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

Which Is The Right Bible

Which is "the right" Bible to use. I grew up with King James version. Then I found out that words in italica are added words and that many books were left out of the Bible. I still use King James, but try to ignore all of the italics. Kind of changes the way some of it reads.

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---donna8679 on 4/16/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



I would NOT set "consequences" for the ungodly spouse! I would pray for that person and do my best to love and respect them too--and maybe my respect would win over their respect--try it!
---Mary on 4/26/10


Peter, When Christ ministered in the first century, the people were hearing the New Testament live. For the N.T. was being taught by the Testator himself, the Lord God Jesus himself in the flesh. As Jesus ministered his words with signs following, the scribes of the day were documenting every detail. So when Jesus returned to heaven, and later a writing or letter was presented to the church as purportedly being "Inspired" or "from God", then it was investigated by the Church leaders and judged whether or not the writing was indeed genuinely inspired. We Christians who are from Christ know his voice intimately, and we are able to easily distinguish between his words, and discern the words from strangers or they of the world.
---Eloy on 4/26/10


There are a lot of nonInspired writings and books on the market today, which same books are falsely claimed to be from God. But comparing these dead writings with the Holy Bible, plainly exposes that they are not Holy Writ at all. Back to the Bible people! and to the words of our Lord!
---Eloy on 4/26/10


Mary:

I don't do monologues. If you answer my question, I will answers yours.

Suppose:
You are married with children, 5 and 6 yrs old.

Christ placed the woman the leader, head of the Household.

Your husband is insubordinate and disrespectful to your leadership, affecting the relatioship.... The children also act like their dad, because they see the disrespect towards you from your husband daily.

You DON'T set consequences for his Insubordinate ways. You continue to pay the price of disrespect not only from your husband but from your children!

Would U really be THIS make-believe leader, head of household? And not set consequences, for him, so that he may change, for the sake of respect?
---Paul9594 on 4/25/10


The best Bible for you is the one you can get the most from and which you understand the best. There are many good reference guides which can expound on the Bible you read and help you to expand your understanding. The key is to study by reading your Bible in a special time you set aside for that,every day and pray for God to give his truth of the Word of God.
---Darlene_1 on 4/25/10




\\I took it that the council in Nicea was arranged to ensure there was nothing being read in churches that was not inspired....\\

That's exactly right, peter.

||strongax, Even as Jesus was ministering man was recording the details of his actions and his words||

You actually think that the evanglists were recording the events of Jesus's life while they were happening?

The Bible disagrees with you.

Luke, who was NOT among the 12, or even the 70, says that he decided to write his Gospel because there were so many others, only he was going to be more precise.

And John says that if EVERYTHING Jesus said or did was written down (which you are implying), the world itself could not contain the books.
---Cluny on 4/25/10


Eloy: Thanks for your comment.

I took it that the council in Nicea was arranged to ensure there was nothing being read in churches that was not inspired....

The thing I'd like to ask is your comment 'according to God's word'. In those days, no-one had properly defined the NT, so was only the OT taken as God's word?

Or did a definition of what was proper belief also get learned, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so the churches could [early on] check that what was being read was inspired?
---peter3594 on 4/25/10


strongax, Even as Jesus was ministering man was recording the details of his actions and his words. The Holy Bible is very articulate about very minute and specific details and the hour of the days and precisely what was exactly being said which is evidence of a current and present dictation of events and not any writing from some long ago memories. The writings do not reveal vague details and inaccurate relaying of the gospel accounts, and not in any place is there the falsehood written, like, "And then I think it was either the first day of the week or else the second day, and Jesus said this or else something like this...No, not at all. But instead, the documentation reads very precisely while it was happening so it was being recorded.
---Eloy on 4/25/10


Peter, Paul wrote to guide the churches. The proven prophets from God needed to ratify or refuse every writing presented to them according to God's word, even as I do here. When the writing was verified to be from a holy man, and was of sound doctrine lining up with the holy Scriptures, and the writing contained God's Holy Spirit, it was received as knowingly coming straight from God. But if the author was questionable, and the content contradicted already established sound doctrine proven to be from God, then it was rejected as mere scholarship or secularized composition not spoken from God. All nonScripture and NonDictations from God, and NonInspired or NonSpoken words by God are rightly named as such.
---Eloy on 4/25/10


Paul9594:

How could any gentiles qualify for being part of the 144000, when they are explicitly enumerated as 12000 from each of the tribes of Israel, each named in turn?
---StrongAxe on 4/24/10




But Paul, you still haven't said what "consequences" you would use when you lay down the law with your own wife, would you mind sharing that?
---Mary on 4/24/10


Mary:
U posted:
I have authoritarian and chauvinistic ways?

Suppose you are married with children, 5 and 6 yrs old.

Suppose Christ placed the woman the leader, head of the Household.

Your husband is insubordinate and disrespectful to your leadership, affecting the relationship in negative ways. The children also act like their dad, because they see the disrespect towards you from your husband daily.

Since you DON'T set consequences for his Insubordinate ways. You continue to pay the price of disrespect not only from your husband but from your children!

Would U really be THIS make-believe leader, head of household? And not set consequences, for him, so that he may change, for the sake of respect?
---Paul9594 on 4/24/10


Eloy: all you say is true (exact dates, I'm not sure about - I'd heard some suggestions that some of the Gospels were writeen a bit later - is it true, as I've read, that Acts was written as a defence for Paul?).

Though, at some point, some other letters were read that some felt should not be canonical, and that is why the council was made, to finally decide so the believers would not get false teachings - I think

I mean, that the writings are so old, yes, but there had to be a way to determine which of the writings were God-inspired
---peter3594 on 4/24/10


Eloy:

All of the New Testament had to have been written after Jesus's crucifixion, and much long after.

The gospels had to, otherwise, how could they have written an ending that hadn't happened yet? They were books of history, not prophecy.

Time also had to pass for the establishment of the Church in Jerusalem, missionary journeys into Asia, founding of churches in Asia, Paul's journey to Rome, and Paul's imprisonment in Rome for years, before he could have written many of his letters.

The Revelation certainly had to be written later because of Jesus's advice to the churches in Asia (impossible had they not been established, and around for long enough to have delveloped characteristics that he could comment on).
---StrongAxe on 4/24/10


Eloy:

I have read most of your postings, you are well alligned with the Truth. keep growing in the Truth, brother!

You may qualify for the 144,000 men who lead the Church into righteousness, again.
I'm not sure if your understand this but Gentiles also qualify, men only.

But there will still be those, as you posted earlier:

If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
---Paul9594 on 4/24/10


Cluny, my pleasure, Repent, and get saved.
---Eloy on 4/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


Peter, Hand written copies of Jesus' gospel and the Apostle's letters were read in the temples long before any councils were formed, and before any printing presses propagated bound Bibles. Acceptance of the 27 N.T. books, manifested valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by an Apostle, or a holy man inspired by God: Right doctrine- the scripture had to be in accord with Jesus' commandments and teachings: Date written- the scripture had to be written between 5 B.C.(from Christ's birth), and 29-30 A.D.(soon after Christ's death and resurrection): Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the Christian temples around the Mediterranean and Palestine and the Middle East.
---Eloy on 4/24/10


Eloy: I go back many days, I'm sorry about it: you began a comment, and did well by saying you do not go by the council of men but of God. This is very very true.

There is, though, a slight difficulty. Do we not agree that at least the council of Nicea was guided by God in choosing the books of the NT. I prefer to avoid the apocrypha becuase [I think] they were not chosen by that council.

This is also because I have not read them, and do not think [correct me if I'm wrong - I MEAN that] that it is really the job of each beleiver to check the claims of extra book that was not chosen then for whether it is or is not God-inspired.

Sorry I'm so late in posting this!
---peter3594 on 4/23/10


\\Cluny, you continue to lie:\\

Keep on blessing me, Eloy.
---Cluny on 4/23/10


Eloy and Cluny: you the two of you try to calm down a bit? I know you feel strongly, but I do think you still need to calm down, to be SURE that the other one is wrong....... PLEASE!!! This is a site for considered debate and sharing of encouragement
---peter3594 on 4/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Cluny, if I cite all the books and chapters and page numbers and line numbers from each false teaching of the apocrypha, or even cite the websites for you to personally visit and read these truths I am posting, you still will not accept the truth because you do not want to. Jesus said of the dissers, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
---Eloy on 4/23/10


Cluny, you continue to lie: ReRead my postings for they indeed name the name of the books and their chapters in the nonscriptural apocrypha. On second thought, Do Not ReRead my postings below, because your folly will not allow you to accept the truth from God which I have published here, but instead your unrighteousness will keep you in your darkness and in believing things which are simply contrary to the manifested and evident truth.
---Eloy on 4/22/10


\\Cluny, yes I do know full well, for I have corrected you many times with the truth\\

Eloy, you have not presented ANY documentation or supporting facts for ANY of your claims.

Were you to appear at my door soaking wet during a thunderstorm and tell me it was raining, I'd look outside to make sure it was.

If you recited, "For God so loved the world...." I wouldn't believe you had I not read it for myself decades before I became aware of your existence.

In short, Eloy, I've not found anything you have said to be reliable.
---Cluny on 4/22/10


\\I was referring to the Jews formalizing the Old Testament canon, which happened after the Septuagint was written, but before Jesus was born.\\

So was I.

Actually, StrongAxe, this wasn't done until the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia, which took place around 90 AD, some two generations after Pentecost.

Eloy, you can have a Bible with holes in it if you wish, though that's not what's mean by Holy Bible.

I'll have the WHOLE Holy Bible, myself.
---Cluny on 4/22/10


Send a Free Just Because Ecard


Cluny:

I was referring to the Jews formalizing the Old Testament canon, which happened after the Septuagint was written, but before Jesus was born.

The church formalizing the New Testament canon took place centuries later.
---StrongAxe on 4/22/10


\\2) Jews formalized canon, excluding Apocrypha\\

Over 200 years AFTER the LXX was made and two generations AFTER the Holy Spirit had descended at Pentecost and established the Church, which accepted it.
---Cluny on 4/22/10


The version ( KJV, NIV, RSV ) is not as important as the publisher.

A good publisher will have a small accurate concordance, will tell you which words were added, and will give you references on where in the bible you can find the same scripture.
A good publisher will give you tips on promounciation, and even root word origin.

That to me is more improtant the whether or no tit is KJV or NAS and so on
---francis on 4/22/10


Eloy:

You often provide "supporting scriptures" and "documented historical facts" that do not actually provide any evidence of things you assert (for example: gospel writers physically witnessed the birth of Jesus, Jewish holidays based on a solar calendar, Septuagint written after New testament, etc.)

With regards to the Septuagint, here's the chronological order:
1) OT was translated into Greek Septuagint
2) Jews formalized canon, excluding Apocrypha
3) Jesus and Apostles quoted Septuagint OT
4) Recently found Hebrew OT manuscript fragments dated 100-200 BC differ from Masoretic, but agree with Septuagint - showing Septuagint is older (and more accurate) than the Masoretic Hebrew we currently use.
---StrongAxe on 4/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Michael, It is well known today that the apocrypha are proven to be NonBiblical and not from God, and they are also proven to contain much falsehood, and this is one important reason why today the apocrypha are rightly kept out of even being inserted between the Old and New Testaments in all Christian Holy Bibles. The catholics and other nonChristians make use of them, but they are not used by any devout Christians from Christ: For the apocrypha contain the lies and antiChrist heresies of reincarnation, of praying for the dead, of dead saints interceding for the living, and of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, etc.
---Eloy on 4/22/10


Cluny, yes I do know full well, for I have corrected you many times with the truth. Know that when I preach the gospel in diverse ways more than a few times to a certain obstinate soul, and I also present documented and historical fact along with supporting scriptures, yet they continue to lie in the face of the evidence and the truth, this only shows their dissing.
---Eloy on 4/22/10


GOOD POINT ELOY!
---John on 4/22/10


Eloy, Michael: Thank you for your insightful and scholarly expositions on the Apocrypha.
---jerry6593 on 4/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


\\Cluny, some people are merely stuck on stupid\\

You should know, Eloy. Please see my comment about those who think that Matthew wrote the account of the Nativity around 12 or so.
---Cluny on 4/21/10


Cluny, some people are merely stuck on stupid. As I have already corrected you, I suggest that you study the history and origins of the apocrypha and you should find that they are 1) not a part of the original scriptures, 2) not inspired, 3) contain many heresies like the dead saints interceding for the living, and false doctrines, and falsehoods contrary to both historical truth and the Holy Bible.
---Eloy on 4/21/10


All of the Apocryphal books were originally written in Greek, except possibly one. The current Hebrew Bible does not include them in scripture. They are considered Judaic History to most of the world. Such as are good information and backgrounds as Josephus after Christ. Since they weren't part of OT nor NT, they were given their own space in many Bindings. The Septuagint (LXX) even has an extra readings section known as 'Anagignoskomena' which most of the Apocypha can be found. Jerome put them in the OT in the Latin Vulgate and were later transfered that way in the Gutenberg Bible.
There are reasons why the books of the Bible are arranged the way they are.
---MIchael on 4/21/10


\\Peter, I do not follow councils of men, but the council from God.\\

Anyone who holds to the notion that Matthew was around 12 when he witnessed the Nativity of Christ first hand and immediately wrote it down is not likely to have views on spiritual matters, including the Biblical Canon, that are very useful.
---Cluny on 4/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


\\Besides the apocrypha not included in the original O.T. Hebrew\\

Yes, it was. How do you think it got translated as part of the LXX?

\\I have copies of the original 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible and the 1611 A.D. King James Version Bible, and the apocrypha is indeed inserted between the the two testaments\\

And you think this arrangement is of any significance?

Since when are English Bibles the standard of ANYTHING?

These books are included in the Greek and Latin OT, which predate any English version.
---Cluny on 4/20/10


Peter, I do not follow councils of men, but the council from God. Besides the apocrypha not included in the original O.T. Hebrew nor in the original N.T. Greek, I myself translate the scriptures and after reading the apocrypha I myself have personally found that they are nonInspired writings and contain many false doctrines. In the Wisdom of Solomon is found the false doctrine of reincarnation, in II Maccabees is the false doctrine of praying for the dead, and in Tobit is the false doctrine of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, etc. The godly and reputable Bible publishers today rightly exclude these writings as nonScripture: and these manmade fabrications from the unregenerate should rightly be kept out of the Inspired Testaments from God.
---Eloy on 4/20/10


Peter, I do not follow councils of men, but the council from God. Besides the apocrypha not included in the original O.T. Hebrew nor in the original N.T. Greek, I myself translate the scriptures and after reading the apocripha I myself have personally found that they are nonInspired writings and contain many false doctrines. In the Wisdom of Solomon is found the false doctrine of reincarnation, in II Maccabees is the false doctrine of praying for the dead, and in Tobit is the false doctrine of atoning for ones sins by paying alms, etc. The godly and reputable Bible publishers today rightly exclude these writings as nonScripture: and these manmade fabrications from the unregenerate should rightly be kept out of the Inspired Testaments from God.
---Eloy on 4/20/10


Cluny, I have copies of the original 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible and the 1611 A.D. King James Version Bible, and the apocrypha is indeed inserted between the the two testaments and purposely kept out of both testaments just as I have posted, and a person is still able to purchase these today on the open market and witness this truth I post. Therefore, as proof is in the tangible evidence, you are unable to convince with any words to the contary. Cluny, you are able to speak falsehood because there is no light in you, but after you become saved than you too will be able to speak only truth.
---Eloy on 4/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Cluny, I have copies of the original 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible and the 1611 A.D. King James Version Bible, and the apocrypha is indeed inserted between the the two testaments and purposely kept out of both testaments just as I have posted, and a person is still able to purchase these today on the open market and witness this truth I post. Therefore, as proof is in the tangible evidence, you are unable to convince me with any words to the contrary. Cluny, you are able to speak falsehood because there is no light in you, but after you become saved than you too will be able to speak only truth.
---Eloy on 4/20/10


Eloy: my question would be: when the Council of Nicea (325AD) decided (from what I've read they first wrote the Nicean Creed and then chose) which books would be in the Bible, did they include the Apocrypha or not. I do not know, but since it is from that (we must of course accept they were guided by God in their choosing) that we got the NT, it ought to be the same council that tells us whether to include the Apocrypha.

Glenn: 'Translation is closer to word for word, rather than thought for thought' - yes, that is why I also prefer KJV (or RSV, or NKJV) rather that NIV - both are very good translations, but I personally prefer the ones starting from KJV
---peter3594 on 4/20/10


\\Cluny -- You must know I didn't mean "old English" as in Geoffrey Chaucer's time,... since I myself would have a very hard time reading that "old" English!\\

I assume people say what they mean here.

Chaucer, btw, was MIDDLE English, not Old English.

What that Aprille with his shoures soote
The drought of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which virtue engendred is the flour.......
---Cluny on 4/19/10


Cluny -- You must know I didn't mean "old English" as in Geoffrey Chaucer's time,... since I myself would have a very hard time reading that "old" English!

The average American reader would consider the English of the KJV "old", as in "old fashioned" and outdated. That was the sense in which I used the term.
---Donna66 on 4/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


\\The nonscriptural apocrypha was placed "Between" the two testaments, and purposely kept out of both testaments, because it is well-known that these writings were not inspired from God and not found in the original Old Testament Hebrew Tanakh nor were they ever found as part of the original New Testament Greek Gaza.\\

WRONG!

This simply shows how little you know about how the Orthodox Church, which put the Bible together to start with, arranges the Bible.

Do you actually think there is any significance in how the books are arranged?
---Cluny on 4/19/10


Cluny, When I say No, you say Yes: and when I say Yes, then you say No. Again, I correct your falsehood. Re-read my posting. The nonscriptural apocrypha was placed "Between" the two testaments, and purposely kept out of both testaments, because it is well-known that these writings were not inspired from God and not found in the original Old Testament Hebrew Tanakh nor were they ever found as part of the original New Testament Greek Gaza. Likewise, The Preface, The introduction, and The Table of Contents which lists the titles of the books with their beginning page numbers found within the Bible also were kept out of both testaments, because these too were not inspired from God but compiled by man for the reader's aid.
---Eloy on 4/19/10


Paul Ernst Kahle(1875-1964, 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 preChristian 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 4/19/10


Cluny, 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 4/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


In my opinion, the "King James" is the most accurate because it(s): Uses the received text, rather than the 'corrupted' critical text. Translates directly from the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and the Greek for the New Testament. Translation is closer to word for word, rather than thought for thought. Is still the easiest to read, and requires a lower comprehension level than most other versions, but you will need to take time to learn new (or old) meanings to some words. Translators were both faithful, and were less subject to a hidden agenda than many modern translators.
---Glenn on 4/19/10


I use New American Standard. It's next to King James, but I'm sure there are many other bibles out there, just not sure which is the right one to use.

Find one that you are comfortable with understanding the words. A Study bible is good also, but the version is critical. New International Version is too watered down for me.
---Donna5535 on 4/19/10


\\. The books removed were not ever part of the Hebrew Old Testament\\

Yes, they were.

They were part of the OT accepted by Christians from the beginning.

They were part of EVERY major English translation (including the Geneva and KJV) up until the New American Standard of the 1960's.
---Cluny on 4/19/10


Since we cannot claim that the translation is 'inspired by God', it is, I think, best to use at least two translations, just in case some comment in one translation is hard to understand, or could be misunderstood (John 1:5 has two possible translations, as the original Greek is unclear - one word has two meanings). If you really want a Bible with no problems, you would have to learn the languages in which the original Bible was written [Hebrew and Greek] and study the original Bible, but I dont think that's an issue for most people!
---peter on 4/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


\\I read the KJV, but sometimes turn to the NASB or the NIV for clarification if the old English proves confusing.
---Donna66 on 4/18/10\\

One clarification.

The KJV is written in MODERN (though not contemporary) English, like everything from the Tudor period onwards.

Here is an example of Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon):

Nu schulon heiregan heafonrices weard
Meatodes meachta and his modethanc
---Cluny on 4/18/10


Which ever ones you pick, pray about it!
---catherine on 4/19/10


I find the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible to be the best English Bible. The italics in the KJV are words added to make more fluent reading and not added to intentionally change the definition of the verses. The books removed were not ever part of the Hebrew Old Testament nor part of the New Testament, the nonBiblical writings called the apocrypha were added between the middle of the New and Old Testaments and purposely kept out of both testaments because it is well-known that they are nonInspired or nonGod-breathed books, just as dictionaries and encyclopedias are nonInspired or nonGod-spoken books.
---Eloy on 4/19/10


Yes the king james bible is the best to read.It is the one they used in Jesus Christ day,onward.The factual written bible.So continue reading it my sister.Answere my questions ok? nina_mccutcheon on 4/18/10

Really? I thought the KJV was 1st printed in or around 1611 A.D., which would place it over 1500 years AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection, so how could it have been used in Jesus' day? I enjoy the KJV myself. Many who support the KJV believe it is the original text, rather than a "translation" from the original texts. We need to pay attention to details here. I agree that the "best" translation is the one that any given individual will actually read and study, not just use for decoration.
---tommy3007 on 4/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


As a practice whenever somebody suggests a book or preacher or whatever, I google the "suggestion" heresy and the "suggestion" occult. Then, I compare this with "archaic" scripture. It helps me gain perspective either way. Try it with the Message.

The hidden world and secret societies are not fooling around like us Christians.
---aka_joseph on 4/18/10


\\It is the one they used in Jesus Christ day,onward.\\

Since the KJV (only one of several English versions of the time) was translated 1600 or so years AFTER the Lord's earthly sojourn, during which the English language didn't even exist, where did you get the idea that the KJV is the one they used "in Jesus Christ day, onward"?

Please explain.
---Cluny on 4/18/10


I find the KJV easier to memorize, because (to me) it's style is more musical. The psalms and other parts have the cadence of poetry.
I read the KJV, but sometimes turn to the NASB or the NIV for clarification if the old English proves confusing.
---Donna66 on 4/18/10


nina_mccutcheon:

Since the King James version was only written in 1611, how could it possibly have been used in Jesus's day, especially since the English language didn't even exist then?

Donna66:

As you said, it's often difficult to translate things exactly, so transltors use the closest approximation in the target language. In the KJV case, they use italics to indicate words that are not present in the original languages, but are implied by the grammar (for example, Hebrew does not use the present tense of the verb to be so it is always implied).

English sometimes omits words. "my finger" means "[a] finger of mine" while "my wife" means "[the] wife of mine".
---StrongAxe on 4/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


The king James Bible is a translation from the Hebrew and Greek. If you know more than one language, you know you cannot always translate word for word from one language to another
for example: In French, the phrase ""Il n'y a pas de quoi", is the proper response when someone thanks you. Translated word for word into English it is something like "it's not there of what" which makes no sense. So it's translated "you're welcome"

A similar thing happens in all translations of the Bible. But the translators of KJV put in italics, anything not translated word for word. in others versions, italics were not used. So DON"T try to ignore the italicized words. They are as important as any other.
---Donna66 on 4/18/10


Personally (I mean personally) I prefer the translations (I find the KJV and RSV to be the best in the NT, comparing with the original Greek) which keep the structure (sentence structure and total structure) closer to the original. NIV is very nice, pleasant to read, and I find no difference in the meaning, but I find I read it too fast, because the English is [for me ONLY] TOO easy to read, and I run through it too fast! ALL these are ONLY personal opinions. I DO NOT like the very long translations, which in some cases I consider paraphrases instead of translations [sometimes I even feel that way about Good News and Living Bible], but that is personal!
---peter3594 on 4/18/10


Yes the king james bible is the best to read.It is the one they used in Jesus Christ day,onward.The factual written bible.So continue reading it my sister.Answere my questions ok?
---nina_mccutcheon on 4/18/10


---MIchael on 4/17/10 2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

KJV translates this verse the best
---michael_e on 4/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


All bible are eaually good.
Just as the KJV makes a disclaimer about italis and parenthesis, so does the other version. Some version make a disclaimer that they paraphrase each verse, some that they translate the general idea of the text.

What is very important is this: Use a wide variety of translations so that you get a good understanding, and study line upon line, precept upon precept and you cannot go wrong.
---francis on 4/17/10


Okay, personally I enjoy The Message. I know it's not a literal word-for-word, but more a thought-for-thought rendition of the Bible but it's the one I most enjoy reading to my new husband (he likes me to read to him since he's inexperienced with the Bible). I also enjoy the New Living Translation--it too has very modern English. But that's just me.
---Mary on 4/17/10


When I was learning guitar, I used a piano to translate what I could not in guitar. So, use the one's that lead you to more knowledge of Him.

Anyway, I learn the Word best through seeing the words in action in others. Other than that the book is just words on thin paper.
---aka_joseph on 4/17/10


In some translations God says in Psa.12, something about preserving His Word. If we don't have an inerrant translation, where did He preserve it?

1: ALL can agree, God cannot Err
2: SOME can agree, The Bible is the Word of God
So how can, the Bible Err?

So, whatever, translation you prefer if you find one error, can it be the true Word of God?
---michael_e on 4/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


\\2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.\\

As I've pointed out several times, the word rendered "study" in this verse does not mean academic application or intense reading of a text, but rather "strive" or "put forth effort" (which is within the Tudor use of the word "study").

How about this passage?

John 5

39"[a](C)You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, it is (D)these that testify about Me,
40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
---Cluny on 4/17/10


I use what God guides me to. Some days it's my kjv, others it's NKJV, or my Geneva one.
---candice on 4/17/10


I agree with FB on this blog. I use KJV mostly myself, but have NKJV, NIV, and NRV at home plus access to any translation on the net. I think it is good to cross-reference between translations. I have the same feeling with pastors and speakers. It is good to hear, read, watch, discern and act. I would not recommend relying on one translation.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
---MIchael on 4/17/10


"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Corinthians 2:13)

God's words refer us to "spiritual things" that are in His love in the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5, Philippians 1:9). So, we can read the Bible, and trust God to give us what He knows His words mean, and rule us in His peace to do what He knows He means (Colossians 3:15).

Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1,14), growing in us as the living love meaning and translation of all God's words. "My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)
---Bill_bila5659 on 4/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Donna, there are a lot of Bibles that are perfectly OK for use, in fact most translations are fine. The italic words are placed that way because English and the original words (Hebrew or Greek) have very different grammar, and sometimes a word must be added. I personally prefer KJV or RSV for the NT, because its sentence structure is more similar to the Greek then the NIV. There is no RIGHT translation - though there may be wrong translations!
---peter3594 on 4/17/10


\\Words have to sometimes be injected into verses to make it make sense in English the is just the nature of Bible translation.\\

On a similar note, whether a given sentence in the translation uses a proper name (such as God, Lord, or Jesus) in a given place or a personal pronoun (such as "he") depends on how the sentence is cast in the receptor language.

THIS what might cause Divine Names to be "taken out" of some modern translations, as controversialists claim.

If you're wondering about 1 & 2 Macabees and the like, they DO exist in the complete KJV, which I admit is hard to find in the USA.

The "right" Bible is the one you will read and get the most out of.
---Cluny on 4/17/10


Any one who would contend that there is a single best Bible is an incompetent fool.

Some Bibles are better then others for some people. If English is a second language and you don't read or speak it well the a Good News or Today English may be what you need.

I like the English Stand Version as it is a very good modern Word for Word Translation and uses NA27 for a NT source text.

I don't recommend the KJV as it just has too many translation errors and most of those have not been corrected in it's modern updates.

Words have to sometimes be injected into verses to make it make sense in English the is just the nature of Bible translation.
---Friendly_Blogger on 4/17/10


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