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

Favorite Translation Of Bible

What is your favorite translation of the Bible and why ? (Don't forget the KJV itself went through several recensions, the last two being in 1768 and 1904).

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Cluny on 2/17/17
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Can you show an unambiguous biblically-defined method for just HOW one "rightly divides" the word, that everyone can agree upon?
---StrongAxe on 4/23/17

The answer is simple God...


---john9346 on 4/23/17


michael_e:

Unfortunately, there are many different groups of people who have different ideas of what different bible passages mean, which means they must necessarily have different ideas about HOW they interpret the Bible. Can you show an unambiguous biblically-defined method for just HOW one "rightly divides" the word, that everyone can agree upon?
---StrongAxe on 4/23/17


My young friend asked,
//1. Who does the "right dividing"?//
Our apostle Paul
//1. Which recension of the KJV do you base your faith in God upon?//
What difference does it make which "edition' I use? You don't actually think burned or bernt effects your salvation do you?
// Could these questions scare you?//
My curious young friend, at my age, there is absolutely nothing you could do or say that could scare me.
Question for you,
1. who enticed you into orthodoxy religion, God or man.
2. How was introduced to you?
---michael_e on 4/23/17


\\ The advantage of the boC today is believing the Bible, rightly divided.\\

You've not answered my two questions yet, michael e. I will repeat them:

1. Who does the "right dividing"?

2. Which recension of the KJV do you base your faith in God upon?

Or do you simply not think about things you don't think about?

Could these questions scare you?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/23/17


Without right division, sincere people face a dilemma.
They remain ignorant about Gods will not knowing which verse to follow, which is tantamount to never receiving Gods will.
They can reject part of Gods revelation claiming in one passage it's not what God meant, not translated correctly.
The advantage of right division is that it allows us to understand Gods will and believe every word in the Bible at the same time.
The advantage of every man has always been to believe the Bible. The advantage of the boC today is believing the Bible, rightly divided.
---michael_e on 4/23/17




\\It is not degrees and lifetimes of seeking that is required to discover
spiritual truth, it is faith in God and his word rightly divided.\\

And just who does the rightly-dividing, michael e. You?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/22/17


Judge a book by reading the inspired words in it and making a determination about who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, and whether the audience is the church, the Body of Christ.
It is not degrees and lifetimes of seeking that is required to discover
spiritual truth, it is faith in God and his word rightly divided.
There are simple truths that God has revealed in the Bible that the wise of the world are still trying to discover in their natural faithless mind.
Let God be true and every man a liar and you will grow in
knowledge and understanding.
---michael_e on 4/22/17


\\There is a good reason that I believe my King James Bible. My faith in God depends upon it. (Roma 10:17)\\

What did the Church ever do before 1611, when the KJV was finally published?

And upon which recension of the KJV does your faith in God rest?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/22/17


Shouldnt we be teaching belief in God and his words not doubt? What good is it to stand in doubt of the Bible you study when the very words of eternal life and peace with God are only beneficial if they are first believed?
There is a good reason that I believe my King James Bible. My faith in God depends upon it. (Roma 10:17)
Most importantly, it is an offense to my Lord if I continue in unbelief. It is not a matter of probability that Gods words are preserved. Neither is it a matter of mans capability. It is a matter of Gods responsibility.(Rom 4:21)
---michael_e on 4/20/17


michael_e:

400 years is only 1/5 of NT history, and a much smaller part of OT history. Also, the KJV has been revised several times. The original even contained the Apocrapha (which most Protestants currently disavow).

One reason changes are made is because the English language is constantly evolving, and phrases that mean one thing today may mean something else 50 years from now. Translation renders the original languages in the idioms of the day, and as idioms change, the translations must also change, if they are to be understood by people of the day.

The assumption that English-speaking Christians are the most spiritual is a common conceit held by English speakers.
---StrongAxe on 4/20/17




I like the King James is sounds beautiful. The New King James is good. But I also like the New American Standard Bible.

agape.
---Samuelbb7 on 4/19/17


Is everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually a Christian? If so, what kind? When you believe the Holy Bible, its expected that atheists will attack your biblical beliefs. Sadly, many so-called Christians will do the same.
---michael_e on 4/16/17


\\If you want a Bible still published that does not change\\

Well, if you do, you won't find it in the KJV, michaele. Note that in m y original post, it's had several revisions, the lastest being in 1904.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/16/17


Consider that King James Bible has been published for 400 years. If we had no other manuscript evidence we can be confident in the preservation of scriptures for 1/4 of Biblical history using only this one book. It has not changed.
We can go even further into the history of preservation using only other English translations which match the King James Bible.
Changing the reading of the Bible every 15 years is a recent invention by faithless Bible translators.
If you want a Bible still published that does not change, there is only one. If you want a Bible that is perfectly preserved throughout history, understood by the majority of English speaking people, and used by the greatest spiritual minds in history, there is only one.
---michael_e on 4/15/17


Michael-e = If you were to read The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger - probably one of the foremost scholars on translation - you would come away with the belief the the King James was nothing more than a revision of the old Bishops Bible. While those that worked on the King James, had a few Greek manuscripts available the guiding light was the Bishops Bible and that was one of the directives to the committee.
---riolion on 4/13/17


It's hard to find Matthews, Bishops, or Tyndale. When you are reading a King James Bible you are not just reading a modern translation like the NIV or NASV. You are reading the most valuable piece of Biblical preservation in existence. If you are serious about studying the Bible there is no good reason to have any other English translation.
---michael_e on 4/8/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


I used to love the Old ancient King James until I research the rationale behind other versions and found that if you love the KJV, you really must believe in unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrices and that grain mixed with oil is a "meat" offering, that the descendants of Esau were "dukes", that they used candles and candlesticks in the Tabernacle instead of lamps and lampstands, etc. etc. etc. I trust most of the modern version such as the NIV, ESV, NRSV. But if you like a modern King James, suggest the MEV.
---riolion on 4/6/17


BTW, some people have called you Clunky in the past. My IPad sometimes replaces your name with Clunky, after I put in Cluny. So if anyone does this, it's just a spell correction made by the computer, not an act of immaturity.
---David on 3/6/17


Tooooooooo funny. Mine does that all the time....
---kathr4453 on 3/23/17


I believe that the ESV is the one that will become dominant in the church today. However, if you love the ancient out-dated King James version, then go ahead and believe in unicorns, satyrs and cockatrice. Most of those that advocate the KJV only, are ignorant people that simply do not study the bible anyhow.
---riolion on 3/23/17


Hi, Jimmy.

The NASB, and its spinoff, the revised NASB all in contemporary English, even in Divine address, is a scrupulously accurate rendering of the wrong NT text.

If they had used the RT rather than the AT, it would proably be indistinguishable from the NKJV.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/20/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


New American Standard is a great translation.
---Jimmy on 3/6/17


Thanks, David.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/6/17


Cluny
I meant to thank you for calling me on what I said. I was told this about the KJV in the years before we had the internet. I had wondered why I didn't research what I had been told, and this was the reason.

I am still researching it, and if I find out any more information I'll let you know.

BTW, some people have called you Clunky in the past. My IPad sometimes replaces your name with Clunky, after I put in Cluny. So if anyone does this, it's just a spell correction made by the computer, not an act of immaturity.
---David on 3/6/17


David and others--keep in mind I'm NOT criticizing the KJV in any of its several recensions.

For myself, I like the KJV, NKJV, and its spinoff, the Orthodox Study Bible, with the OT translated from the LXX.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/1/17


Shop For Christian Homeschool Curriculum


In other words, you take the word of man.--Cluny

Yes, but the difference is I don't site what I hear, without personal experience, as the absolute Truth.
---David on 3/2/17


\\As to where I got it, I got it from a friend years ago, whose a staunch KJV advocate. Being such, and one who studies deeply into such things, I just took his word for it, as we all must do when we don't have personal experience of such events. \\

In other words, you take the word of man.

Does your friend have personal experience of such events?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/1/17


Are you claiming divine relevation for your ahistorical claim that the translators of the KJV were threatened with death for mistranslation? ---Cluny on 2/28/17

Cluny
I Answered this question on the 24th.

As to where I got it, I got it from a friend years ago, whose a staunch KJV advocate. Being such, and one who studies deeply into such things, I just took his word for it, as we all must do when we don't have personal experience of such events.

Well documented events are usually nothing more than one persons version, copied by many different people.
---David on 3/1/17


\\Just because something is well documented, that makes it true?
---David on 2/28/17\\

Usually, it does.

Or are you claiming divine relevation for your ahistorical claim that the translators of the KJV were threatened with death for mistranslation?

If not, where did you get it?

FWIW, King James himself said that he had never seen the Bible well translated into English.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/28/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Actually, the history of the KJV and how it was translated is well documented. And there were NO rabbis involved, because there were no Jews in England at this time.---Cluny on 2/27/17

Just because something is well documented, that makes it true?
---David on 2/28/17


\\How do you know what I said is not true? Since you were not present during the time the KJV was written, did your truth come from God or did it come from man? If it came from man, can I assume you trust in the word of man?\\

Well how deo we know what you said IS true? Were you present at the time the KJV was written? Did you r truth come from God or did it come from man? If it came from man, can I assume you trust in the word of man?

Actually, the history of the KJV and how it was translated is well documented. And there were NO rabbis iinvolved, because there were no Jews in England at this time.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/27/17


Well David Cluny is right. That is not true. ---Samuelbb7

Samuel
How do you know what I said is not true? Since you were not present during the time the KJV was written, did your truth come from God or did it come from man? If it came from man, can I assume you trust in the word of man?
---David on 2/27/17


Jerry, may I just say Amen! 95% of the manuscripts agree with with Textus Receptus. If we look at the source of the other 5% it is no wonder why certain verses are omitted.
---trey on 2/26/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


My favorite version is the KJV. Not because of the translation, but rather because of the source text. The Textus Receptus is much more reliable than the Sinaticus, Vaticanus or the Latin Vulgate.



---Jerry6593 on 2/25/17


Well David Cluny is right. That is not true. Also the translators of the Bible are concerned with what the words mean.

It is true that some words today don't have the same meaning. Also that some words are no longer used. But that is not what you are saying.

Let us take the word Baptism. Those of certain churches take it to mean sprinkling. Others immersion.

The original can be looked up and how it was used can be seen from context and different passages.

I do like the King James but also the New King James. But I have read other more modern translations. I oppose in general paraphrases and dynamic translations. To me they are more commentaries.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/25/17


Where did you get that idea? It's not true.---Cluny

It's what I've heard, but I don't know if it's true or not, since the information comes from man and not from God.

What doctrines did you have in mind? Please be specific.--Cluny

All but the doctrine of Christ
---David on 2/24/17


\\ne reason, is because it was translated long before many of today's doctrines came into existence, these Doctrines which have great influence with the translators of many of today's translations. \\

What doctrines did you have in mind? Please be specific.

\\Third, the translators of the KJV were put under penalty of death, for a mistranslation of the Bible. \\

Where did you get that idea? It's not true.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/22/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


I favor the KJV for three reasons.

One reason, is because it was translated long before many of today's doctrines came into existence, these Doctrines which have great influence with the translators of many of today's translations.

The second reason, my primary teacher is Gods Holy Spirit. And I use the KJV Bible to study the teachings I have received, teachings that may be hard to find in other translations.

Third, the translators of the KJV were put under penalty of death, for a mistranslation of the Bible. Which took a doctrinal believe out of the equation.
---David on 2/22/17


I use the New King James because it is close enough for reading with people who use the King James, plus it has up-to-date English so I can read it with people who use more modern translations.
---Bill on 2/20/17


I'm being censored.

What's the reason please?
---Pharisee on 2/18/17


"What is your favorite translation of the Bible and why?"
The 1611 King James Version because add words are italicized, and the Strongs concordance supplies a word for word transliteration.
---josef on 2/18/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


I am not Catholic, but one of my favorite Bible translations is the NAB. It is the language I speak, it includes the Apocropha, and it is more literal or more of a dynamic equivalent. Plus, the best Bible on DVD I have is the NAB.
---mike4879 on 2/17/17


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