Favourite Bible Translations

[KJV1611]

This alleged "code" doesn't exist in the original languages, so it's not worth the time it takes to look for it.

That’s funny you speak of the original languages like you have them in your hands. The originals are gone, the copies can’t be verified for code or accuracy or anything else.

 

[UCA4J]

What translation of the bible is the easiest to interpret?

well, all translations that aren't the KJV are copyright and have changed in the text, unlike the KJV. In revelation it says not to change the word of God. I have read the niv, nlt, cev and others, and, have checked them against the KJV; it's your choice which translation you read, but I recommend the KJV.

 

[Dino246]

That’s funny you speak of the original languages like you have them in your hands. The originals are gone, the copies can’t be verified for code or accuracy or anything else.

And so you assert that you have the true words of God on the basis of nothing more than imagination and fantasy.

 

[Scribe]

Hello and Welcome to CC, LJ84...
That depends entirely on the language with which you are familiar. Most reasonably-educated English speakers today would find the NIV easiest to interpret, because it is written in modern English with an emphasis on capturing the meaning of the original language without being wedded to the order of words. The NASB is a more formal translation, but is more difficult to read. I'm not as familiar with the other modern translations, though I know the Amplified Bible gives a broader range of meaning within the text, while the Message is a much looser paraphrase. Unless you are familiar with Elizabethan English, you might find the KJV a bit difficult because many of the words are no longer used in everyday English, and some have changed meaning considerably.

It also depends on what you mean by "interpret". If you mean for everyday reading (especially aloud) and basic study, the notes above would be appropriate. If you mean digging deep into the text and getting as much as you can from it, I would recommend a formal translation such as the NASB, and better yet, the original languages.

Well said.
Exactly what I have been learning the past three years of Bible College.
The NIV for capturing the meaning that the readers of their original languages would have understood.
NASB, ESV, KJV, HSCB a few of the best word for word translations

 

[KJV1611]

And so you assert that you have the true words of God on the basis of nothing more than imagination and fantasy.

I would say forensic evidence would be better terminology. But you may call it imagination and fantasy if you like.

 

[Dino246]

I would say forensic evidence would be better terminology. But you may call it imagination and fantasy if you like.

The evidence you have is entirely circumstantial and, according to you, cannot be verified against any external source. That leaves you with nothing.

 

[KJV1611]

The evidence you have is entirely circumstantial and, according to you, cannot be verified against any external source. That leaves you with nothing.

There’s nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence in fact DNA and fingerprints are probably better than an eyewitness account.

Bible scholars opinion of which copies are “inspired” and which aren’t doesn’t fall under the category of circumstantial evidence.

 

[KJV1611]

@Scribe

Your looking for understanding through the meaning of words but that’s not where Gods word is. I’ll give you an example.

Joh 8:43 (KJV) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

What is Jesus saying here?

I just want to point out that in John 8:43 there’s a signal and a carrier. The signal is “hear my word” the carrier is “my speech”.

You’re trying to find out the deeper things of God in the carrier but the deeper things are in the signal.

In other words you’re doing backwards. That’s what Jesus was trying to tell the Jews and they hated him for it.

 

[LJ84]

well, all translations that aren't the KJV are copyright and have changed in the text, unlike the KJV. In revelation it says not to change the word of God. I have read the niv, nlt, cev and others, and, have checked them against the KJV; it's your choice which translation you read, but I recommend the KJV.

Thank you

 

[LJ84]

Hello and Welcome to CC, LJ84...
That depends entirely on the language with which you are familiar. Most reasonably-educated English speakers today would find the NIV easiest to interpret, because it is written in modern English with an emphasis on capturing the meaning of the original language without being wedded to the order of words. The NASB is a more formal translation, but is more difficult to read. I'm not as familiar with the other modern translations, though I know the Amplified Bible gives a broader range of meaning within the text, while the Message is a much looser paraphrase. Unless you are familiar with Elizabethan English, you might find the KJV a bit difficult because many of the words are no longer used in everyday English, and some have changed meaning considerably.

It also depends on what you mean by "interpret". If you mean for everyday reading (especially aloud) and basic study, the notes above would be appropriate. If you mean digging deep into the text and getting as much as you can from it, I would recommend a formal translation such as the NASB, and better yet, the original languages.

Thank you, what i meant by interperet was, being able to read

 

[Dino246]

There’s nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence in fact DNA and fingerprints are probably better than an eyewitness account.

Your example fails the test of relevance to this topic.

Bible scholars opinion of which copies are “inspired” and which aren’t doesn’t fall under the category of circumstantial evidence.

No scholar that I have heard of makes such distinctions. Even if one did, "inspiration" would likely be determined on the basis of the canonicity of the book represented in the manuscript.

 

[KJV1611]

Your example fails the test of relevance to this topic.


No scholar that I have heard of makes such distinctions. Even if one did, "inspiration" would likely be determined on the basis of the canonicity of the book represented in the manuscript.

Let's face it forensic evidence is all we have available, there is no physical evidence in existence today.

 

[Dino246]

Let's face it forensic evidence is all we have available, there is no physical evidence in existence today.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Neither relates directly and exclusively to "circumstantial" either.

 

[Magenta]

That’s funny you speak of the original languages like you have them in your hands.
The originals are gone, the copies can’t be verified for code or accuracy or anything else.

The same applies to the KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Neither relates directly and exclusively to "circumstantial" either.

A translators educated guess is called hearsay and that is not circumstantial evidence.

 

[KJV1611]

The same applies to the KJV.

I've never used the originals in defense of the KJV. Originals were good for their time but their time has long since expired.

 

[Magenta]

I've never used the originals in defense of the KJV. Originals were good for their time but their time has long since expired.

What originals?

 

[KJV1611]

What originals?

The original manuscripts.

 

[Magenta]

The original manuscripts.

Which original manuscripts?

 

[KJV1611]

Which original manuscripts?

The ones that the original writers wrote on.