Favourite Bible Translations

[Lanolin]

The bible is an ancient book and has a literary style its not actually an oral tradition. It was WRITTEN down. So to expect it to be exactly the same as how you speak is actually unrealistic.

 

[UCA4J]

you still missed his point, he was not saying it hinting at anything you though he was in that statement,

I know you had an issue with something he said a few days ago. That does not mean you should start thinking everything he said was about you, in this case it was not

I know, but I call out hypocrisy when I see it or hear it.

 

[UCA4J]

Hello... I'm right here!

I have stated at least twice in this thread that I have no issue with people who prefer to read the KJV.

However, I do have an issue with people who prefer the KJV and imply or claim that other translations are objectively inferior, and who make a point to attack other translations or the people who prefer them.

So, I suggest that you take the chip off your shoulder. Unless you can support your accusation of hypocrisy with clear evidence, you owe me an apology.

I do prefer the kjv, after reading other translations, which you said you have done yourself; that's the hypocrisy. I'm done repeating myself. You don't have to reply to comments.

 

[CoolCanadian]

If you find the olde english in the KJV a little much you can always read the NKJV or UKJV which makes it a little more readable. I used to like the NIV until they replaced the 1984 edition with a more more gender neutral edition to appease the misguided PC people. Zondervan has pretty much buried the original (1984 edition) making it very difficult to find. As noted by someone else, a great way to compare versions (to see which one you might prefer) is to use a bible app on your phone such as MySword which lets you easily toggle between a number of bible versions.

 

[Lanolin]

I use Biblehub, works for me.

Just for reference though, its not the same as reading the entire Bible, which everyone ought to do at least once.
NKJV just too, out the thees and thines and replaced with yous pretty much, but its not hard to follow, although it loses something of Gods majesty when you translate it into a slang or informal kind of english.

its like the french using tu instead of vous why would you address God like that and not honor who He is with the language that is specific to address Him.

 

[Lanolin]

There is a story of a young girl in France from the 1700 century , who was blind , and has a little book of Mark in brail...
She wore the tips of her fingers out and made them callous , so she cut her fingers thinking it would make her tips more sensitive , but she lost more feeling in them...
She picked up her little book and kissed it , thanking our Savior , and then she realized that her lips was so sensitive , she could carry on using her mouth to read...

What a wonderful God we serve...
Just thought I would pop this in here...
...xox...

Theres a lot of books out now for children with touchy feely features to it.
I havent seen any childrens bibles like that though. Ive seen lift the flaps and pop up ones though.

 

[Lanolin]

I have to have board books for the toddlers at church. They can totally mess up the library.
some prefer to chew on the books.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

@Magenta, I recommend that you don't play along with him. He's using a tactic that the JW's use: get you to agree to point 1, and then force points 2 through 100 down your throat.

Yep. Learned not to fall for that tactic awhile ago

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I know, but I call out hypocrisy when I see it or hear it.

That’s fine. But he was not being hypocritical,

you asked a question,

his response was

IF YOU ............. then YES

by calling him a hypocrite, you as much as claimed you did believe what he was saying, and thus, he was proved correct and not a hypocrite.

even though I read earlier where you did not do what he said IF YOU .......

you could have corrected him then and said yu did not do that. And it would have been over

instead you called him a hypocrite, because I do not think you understood what he was saying,

 

[UCA4J]

That’s fine. But he was not being hypocritical,

you asked a question,

his response was

IF YOU ............. then YES

by calling him a hypocrite, you as much as claimed you did believe what he was saying, and thus, he was proved correct and not a hypocrite.

even though I read earlier where you did not do what he said IF YOU .......

you could have corrected him then and said yu did not do that. And it would have been over

instead you called him a hypocrite, because I do not think you understood what he was saying,

I'm done, and not continuing this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

If it’s already in English then no updating is necessary, just study. The English language is getting watered down let’s not include Gods word.

I agree. Let's not water down the English language.

The earliest known translation of the gospel into English
Luke Chapter 2
Merry Christmas

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I do prefer the kjv, after reading other translations, which you said you have done yourself; that's the hypocrisy. I'm done repeating myself. You don't have to reply to comments.

I don't see how that is hypocrisy

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The bible is an ancient book and has a literary style its not actually an oral tradition. It was WRITTEN down. So to expect it to be exactly the same as how you speak is actually unrealistic.

That might have been a good point if we had no standard for written English today.

 

[Dino246]

I do prefer the kjv, after reading other translations, which you said you have done yourself; that's the hypocrisy. I'm done repeating myself. You don't have to reply to comments.

In what sense is that hypocrisy?

Here are several dictionary definitions of hypocrisy:
- a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not (Merriam-Webster)
- behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel (Merriam-Webster)
- a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time (Cambridge)
- the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour (Collins)

Honestly, I don't see that I am guilty of that. You say I am guilty of it. Given that what you provided above is nowhere near sufficient, I await your explanation.

 

[Lanolin]

That might have been a good point if we had no standard for written English today.

well, there isnt really a standard theres lots of different standards with different publishing houses I find.
Do you work in the publishing industry?

There is a LOT that goes into publishing a book. editing and proof reading, pagination, indexing, fonts and typography...sourcing illustrations, maps, copyrights...

 

[Lanolin]

american english editions will be slightly different from english editions, even in spelling and cover art.

 

[Lanolin]

one thing that I dont think many publishers get is how people read their Bibles. Ive seen some shockers that are tiny tiny print, or paper thin pages that fall apart or go yellow, or the print goes through the other side, or waaaay too many footnotes.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

well, there isnt really a standard theres lots of different standards with different publishing houses I find.
Do you work in the publishing industry?

There is a LOT that goes into publishing a book. editing and proof reading, pagination, indexing, fonts and typography...

Printing doesn't have anything to do with codification of grammar and usage in language.
We have no excuse not to have Bibles available in clear English.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

american english editions will be slightly different from english editions, even in spelling and cover art.

Cover art is irrelevant.

Americans use incorrect spellings that are standardised in the USA.
It's still much closer to the English standard we use in England now than the Early Modern English of the KJV.

 

[Athanasius377]

This is a false accusation against the translators of the KJV. Please read their preface -- The Translators to the Reader -- to see that they had absolutely nothing to do with Popery and Romish doctrine, which they flatly condemned.

Making false accusations against faithful Christian men of outstanding learning and piety is as despicable (and sinful) as promoting corrupted bible translations. If you want to talk about connections to Rome, you should be talking about Westcott & Hort, who started all this nonsense with their Revised Version in 1881.

And if you are calling the ESV "the English Sanctified Version" it means you know nothing about this corrupt bible version either. It is no different than any of the others.

I'm sure some thought that they rejected popery yet others were Jesuit moles that deceived millions. They used Erasmus's first five editions of the NT and he shall we say was a switch hitter which is the reason he got kicked out of monastery to become a "scholar". And let's not forget King Jimmy had a habit of terrorizing young boys at court. The KJV is clearly a Jesuit corruption.