV do you use? The one we have now is not the 1611 version, but one from several versions later, which has several minor changes. In fact, the 1611 version included the Apocrypha (which I recall you having said in previous posts that you do not accept).
---StrongAxe on 1/29/10


\\ Mainly because Yanks are impressed with OLE English (THEES/THOUS) thinking its the way god talks (LOL). \\

Actually, the KJV is translated into MODERN (though not contemporary) English--not Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and not Chacerian (Middle English).

"Nu schulon heiregan heavonrices weard" is OLD English.

"What that Aprille with his shoures soote" is MIDDLE English.
---Cluny on 1/29/10


I use the king james version. nkj
Tje reason I use this bible is because Jesus worns us of changing scripture and false doc. teaching. I believe with all my heart that this is safe teaching of the bible. Lana
---Lana on 1/29/10


I use the one that the Lord speaks to me from...lol.

Seriously, I grew up with New American Standard and King James. I use both, but I also have tons of study books to look up the meaning of the words and I go back and forth to see what each version says.

The Lord does speak to us through His word. His word is His voice and His voice is His word...watch some folks say that isn't true. But this is one of the ways He speaks to me, through His Word. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
---Donna on 1/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


The more bibles ( different translations) you use, the etter your understanding of 0he scriptures will be.
just remeber God/ Jesus NEVER changes. So if one translation makes it seem as if God has or is changing his Love, Law, Mercy or grace, think twice.
---Francis on 1/29/10


I use various translations, but no English version after 1611 A.D. I favor the Geneva Bible of 1560 A.D., which is called the Thanksgiving Bible because it is Thee Bible that the pilgrims brought to America upon the Mayflower. I find the 1560 Geneva transaltion to be more accurate than the 1611 KJV. The Geneva translation was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I.
---Eloy on 1/29/10


Pastor J "It (the KJV) is not a Bible but a revision of an Anglican bible. The KJV is FULL of errors, and is the MOST inaccurate. Itself was revised 7++ times then tossed out and completely replaced in 1878 by the Brits

Strange Pastor J, that it is still in use in thousands of churches in the UK!
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/29/10


people have enough trouble understanding scripture,though the KJV has been around since the 1600s it really is difficult for most people to comprehend,we just dont talk that why,and even more important ,dont think that way.NIVS or another translated in modern vocabulary are much easier to understand
---tom2 on 1/29/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


The NASB is a scrupulously accurate translation of the wrong text.

\\It is not a Bible but a revision of an Anglican bible. The KJV is FULL of errors, and is the MOST inaccurate. Itself was revised 7++ times then tossed out and completely replaced in 1878 by the Brits.\\

Once more Pastor_Jim displays the ignorance he claims pastors have. While the KJV was revised 5 times (not morethan seven, as he claims), it was never "tossed out by the Brits" because the English Revised version of 1881 (not 1878) never caught on with either the Church of England or people generally.
---Cluny on 1/29/10


I use the NASB, it is the MOST accurate.

AVOID THE KJV AT ALL COSTS!

It is not a Bible but a revision of an Anglican bible. The KJV is FULL of errors, and is the MOST inaccurate. Itself was revised 7++ times then tossed out and completely replaced in 1878 by the Brits.

It remained in the U.S. and has a cult following now. Mainly because Yanks are impressed with OLE English (THEES/THOUS) thinking its the way god talks (LOL). The Brits were never impressed with this obsolete language and tossed it.

It was NEVER authorized by King James!
Does not contain ANY of the new discoveries (DSS) or translations for over 400yrs.
---PASTOR_JIM on 1/28/10


I was raised up reading the KJV. I have both KJV and the NKJV now. I think some of the translations are an insult to the orginal text. With the NIV They make changes just to be making changes.
---wayne on 1/28/10


\\ KJV. With the new KJV, one verse calls Jesus teacher, and in that same verse in the regular KJV, it calls Him "Master." BIG difference. \\

In British usage, one of the meanings of "master" is "teacher" as in the expression "headmaster," so there's really no difference.

Especially of the original Greek word is "didaskolos" or something similar, which generally means "teacher," as opposed to the word "despote" which has implications of being a social or other superior.
---Cluny on 1/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


I have used the New King James Version, for a while, after being with people who used the earlier King James. One thing I appreciated is that the New King James is close enough to the earlier version so I could read along with churches that use the earlier King James. And since it is more up-to-date English, I also can read along with more modern Bibles in other churches. And I have had a number of pastors who have preached from the New King James. So, it's kind of an "all things to all men" thing (1 Corinthians 9:19-22) (c: But I'm finding that I need to be ready to learn better meanings of words, than I might assume by reading what is translated, as I find has happened with reading other Bibles, too.
---Bill_bila5659 on 1/28/10


I just began using the NKJV bc I recieved a nice one for a gift. I was using a KJV and I also like the NASB. I enjoy reading the Amplified Bible for study. I find that I don't like the NTL much but have noticed that it is very readable for children. My 11 yr old reads it and refuses to read the King James. ha..She also likes the NIV. I frankly do not know which translation is most accurate but tend to think the NASB is the best word for word modern translation.
---jody on 1/28/10


KJV. With the new KJV, one verse calls Jesus teacher, and in that same verse in the regular KJV, it calls Him "Master." BIG difference.

Most Bibles don't have the original translation anyways, including KJV, but that is the one that I am using right now.
---amand6348 on 1/28/10


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