Sonne of GodOr devolved? What we speak is a watered down, slang form of English. The KJV is not archaic...I read it every day.
Apoftle Pavl
Crisping pin
Whimples
Booke
If it’s not archaic, why not speak it everyday?
Which Bible translation is the best one to read?
- Thread starter LeeLoving
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Apoftle Pavl
Crisping pin
Whimples
Booke
If it’s not archaic, why not speak it everyday?
Hello LeeLoving!
Why settle for one, when you can read all of the major translations and compare?
New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
Good News Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
New Heart English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New American Standard 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
I really think it's great that you're passionate for His Word
Regarding OP, my general go to is NLT, AMP, KJV. You're going to get a host of opinions and thoughts, you'll work it out yourself as time goes by.
I believe this question has been asked and answered several times. But the issue is not simply "to read". "Which Bible translation is the most accurate, faithful, reliable, word-for-word translation of the Bible in English, and has been accepted as the Holy Bible for a very long time?" is the real issue. And the answer is very simple. It is the King James Bible or the Authorized Version of 1611, for which there are absolutely no copyright restrictions. The only changes since 1611 are in updated spellings, punctuation, and orthography, but if you wish to have something even a little more up-to-date, the King James 2000 Bible fills the bill.
If you are not already familiar with the serious deficiencies of ALL MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS (bar none) then simply note that they are all based upon corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts. So if the root is rotten the fruit will also be rotten.
Therefore invest in the Bible that has served Christians for over 400 years, and continues to do so. All conservative Christian Bible commentaries have used the KJB.
These statements reveal a gross ignorance of how the KJV came into existence, as well as the issue of corrupted modern versions. To counter this argument, one only needs to ask "Were all the English-speaking Christians thoroughly deceived for 300 years, and were all the respected commentators also thoroughly deceived for 300 years?"
It is not gross ignorance when I have begun researching things for myself. You have a habit of launching attacks on people when they don't line up with your thinking, there are other ways to go about things.
Why do you think I think anyone was deceived? What I said has always happened according to translators understanding of the texts. As I think you would know, translating text is no small task that has caused discussions, debates, divisions and unity. It didn't just drop from the sky.
Actually, that IS the issue, as that is the question asked by the OP.
It's arrogant and closed-minded to redefine the question so that your preferred translation is "the answer".
I personally like the KJV yet I know there is still issues with the translation a minor one at that but still I doubt the Hebrew language was speaking of a rhino or some other single horn animal. they clearly used part of the Latin vulgate and other manuscripts that are still available today for bible translators to use. It’s no secret what the 50 scribes used to translate the KJV from, some of the content is directly taken from the Bishop bible so some content wasn’t even translated but moved over to the KJV.
Isaiah 34
7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Isaiah 34
7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Valid point. Just one resource of support for your observation. There are many.
7 things you may not know about the King James Bible
(1) The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible.
A few King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible was the first English translation of the Scriptures. This belief is incorrect. John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from Latin into English and hand-copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV was first published, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek New Testament was printed. A decade or so later, full English Bibles began to be printed. First came the Coverdale Bible (1535-1537) which used Tyndale’s NT, as did the Matthew Bible (1537). Then came Richard Taverner’s Bible (1539), closely followed by the Great Bible (1539-1541). The Geneva Bible (1556-1560) was published by and for Calvinist Puritans. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was based on the Great Bible and edited by Church of England bishops, partly, in response to the Geneva Bible. The Douay Rheims Bible (1582-1609) was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Hebrew and Greek, for the Roman Catholic Church.[1]
Much of the KJV, which was first published in 1611, borrows heavily from earlier English translations, especially Tyndale’s New Testament and the Bishop’s Bible.
(2) The KJV was not the first authorised English translation of the Bible
The KJV was not the first approved or first authorised English translation. The 1537 edition of the Coverdale Bible was officially approved by Henry VIII and bears the royal license on the title page, and the Great Bible (1539) was authorised by Henry VIII. Thomas Cromwell, Vicar General and Henry’s secretary, issued an injunction that a copy of the Great Bible “be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use.”[2]
(3) The KJV has been through several editions.
Some King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible perfectly preserved the Scriptures for all time. If this is the case there would have been no need for further edits. The current edition of the KJV is different from the original 1611 translation and several other early editions. “The KJV Bible we use today is actually based primarily on the major revision completed in 1769, 158 years after the first edition.”[3]
While not a necessarily shortcoming, the 1611 version, and all other editions of the KJV that were published for the next fifty years, contained the Apocrypha. Protestant Christians do not regard the apocryphal books as uniquely inspired and authoritative. The 1666 edition was the first edition of the KJV that did not include these extra books. (Article six of the Thirty-Nine Articles, ratified in 1562 before the KJV was first published, explains the Church of England’s position on the canonical and apocryphal books.)
[...]
(5) The translators of the KJV 1611 were relatively unfamiliar with Koine Greek. (My addition: "Koine" = "Common" = "Common Greek")
Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament, but the KJV translators of the New Testament, who were accomplished scholars of Classical Greek, were relatively unfamiliar with Koine Greek. Koine Greek was not well-understood. Some people suggested it was a “Judaic” or “Hebraic” Greek. Some even believed it was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect.[6] It was not until the 1800s and early 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyrus documents were discovered, many written in Koine, that we began to understand the language more fully.[7] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek. There are also some issues with the KJV translation of the Hebrew into English in the Old Testament.[8]
(Source/more reading)
Hello Breno. This reoccurring pseudoproblem is here to take us off of the content of the Word. As for which Bible, again, any as long as the Holy Spirit teaches the reader. I like many versions but always tend to read the KJV. Why? maybe because I was raised hearing from it, but I just like it.
I like the various Standard Bible versions, the American, the revised and more. I believe yo probably like several versions and have a favorite.
Reading the KJV only is not a prerequisite for understanding for our hearts will accept or reject any errors sperceived by our Comforter, even if we canot put words on why, our Father will give all to us, His Childrenn. Forgive my rant, and be blessed always.
It is not a rant, I often enjoy your words and you are correct.
Thou art blessed. Now wouldst thou not prefer speaking thusly?
Naww........me either. I just like the stuff to which I am accustomed. I pray all is well down under. Are you way out west by Perth or in that crowded part? Near Dawson maybe? I have had friends fromthere.........oh what tales they had to tell me about Oceanian. I hope I have not confused your location with another' "about" infor... Thank you always.
I wonderest if hither youest quote likes this speakteth likes this th in realist lifes?
Hehehe
No, I'm out East in Victoria. And doing well. My wife just had our third son 3 days ago, so things couldn't be tougher or better at the same time hehehe
Wonderful news. May He grow up in the Lord by your capable hands. What a blessing. Congratulations and be well and blessed always.
The two equally most literal translations are NASB and KJV.
They are the most true to the original languages (what God actually breathed out). Neither are flawless, but usually one will make up for the other when one goes a little off course.
(In the rare case when they disagree) The KJV is a slightly more correct with the Old Testament.
(In the rare case when they disagree) The NASB is a slightly more correct with the New Testament. (namely, with the parsing of Greek verbs.)
The Holy Spirit intended every letter to be meaningful, so the closest we can get is closer to what God has said. This will ensure that we see His intended patterns, word plays, emphasis and connections between subjects.
The more consistent a translation is to the original text, the more consistent its expression of doctrine will be.
Some might say "The meaning of a passage is more important that what it ways"....to which I would respond:
You can derive a meaning from an original text, but you cannot derive an original text from a meaning.
If you start with a literal translation, both are possible.
They are the most true to the original languages (what God actually breathed out). Neither are flawless, but usually one will make up for the other when one goes a little off course.
(In the rare case when they disagree) The KJV is a slightly more correct with the Old Testament.
(In the rare case when they disagree) The NASB is a slightly more correct with the New Testament. (namely, with the parsing of Greek verbs.)
The Holy Spirit intended every letter to be meaningful, so the closest we can get is closer to what God has said. This will ensure that we see His intended patterns, word plays, emphasis and connections between subjects.
The more consistent a translation is to the original text, the more consistent its expression of doctrine will be.
Some might say "The meaning of a passage is more important that what it ways"....to which I would respond:
You can derive a meaning from an original text, but you cannot derive an original text from a meaning.
If you start with a literal translation, both are possible.
I used an NLT Chronological Study Bible published by Tyndale House as well as Interlinear Bibles of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew.
Reasons for this:
1. Tyndale was renowned for his knowledge of several languages and desire to translate the Bible. So, I trust and hope Tyndale House have been inspired to share that same passion of languages.
2. As a fellow connoisseur of languages, I will stress that the importance of language is not to know the language, but to communicate in a way the other person understands. I believe this was done in stride by the publishers of this study bible.
3. Most advocates of the works of Tyndale are Reformed/Calvinist, and as such, recommend ESV as their translation, which makes the fact this is NLT much more interesting.
4. Chronology helps paint a picture of the context for many things otherwise confusing on their own; most notable when David wrote the Psalms that follow the life of David.
5. There are many detailed images that help you get a sense for what the text is talking about; for example, the Tent of Meeting and Solomon's Temple.
6. The original languages can help you understand why some words may have been translated differently; and may also help you discern consistency and accuracy with cross-references.
That said, the question should not be which is the best, the question should be, which do you best understand?
Reasons for this:
1. Tyndale was renowned for his knowledge of several languages and desire to translate the Bible. So, I trust and hope Tyndale House have been inspired to share that same passion of languages.
2. As a fellow connoisseur of languages, I will stress that the importance of language is not to know the language, but to communicate in a way the other person understands. I believe this was done in stride by the publishers of this study bible.
3. Most advocates of the works of Tyndale are Reformed/Calvinist, and as such, recommend ESV as their translation, which makes the fact this is NLT much more interesting.
4. Chronology helps paint a picture of the context for many things otherwise confusing on their own; most notable when David wrote the Psalms that follow the life of David.
5. There are many detailed images that help you get a sense for what the text is talking about; for example, the Tent of Meeting and Solomon's Temple.
6. The original languages can help you understand why some words may have been translated differently; and may also help you discern consistency and accuracy with cross-references.
That said, the question should not be which is the best, the question should be, which do you best understand?
The Tyndale story was horrible time in religion, I’ve read he was strangled before being burned, the leaders of those times were mad man in my opinion. that happened because of men being stringent on translations sad indeed.
I agree with most of this. The only point that I want to make is this:
One can have a good understanding of something that is false.
2 Jehovah Witnesses came to my house every Saturday for 9 months. I know their doctrine and Bible translation inside and out. Does that mean I should switch to their New World Translation? Of course not, its full of errors that mislead many to think God's Word says something it does not. So I will get whatever is closest to God's original breathed out Word. And then if I chose to dig deeper beyond general translation, I can use free resources online to go further.
When I began studying the Bible, I used the NLT. It wasn't until my mentor emphasized the importance of Bible translation that I switched to NASB. It took a year or 2 to get used to reading it regularly, but I promise you....It has saved me hundreds of hours in study time because most of the time the words are translated correctly and i don't have to make a million notes in my Bible about what I found in a lexicon.
With thought for thought translation, there comes a limit of theological depth because the intended repetitions, word plays and emphases are lost.
I would argue that if one has a false understanding of the text; hopefully either a solid church will correct him, or God will convict.
Most of the time, false teaching comes either from a leader with evil intentions or from a leader with lack of knowledge and understanding on their part. It is quite rare for someone to maintain a false belief if they remain consistent in studying the Word. It is quite common to maintain a false belief if they rely on a preacher.
Yes, it was pretty horrific. It was illegal to translate the Bible into English and special permission had to be given.