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

What Bible Do You Read

As the battle over which Bible to use continues unabated among professing Christians, I find myself more and more inclined to go with the KJVO crowd. What camp do you find yourself in? Do you believe any Bible will suffice?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Evangelism Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 5/29/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

90% of words in KJV was taken from Tyndale's Bible. KJV isn't an exclusive Translation.
---Darlene_1 on 10/25/07
You are wrong and you need to study more the king James Bible was translated from original sciptures hebrew and Greek. I have been studying it for thirty years comparing it's translation myself to original Hebrew and Greek and it is perfect in every way. But I cannot say that for any other translation.
---exzucuh on 10/25/07

KJV is all I had as a young woman, all my study was done by running references in it. I love it, but I am not so narrow as to expect all people to undestand the KJV. If they can't,it is wonderful to have other translations to compare so they may understand. There is nothing special about the KJV for it was formed by taking many Bibles which were already translated and early manuscripts to write it. 90% of words in KJV was taken from Tyndale's Bible. KJV isn't an exclusive Translation.
---Darlene_1 on 10/25/07

John Ryland Papyri (125 A.D.) contains fragments of John.
Codex Sinaiticus (a; 350 A.D.) entire NT
Codex Vaticanus (B; 350 A.D.) most of NT
---JohnE on 3/23/07

To address the original question: "Would any Bible suffice?"
For myself, not just any Bible will do but there are many that are good.
Do you think that Erasmus had variants in the various MSS that he had available when he compiled the TR? He must have used textual criticism.
---JohnE on 3/23/07

well there are 43 verse not their in early manuscripts like from 1st-4th century manuscripts, which would be the logical thinking that their more accurate, b/c their closer to the originals...i dont think it really matters, either way, but yea i have heard something that the translators of the KJV, would come across a verse and a word would be missing, so they would add the best word for that, i'm not 100% sure about this, but who knows
---mark on 3/22/07

Umm i dont think it really matters, either way the bible is God breathed, and Holy Spirit will speak to you through it, he may even have you pick up another bible to understand what He's saying to you...and yea sure tolerate them, it doesnt really matter, all that matters is were both here to save souls not to argue about which bible we use and...One more interesting fact... CONT
---mark on 3/22/07

there was a bible found a 2nd century OT and NT bible in awesome condition(theres a special name for it but i dunno what it is), and when it was found they checked it w/ the present bible and they were basically the same except for 11 insignificant verses(yea i know no verse is insignficant, but less significant)
---mark on 3/22/07

I've changed my ID to JohnE. I previously posted as John.

The question I have is: Was text added to the Majority Text or was text deleted from the Older (minority) text?
Does anyone know for certain?
Does it really matter?
Should a born again Christian tolerate another Christian who came to a differing conclusion? or?
---JohnE on 3/22/07

Thats the logical way of looking at it...
---mark on 3/20/07

Would an earlier copy be closer to the original autograph because it was copied fewer times?
---John on 3/20/07

I'm not sure how to write to you???

Oh yea, the 11th and 12th century manuscripts shouldnt they be less accurate than 1st-4th century manuscripts, ya know b/c if someone had to repeat it it could possibly be like mis-written down, or like since papyrus is soo fragile like the end of the sentence wait in hebrew it would be the beginning b/c of left side whatever, would be a little bit missing so a word or few could be gone??
---mark on 3/19/07

There are basically two sets of manuscripts. The set used for the KJV, and the set used for the other perversions.

Mark, So far I have found nothing against the amplified bible. However if you will write to me I will give you a site full of good information on bible and other things.

---Rev_Herb on 3/19/07

Here are some starter questions that may help get to the root of the issue:
The TR is based on a lot of later copies from a certain area: Byzantium.
Should there be a problem with MSS of Byzantine origin?

The older manuscripts are from a different area: Alexandria.
Should there be a problem with MSS of Alexandrian origin?
---John on 3/19/07

Thank you Herb.
---willow on 3/18/07

Hey herb, i'm sure someone has told you this, but a good friend of my dads who has studied bible manuscripts for a very long time has said that those 43 verse that are not in the NIV, but in the KJV is b/c they are in their in a lot of manuscripts, i'm cool w/ you using the KJV alone, but dont call ALL other versions of the devil(well i'm not exatly sure if you do, but i think you may i'm not sure, please clear this up for me thank you)...KJV tranlasted only the 11th and 12th century manuscripts
---mark on 3/18/07

Ooh yea Herb, i'm just wondering what are your thoughts on the amplified, since i do respect your opinion, and i do like reading the amplified
---mark on 3/18/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

New American Bible or New Jerusalem Bible. I recommend reading a Bible that has all the books in it.
---Catherine12345 on 3/18/07

Part 2

The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Hort and Wescott's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
--Dr. Frank Logsdon, Committee Member

New American Standard Version
---Rev_Herb on 3/18/07


We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many.
---Rev_Herb on 3/18/07

Part 1 Willow, read part 1.1.5,and2

I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...
---Rev_Herb on 3/18/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


The other versions are not God's word. Would you concider using a New World translation used by the JW? If not why? Do they have a correct bible? Why is it that the NIV leaves out the same words and verses as the New World translation?
---Rev_Herb on 3/18/07


I know you are a KJV only but are the other versons the word of GOD or not? if so why do you curse GODs word, if not then why do the words in other transaltions hit with the same soul marrow cutting as the KJV?

Brother you know me well enough to know this is no attack.
---willow on 3/17/07

Every Bible translations are approved by the International Bible Society so its all right to use any of them. I use KJV because I am used to its verses but I use the modern English if I am reading to young people. All translations are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
---agnea on 3/18/07

I grew up to use the KJV, but since I got older and I run across something I am not sure about I use the Living Bible, Amp. Bible and have a few other ones, but the ones I called off is what I use the most.mary4964
---mary4964 on 3/17/07

Send a Free Missing You Ecard

My favorite for study is Jay Green's Interlinear Greek/Hebrew/English. As far as dynamic translations go I like the NKJV and NAB.
---augusta on 3/14/07

I use a variety of Bibles.

My purse Bible is a KJV NT & Psalms. My childhood family bible was a Jerusalem Bible. My husband's bible is the NAB, which I use often. Our family Bible is the Douey-Rheims Challoner Revision, which I also use. I also have a NKJV Catholic Edition.

On-line, I have bookmarked Bible sites with multiple translations, including transliterations from the Greek and Hebrew. Some include copies of the received text in its original languages.
---lorra8574 on 3/14/07

I like reading the NIV, which has been translated from all manuscripts at that time which would be manuscripts from 2-12th(i think 12th) century...rather than the KJV which mainly only used the 11th-12th century manuscripts...when i dont understand a verse while reading the bible "casually" i whip out eugene petersons comentary the message...and when i'm deeply studying i go Hebrew/Greek, amplified, and NKJV
---mark on 3/14/07

I use the NKJV and find I always come back to it. I do love the KJV, but I find it hard to get my tongue around all those old words. Too many 'ths'. Find myself "lisping" through the Scriptures. However, the KJV is in a very beautiful language to read.
---Helen_5378 on 3/14/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

Let's see, the NIV had sodomites on there commitee and it closely agrees with the JW bible. The NKJV had a symbol on its cover, the same as on the book of shadows, used by WICCA. All the new perversions are geared to the New Age. So maybe there is a reason to be in the KJVO crowd. We are not liked because we believe in being seperate from the world.
---Rev_Herb on 3/14/07

I am surprised that Mima finds that "the battle over which Bible to use continues unabated among professing Christians"
I don't find that battle anywhere except on this site.
Among all other Christian friends and acquaintances, it is a question of "I like this one most"
It is only here that there is the two way condemnation of different versions
---alan_of_UK on 3/14/07

I principaly read/preach from the KJV. This is not because I have any particular problem with using any other. It is just a matter of famaliarity.
---Bruce5656 on 3/14/07

well daniel, isnt it unfortunate that we english speaking folk cant know God's complete intent. we dont have ANY originals anymore. they were used up. they were made of grass. the grass withers and flowers fade but God's word will remain forever. Was God lying here? if any of it is wrong then all of it is not to be believed, thus making God a liar.
---r.w. on 8/5/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

There's a big diff. between 'go with the KJVO crowd,' and deciding that _for you_, reading only KJV is right. The latter is OK by me (though I wish you'd learn something about Greek and/or Hebrew too), but joining KJVOs usually means you believe KJV is somehow 'perfect,' when no translation can be! Original mss. were "God-breathed" (2 Tm. 3:16, one word NIV did literal), but not their translations. Most literal trans. are close enough to be called God's Word for our languages, but not always.
---danie9374 on 6/11/06

Helen5378 said, "...all the false teachers and false prophets I know of use other than the KJV and the NKJV." Well, thank God you don't know as many as others! There are many false teachers using KJV 1)Since it was made for Church of England (agrees with baptism required for salvation!; and other odd doctrines) and 2)Because its old language is more easily twisted by false prophets to suit their interpretations. The LESS a person knows about what God really says, the easier they can be fooled.
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

A major 'pitfall' of KJV Bibles most have access to (except for 1611 facsimilies) is that no one sees its translator's marginal notes! Psalm 12:7 is a good case in point: If every KJV Bible had its original note for "preserve them" stating: The Hebrew here is 'preserve him,' so we used 'them' in the sense of 'every one of them,' how many KJVOs would believe guys saying this *has to be* a ref. to the KJV Bible? It's own translators factually state it refers to people; not words!
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

[4] special terms related to the one true God, Israel, etc. by reading an excellent translation. Even those who know much about Hebrew and/or Greek will have many unanswered questions about such things; causing them to PRAY, look in history books and seek discussion with wiser Believers. Though there are many reasons for pastors in a church: One should be that he helps you understand difficult Biblical passages.
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

[3] translations that use 'dynamic equivalency' theory, or worse, paraphrases, have moved from 'attempting' (none ever can completely!) to translate exactly what the original states, into explaining its meaning (doing interpretation); and some do a very poor job of it! Scripture should be as close to the original as possible, but still make sense to one who has no training in its original languages. That's *not* to say you'll be able to understand all its idioms, customs, history, ... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

[2] OTOH, if 'suffice' means to study ALL that you could about God and what He wants Believers to know, then *no* mere 'translation' of the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures can fully suffice! For those who speak English and for some reason truly can't learn anything about Greek or Hebrew to make any difference at all in their understanding of God's words (which is very sad), I'd recommend always 'studying' from a literal translation, such as NASB, NET, ESV, NKJV or KJV (with trans. notes). But...
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

[1] Mima: Your question contains the phrase, "...any Bible will suffice?" so I have to ask: _For what?_ If the Spirit begins to work in the life of a Jehovah's Witness, then even the NWT's N.T. could be used to show them salvation is by God's grace alone! Would I ever recommend it, of course not! It's loaded with problems, very anti-God's-Trinue-nature and has notes from false teachers; so if you're not seriously involved in helping a J.W. understand God or revealing their errors, don't read it.
---danie9374 on 6/10/06

BUT, Goliath had brothers, and if you cross reference that scripture, it takes you to 2 Chronicles 20:5 which says this same guy killed Goliath's BROTHER, Lahmi. It sounds confusing, but I'm going to take it that David killed him because 1st Samuel comes before 2nd Samuel! :)
---T.S. on 6/1/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

BoDilly makes an excellent point. Along with a few main witnessing scriptures, when I give away KJV Holy Bibles I also put a short list of KJV Old English to Current English inside the cover: suffix -est, -st= singular; suffix -eth, -th= plural; shall= will (occasionally means should); thine= yours; thou, thee= you; thy= your; ye= you all; all you.
---Eloy on 5/30/06

To the rest of you who use the other bible versions to study, to teach, ect. I pray that you study the other bibles and compare them to scripture. Remember to be able to understand Gods words you have to be one of his. So your teachings(since my now 8 yr old daughter who does not attend chuch understands KJV wonderfully)may in fact not be understood because the person who is being taught is not saved to start with. Get them hooked on KJV. They know more then you realize.
---BoDilly on 5/30/06

The next question...David did not kill golaith in the niv. He did indeed in 1 Samuel even in NIV. What about 2 Samuel 21:19?"...Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." There are not two Goliaths from Gad haveing a huge spear.
---BoDilly on 5/30/06

I apologize for not know who asked what question so please forgive me for that. The answer to question number one. Where does it say Jesus in danger of Judgement. Three words left out of Matthew 5:22(without a cause)No big deal right...anyone who is angry at their brother shall be in danger of the Judgement. Mark 3:5 we see Jesus getting angry, but he had a cause(hardening of their hearts. Its more of a context thing.
---BoDilly on 5/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

Alan8869.Maybe this.Please read Matt 5:22(kjv).The phrase "without a cause"has been removed in the NIV.This would make Jesus a sinner and in danger of judgement since Jesus got angry in Mark 3:5.
---Ramon on 5/30/06

BoDilly: Quote from NIV- " As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and KILLED him." 1 Samuel 17:48-50
---T.S. on 5/30/06

BoDilly "The nasb, niv, asv,ect say Jesus is in danger of the judgement" Where is this please.
---alan8869_of_UK on 5/30/06

I do not believe any Bible will suffice. I love reading the KJV but I just can't get my tongue around the words. So I love using the NKJV. The NIV has much left out of it - when reading it once an entire verse was left out of the Book of Acts which made it sound like water baptism is salvation (DANGEROUS). I think it noteworthy that all the false teachers and false prophets I know of use other than the KJV and the NKJV!
---Helen_5378 on 5/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

The KJV is my favorite. Don't care for paraphrases. I've used the NIV and NASV.. used NIV to teach since people seem to understand it better. But my first bible was KJV. Its' poetic style and cadence make it easier to mmemorize... I can use only a KJV concordance since I memorize from that version. By the way does anyone notice that bible concordances are getting more and more limited?
---Donna2277 on 5/29/06

I read different ones. Each might be different translations, but each still delievers Gods message.
---Candice on 5/29/06

my study is always in King Jim. I teach from NKJ and this year my personal reading is from the New living.
---willow on 5/29/06

For lack of space I will make this short. The NIV leaves out 43 complete verses(equal to the JW bible)The nasb, niv, asv,ect say Jesus is in danger of the judgement. God said he would preserved his words(Psalms 12:6-7)meaning perfect and complete and has done so in KJV. KJV never revised, NKJV older versions had 666 on cover. NIV says David did not kill Goliath. No there was not two of them. I think I am now out of space.
---BoDilly on 5/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

I favor the 1560 Geneva Bible over the KJV because it is more accurate, but I do not approve nor recommend any English version written after the KJ 1611 version, for they are corruptions and are not God's Holy words anymore, and I do frown upon any church who substitutes God's inspired words for man's. Therefore, no, any Bible will not suffice, only the authentic "Holy" Bible suffices. The serious follower of Christ should also acquire at least a copy of the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures.
---Eloy on 5/29/06

I use a number of modern word for word translations: ESV, NRSV NASV. I also use a number of single scholar NT translations because if like the language in select areas of study: J. P. Phillips, William Barclay and a few others when I am teaching and writing. The Apostolic Bible is a wonderful modern translation of the Old Testament Septuagint.

I use a KJV for is a search file when I am using Bible software but I have to pull any references I will use from another translation.
---notlaw99 on 5/29/06

I have KJV, ASV, & NWT, I read them all & take each verse with a grain of salt in translations, no "one" bible is perfect, but each still contains Gods message.
---candice on 5/29/06

God spoke through a Bush to Moses.

He spoke to Balaam through his donkey.

He speaks directly to our souls through the Holy Spirit, so why not use what we comprehend?

I use the KJV because I love the gothic flavor and weight of expression that it lends.

Thor was my favorite comic as a child and I was reading that at age 6 so this is a natural fit for me.
When I'm teaching often times I use the KJV and list the verse also in the updated NASB for clarification.
---Pharisee on 5/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

I love the KJV but read the Tyndale, and other older/new versions for clarification. I have found that if you have the different versions it helps to understand the text if it is difficult to read, but I think you will be miserable ill informed to read the newer vesions only. Some of the foot notes are misleading (just my Opinion)
---Carla5754 on 5/29/06

I believe that there is no one single translation better than the rest. I have my issues with KJV because of the archaic language. For example, the word "know" means to have sex with in KJV. I didn't understand that at first because I thought "know" meant know.

I prefer to use paraphrases less frequently, but my Bible for the last 28 years has been the NIV. I have an NASB for use with studying, but the NIV is my first choice.
---Madison1101 on 5/29/06

Just have a few versions at hand so you can compare anything you don't understand. It works for me anyway.
---M.P. on 5/29/06

People who proclaim the KJV of the Bible is the "only" Bible to read don't realize they are not giving God His due,after all if we had no Bible,God would still get His Word to us. There was nothing but letters and preaching for the early Christians yet they followed the teaching,probably,better than Christians do with a choice of Bible translations today. God can achieve what he needs to, however He needs to do it,to get His Word to humankind.
---Darlene_1 on 5/29/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.