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? After much study, careful study, I have become a King James version only person. What with the NIV calling Lucifer the Morning Star, what in the world is next? What do you think?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Mima on 9/22/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (12)

Post a New Blog

In my opinion, the "King James" is the most accurate, using the best texts. Its' translators were both faithful, and were less subject to a hidden agenda than many modern translators. Probably, there are some importations from other bible verses in some places, but none that modify its' meaning. You need to take time to learn new (or old) meanings to some words. But afterwards, it is still the easiest to read, and requires a lower comprehension level than most other versions.

---Glenn on 4/12/09

I have five translations on my shelf - but my church and school use the NIV. I'm amazed at the consistency between translations - even translations from tranlations (KJV). I'm a bit chagrined by the militaristic adherance to the KJV by some of you. I suspect that one's Christian denomination makes a difference here.
---bartel on 10/18/07

We need nothing but Christ in us...His spirit will teach all things
---duane on 10/18/07

The ones who are not saved will not spend money on Bible tools. The ones who are saved you need to. The most expensive Book I have is a Bible guide book. I have to learn to work it, but when you come up with an answer in it it is always an excellent one. Questions and understanding and information you can not always find from the word of God. I payed $50.00 for it. God told me along time ago as a young believer, and I quote Him "You need some Bible tools".
---catherine on 10/18/07

I think you all will do well to study Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and go to the museum the original dead sea scrolls are stored.
---Whisper on 10/13/07

KJV is not the best translation because it is purely and primarily based on the Bishops Bible used as State Bible during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. For me I think the best version is the NRSV because it is the product of a careful works of the latest scholarship. It is a gender-neutral translation, fair and balances in its approach between the original text and the text that can be understood by ordinary readers.
---ryan3888 on 10/11/07

Hey Guys, Don't you know that the KJV is a total plagiarism of the Bishops Bible. I think the best Bible to read is the Bible Written in the original Language, the Torah and/or the Septuagint. What do you think?
---jude on 10/11/07

I would rather read from the KJV or NKJV than other versions....cont.on next post
---Kella3336 on 10/11/07

Mima, I'm with you on this one. I only use the KJV, and I prefer the Cambridge bibles. I believe they have better cross-references.
---trey on 10/1/07

Who told you of the Holy Spirit in the first place?
---AG on 10/1/07

Calhoon: How do you know for sure you're following the Holy Spirit?
---Leon on 10/1/07

calhoon - the scriptures can be very enlightening. they can also be damning.
If I read them with a legalistic eye - I see condemnation. If I read with grace - I see His righteousness on me.

be blessed in what ever you do - there are a few good teachers. One I saw had a guest speaker who'd been a pastor and stopped reading the bible bc he couldn't be perfect. then he learned to love God and His word again.
loving grace ministries
---Andrea on 9/30/07

Im not confused, its the so called christian churches (different denominations)= confusion. All here in these blogs argue = confusion. The Bible can cause confusion because man took the scripture from other languages and always didnt get it right.
The Holy Spirit is who I follow.
---calhoon on 9/30/07

Calhoon, when the Holy Spirit guides us he points the Word. The Holy SPirit will never tell someone you don't have to read the BIble. Any Spirit that says that, is an evil SPirit. Holy Spirit guides us through the Word. The Holy Spirit can't be seperated freom the Word.
---Matthew_from_LA on 9/30/07


Have you considered the example of the Bereans?
Acts 17:10-11
"10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews."
"11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
---StrongAxe on 9/30/07

I generally quote from the KJV because that's what most people seem to respect the most. It's adequate for most things.

For things that hinge on single words or grey areas, I may compare several versions (usually KJV+NIV first) and try to look at the original Hebrew and/or Greek if possible.
---StrongAxe on 9/30/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

Calhoon: You admit you're confused. How's that possible since God isn't the author of confusion? (1 Cor. 14:33)

If you desire the Holy Spirit (Comforter) to guide you, "you must" read & study the Bible. Then, if you're born again, He will show you God's Truth. (John 1:1-5, 14:6, 16:12-14)
---Leon on 9/29/07

I havent read a bible in over 10 years. Id rather let the Holy Spirit guide me. There is less confusion. The Holy Spirit never fails.
---calhoon on 9/29/07

The Holy Spirit brings light to Scripture. So which one you choose to read will depend on many things. But it is still in the hands of the Holy Spirit in how He moves the perticular individual. For He works in the live's of every individual with intentions for that perticular individual. He might want you to be in darkness for a time, or bring you to the truth right away. He is in control and without the light of Scripture given by the Spirit,
---Mark_V. on 9/29/07

#2. a person will continue in darkness of whatever revelation God intends for that individual. You are permitted to see what God wants you to see. If you are in disobedience in your walk with Christ, He might want to chastise you, He might want you to see the big picture right away, or just a bit at a time. Many times He wants to bring the individual to a stronger faith, but it is still up to God. Many say this one, others that one, but none will show light, unless the Spirit brings it.
---Mark_V. on 9/29/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

I use Blue Letter Bible a lot but also have P.C. Study Bible for Windows on my computer. It is so easy to compare versions using these tools. Like you A.G. I don't use the commentaries any more. I used to but they are just the opinions of individuals I think and I found them quite confusing. The Interlinear is very helpful. I would say that much more of my bible study is now done via the computer than with an actual bible on my lap. I've also done several bible study courses via the internet.
---RitaH on 9/29/07

myself KJV Hebrew-Greek key word study
within it, the stongs dictionary,a concordance,Hebrew-Greek Old and New Testament Lexical aids underlined with strongs numbering system translating words into to the original language or tounge and a grammatical structure code.
1,956 pages

I also have a Geneva NKJV which I enjoy reading very much.

but the best TRANSLATION would be the Literal Bible not to many people have even heard of it.
---steven-rem7000 on 9/28/07

I mainly use the NET bible (minus it's commentary) with frequent references to the Interlinear.
---AG on 9/28/07

joe you are of course correct. James was fair for the most part in what he directed in terms of the translation, still he had certain passages over emphasized to promote his Anglican church.
---alexia on 9/28/07

Send a Free Anonymous Ecard

I use the NRSV and NIV translations. I didn't always like the NIV, but as I use it more, I'm coming to like it. I like using different translations because of how scripture is worded, I may better understand a scripture in one translation over another. I also like reading the Message.
---Katie on 9/28/07

...Bible, but in all forms of religion and practices. Yes, even witchcraft and Islam.
---Joe_Hardy on 9/27/07
Joe - that was a joke Paul (no apostle)was around when the KJV was written - therefore .......never mind.

He wasn't around for Mohammed either.

Since the scriptures were translated other older manuscripts have been found that uphold most of the KJV. Any differences have been corrected and or noted.
The DSS (Isaiah) was almost perfect to what the modern versions have.
---Andrea on 9/27/07

I use the KJV for normal reading/studying, but employ other translation and concordances as study tools. I often use other versions when ministering to others if I find a scripture more plainly stated, but not conflicting with the KJV. I received a gift of a King James translation which restores the Sacred Name and am looking into "The Scriptures" which I'm told is one of the best translations available. Anyone familiar with "The Scriptures" have any thoughts to share?
---AlwaysOn on 9/27/07

Yea, Andrea. Paul did not use the KJV. It was not even written at the time. King James had 53 scholars translate the Bible into English. It took three years. So, how do we know he did not have the Bible translated to fit his beliefs. After all, he was not only interested in the Bible, but in all forms of religion and practices. Yes, even witchcraft and Islam.
---Joe_Hardy on 9/27/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

alexia - its a joke

'KJV if it was good enough for Paul its good enough for me'

---Andrea on 9/27/07

andrea, Paul who used the KJV?
---alexia on 9/27/07


Great fable about the lightning. It is obvious you are King James only. I am just curious as what denomination you claim to follow? No offense and no judgment intended just a question.
---denna7667 on 9/27/07

Ah ... Herb, no doubt you say if the KJV was good enough for jesus and the disciples and Paul, and for Moses and David and Elijah, it is good enough for us.
---alan_of_UK on 9/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

rev. Herb. Thanks...for confirming its your own opinion. Fundamentalism and its needs to construct its universe as it wishes rather than how it is.
---alexia on 9/26/07

For ordinary purposes, the KJV and NKJV.

I have nothing against the KJV, but the KJVO cult crosses over into idolatry. It's their attitude towards the KJV that I repudiate.
---Jack on 9/26/07

When the KJV was done they did not have all the later manuscripts and there are a few differences - like the book of Mark ending at 16:8 - those others 8 verses have caused splits over baptism. But we're not sure if it was a mistake ending it there and was later added or was it forgotten and later not added.
---Andrea on 9/26/07

I like my NIV study bible and until someone shows me where Paul used the KJV I'm happy with it. Although I do take into account the subtle differences.

We are saved by grace not by bible. If the 'word of God' has power (it does) then with all diligence we should up hold it - but not to the point of worshiping it - or of relying on another's interpretation. God Himself teaches us His law - written on your hearts.

I also have KJV, NKJV, NASB, SB, and a few others
---Andrea on 9/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

The NIV is used by many churches today but it is full of subtle and not so subtle changes. Some such as John 1:1 and 3:16 that are very important. I did some comparative searching and found the NKJV corrected several societal, cultural, and verbiage problems from the KJV (i.e. Lu.17:9 "...I trow not" was added from side notes of a Scribe and not part of original text.) The NKJV is easy to read while holding true to the flow of the KJV.
---mikefl on 9/25/07

alexia, 2Ti3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The other perversions are not scripture.
---Rev_Herb on 9/25/07

Alan: Are you saying we shouldn't trust what we read in English, etc., translations of the Bible? After all, they're probably not word-for-word or thought-for-thought translations of the Canon of Scripture. Right?

Based on your logic, if translators (being mere men) had hidden agendas then we shouldn't take their translations literal because they're devoid of "God inspired" content. Is that right?

Is it possible GOD, not men, really does control His inspired Bible content? :)
---Leon on 9/25/07

Eloy ... You are right ... I meant the post mainly for Herb.
Leon ... Paul was not referring to an English translation when he said scriptures were inspired.
As to translations ... I think they are all done with what the translators regard as honesty. But maybe their interpretations of the originals are occasionally influenced by what they have been conditioned, or want to beleive.
---alan_of_UK on 9/25/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

pastor herb, please cite your authority for the statement "God wrote the KJV". Is that really your personal opinion?
---alexia on 9/25/07

Sorry Rita, it was my mistake. I didn't read it because it was small and I was reading the bigger one's from everyone. I also have the New World Translation. There Bible is very different in meaning. The focus is that Christ is not God in most of the Bible. Yet they keep so many verses the that still say He is God, which in turn make them contradict. They are probably going to have to change it again to make their lies stand.
---Mark_V. on 9/25/07

Alan: Are there any translations you believe are inspired by God?
---Leon on 9/25/07

.notlaw99, There was a chaplain whom left a prisoner a KJV Holy Bible hoping he would read it. The man mocked, "There is no God", and he cursed God. And he took the Bible and began to furiously rip it. Then a thunder shook the place and a bolt of lightning shot through his cell and struck the very Bible he was ripping up. And falling back on his bunk he heard a voice say, "I am, here will you repent and live". And the young man cried, God, my God I'm sorry.
---Eloy on 9/25/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture

alan, I believe you mean to ask ritaH and herb, for they were the ones whom posted the statement of comparing the niv bible with the jw bible.
---Eloy on 9/25/07

Eloy ... You say the NIV is the same as the JW's bible.
But where in the NIV is the suggestion that the angel Michael became Jesus?
---alan_of_UK on 9/24/07

catherine -
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
---Andrea on 9/24/07

My primary translation is New English Standard Version. I is a highly accurate translation whose New Testament using NA27 as the Greek source Text. I also use UBS4 as my Greek text and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia as my Hebrew text.

The best use I have found for KJVs is to ripe the bindings off, run the pages through a cross fine cross shredder and add them to the compost pile with other organic waste. The binding go in the wood stove.
---notlaw99 on 9/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops

MarkV I sent in a correction after that post, it is 3 posts below your own I believe. The first quote was NIV, the second was to show the addition of a by J.Ws.
---RitaH on 9/24/07

The author of the KJV Bible is God. There is no copy right on it as on the ones writen by man.

If you have trouble understanding the KJV, that is because it is a spritual book and one has to be spiritual to understand it.
---Pastor_Herb on 9/24/07

.rich, you believe lies. Michael did not become Jesus. Jesus is God and not an angel, Jesus Christ created Michael and all the angels. Also the KJV is not the worst Bible translation, but in fact it is one of the best English translations in publication for almost 400 years until surfeit of Unholy Bibles flooded the market in the 21st century (of which is the one you wrongly prize so highly).
---Eloy on 9/24/07

I don't like the NIV, either. I can't read it for any length of time. It's diluted.
---Cindy on 9/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer

Viewing the many answers here showes me that people are wanting to know the truth. What bothers me is that it seems no one wants to investigate who, how and why the books of the New Testament were put in there. It probably makes little difference between the translations as I use over 12 different translations, but find NASB the closest to the truth. KJV is perhaps the worst. Read "The Spirit of the Church" by Neufeld and Sterling.
---Rich on 9/24/07

Here is the thing: Lucifer was an arch angle like Michael. They had a war in heaven (Rev. 12:7) and Lucifer was thrown out, along with a third of the messenger angles. Lucifer became Satan, the prince of the world, and Michael became Jesus, the Prince of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Ex.22:23. Dan.9:25, 10:13 & 21, 12:1)(Book of Enoch)
---Rich on 9/24/07

Rita, I have an NIV and that bible does not say what you said of John 1:1. Those passages are found in the New World Translation. Different Bible. I stopped using the NIV after five years in my walk with Christ. I found too many passages not clear. I also don't believe most of their commentaries. Many times they answer in the Arminian theology, and other times in the Reform theology. It is a confusing Bible. I Have six of different one's and use the New King James.
---Mark_V. on 9/24/07

NJB, NRSV, RSV, NAB, CSB. Those are my favorites. KJV has nice poetic language but is a horrid translation, so many passages were translated incorrectly.
---alexia on 9/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting

Leon ... i use both the KJV and the NIV.
I love the KJV, but it is only a translation made some 1500 years after the originals were written.
In itself if is not inspired, nor did the translators claim inspiration
---alan_of_UK on 9/24/07

Sorry Herb, I forgot to say that the second version of John 1:1 was from the Jehovah's Witnesses bible.
---RitaH on 9/24/07

Lucifer was the most beautiful angel. Lets not take scriptures out of context. I use different translations because it helps to really understand scriptures. alone with other Bible tools. The King James I do not use.
---catherine on 9/24/07

Herb, John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. N.I.V. John 1:1. In the beginning was the word and the word was a god. Not quite the same are they?
---RitaH on 9/24/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing

I don't like the NIV but I have used it. The best translation of the New Testament is the NASB. By the way, Lucifer is a latin name and never was in the original hebrew. Morning star is correct because the verse in Isaiah 14:12 is speaking about Nebuchadnezzar first, who considered himself equal with the Lord after the Lord gave Israel into his hands. After you first understand that,you may choose to think it is talking about Satan or about Jesus in Revelation when he is called the same thing.
---Tony on 9/24/07

Aundria, I do not intend to offend you but as far as throwing the NIV Bible away, if someone needs a Bible, then I will go out and buy them a KJV Bible. I would want to give someone that needed a Bible , one that has not been changed, verses added or left out, and I do not attack or criticize anyone for whatever Bible they read. The KJV is my personal choice, and as far as understanding it, I also use the Strong's Concordance and their dictionary. There is a warning about this in Rev. 22:18-19.
---Cynthia on 9/23/07

Alan: What Bible do you "use"?
---Leon on 9/23/07

It is better to burn or throw away the NIV than to give a perversion like that to someone else. Would you use the same bible as the JW? If you use the NIV you do. The New world translation used by JW say the same thing as the NIV, just a few word changes.
---Pastor_Herb on 9/23/07

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

I use various translations, but no English version after 1611 A.D. I favor the Geneva Bible of 1560 A.D. And good news! this Thanksgiving Bible is coming out again on the market in one month, at the end of October, and I suggest everyone try to get a copy if they can. It was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I, and is the Bible that the pilgrims brought to America upon the Mayflower.
---Eloy on 9/23/07

Yes, Keith ... of course we all know that God wrote the KJV
---alan_of_UK on 9/23/07

To those of you who regular speak of the NIV taking out verses you should realise that this is not necessarily so. If you did your homework you would find, quite often, that it is that verses (that were not in the original Hebrew) were added. The publishers of the NIV have simply removed verses that they felt should never have been there in the first place. As for throwing away a bible, you should be ashamed.
---RitaH on 9/23/07

I read what version I can get a hold of. KJV,NKJV,NASB.
---Candice on 9/22/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

I agree. I read a lot on this subject. The devil wants to push the KJV out of the picture with all these other translations. It makes sense. The first recorded act of the devil was attacking the Word. He tricked Eve by questioning what God said. With all the footnotes in the other translations saying "some manuscripts omit this" and "some say this" the devil is trying to get us to doubt the Word by saying "yea hath God really said this?"
---keith5688 on 9/22/07

The "New American Standard Bible" is my Bible of choice. While I use the King James, find it has language that is not understandable in our English usage of today. For example: Where Christ states, SUFFER the little children , it's more accurate to say, LET, or ALLOW, the little children. When we think of "suffer" we think of discomfort and this is not what Christ meant.
---wivv on 9/22/07

I read that someone threw away the NIV Bible. You threw it away?? Why would you throw a Bible away? Do you not know how many unfortunate souls have NO Bible? Why not donate it? Something? I'm sorry, I am just flabbergasted to read of someone throwing a Holy Bible in the trash. How disrespectful of our Lord.
---Aundria on 9/22/07

My NIV study Bible and I got another commentary that said 'Lucifer" is translated literally morning star

Lucifer at one time was the lead angel in heaven

Isa 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you* this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
---Andrea on 9/22/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Depending what I am using it for. I have preached to people in homeless missions and would not use the King James as they would struggle with the language. I have used NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV and New English. Just depends on the circumstances.
---denna7667 on 9/22/07

Strong's Concordance Hebrew dictionary indicates "Lucifer" can mean "morning star", in Isaiah 14:12...with emphasis on being brilliant, which can imply being BOASTFUL. Plus, the verse says he is FALLEN. So context makes it clear that "morning star", here, can not mean Jesus. "theos" in New Testament Greek can mean God, but in "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) "theos" refers to Satan. I'd be concerned about the intended meaning.
---Bill_bila5659 on 9/22/07

I use King James Version Bible I love it, and I have an Amplifed Bible so I can understand what I read, but I would give up the Amplified before I would KJV anyday.
---ANN on 9/22/07

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.