What version of the bible do you read and what one do you like best

Thank you I will .

I see what you are saying . Diffrent words for the same meaning .

I don't think the perfect translation exists, but the ESV and NASB are very good on the more literal extreme, and the NIV is good for conceptual translation.

If I had the perfect Bible, it would be an ESV/NIV parallel bible, with the notes from the Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible.

However, I would want the OT quotations in the NT to be indicated some way, like the NASB does through capitalization.

But, I would also want these OT quotations to somehow indicate that when Lord is used, it specifies whether the underlying text indicates Adonai or YHVH, as these are important to proving the deity of Jesus.

But, that bible doesn't exist.

You simply have to compromise somewhere, and I think the ESV is the best compromise.

I would highly suggest that you get a Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, though. The notes on this Bible are the best. They are edited by DA Carson and are fantastic. Even if you only get a hardback version, I would recommend it for any serious understanding of the Bible despite the NIV version.

This is because the word could refer to rebels...and the text in Isaiah 53 indicates that Jesus would be numbered with "transgressors" which can be translated rebels. This also connects with the purpose of the two swords that the disciples were carrying. It allowed Rome to consider themselves to be possible treasonists. There are very good reasons why translators make their choices..they are not in total agreement for reasonable considerations.

I guess if I would rank literal versions, it would be:

1. ESV
2. NASB
3. NKJV

If I would rank thought-for-thought versions, it would be:

1. NIV

I would NOT choose the KJV as a primary reading Bible. The language is too archaic and leads to serious misunderstandings and kooky teachings unless you go through the process of converting archaic English to modern English. KJVers can say what they want, but I view it almost like the Roman Catholics using only Latin in their services back before the Reformation.

If I would rank study Bibles it would be:

1. Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible (super notes, but I prefer ESV over NIV)
2. ESV Study Bible (perhaps ESV Student Study Bible for young readers)
3. MacArthur Study Bible (although it's dispensationionalist and I am not)
4. Reformation Study Bible (not a lot of notes here, but the notes are good)
5. Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (not very many notes, and written by someone whose theological perspective I don't hold, but great on some cultural background perspectives)
6. Reformation Heritage Study Bible (KJV turns me off, and they are more rigid on their views than I like)
7. NET Study Bible (great for checking out translation differences between Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland modern Greek translation)

I have all of these on OliveTree, and use them all when I am really studying a topic in depth. The beauty of OliveTree is that you can choose your text, and choose your notes, on different panes on the same screen.

Thank you for the information . You sure have given me something to think about .

Here's a little chart concerning Bible versions that is amusing.

Don't make too much of it, but it does seem to align with some of the personalities and their chosen version.

KJV.
If I am stuck I ask God and usually just read a bit more and scriptures become clearer. Sometimes I go on bIblehub to look up verses in other translations, but my go to bible is the KJV. I agree NIV leaves out a lot.
NKJV is ok but KJV is widely available, Ive only read NKJV in new testament not old so cant tell if theres much difference, most of the change has just been thees and thous..to 'you' but I actually dont mind reading the older version as its more specific and I get more meaning out of it. It seems to me KJV sticks closer to the original language than the other versions. Any words I dont know I look up in bible dictionary.

NIV leaves out a lot... of what, exactly?

How would you know? Can you read the original languages?

Interesting thread... hard to give specific answer, IMO

Here's a post I made some time back though (along the lines of this topic)...


[quoting]

Here's a verse I believe is inaccurate according to how the esv has it (compared with ylt, just for example):

esv - "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before [pro - G4253] the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain"

ylt - "And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from [apo - G575] the foundation of the world"


https:/ /biblehub.com/text/revelation/13-8.htm - Revelation 13:8


kjv [another comparison] - "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [apo - G575] the foundation of the world."


Huge difference between "slain from [apo - G575]" and "written before [pro - G4253]" ; )

(I believe "slain from [apo - G575]" is accurate)


For this reason, I tend to avoid the esv.

[end quoting that post]

Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
If you're just trying to sit down with God, literally any version is fine. Pray before reading, and the insights you need the most right now will be given to you by the Holy Spirit.

For serious study and more prophetic contexts, KJV. I advise avoid Bibles that adapt things for contemporary readers when this is the purpose. Some important hints and connections with other parts of the Bible get lost that way. I use KJV for all purposes. I got used to KJV even though English is my second language, it reads so smoothly now.

Different Bibles will give you different insights. They can give you a "fresh perspective". It can be beneficial when reading the teachings of Jesus, per example, to get the most counsel out of them as possible.
ESV and NKJV are my choice, beside KJV. I am kind of repulsed with NIV because they took out some verses from the Bible, but it's just my opinion. NASB also isn't bad.

Here’s the translation note from the NET bible that has a similar rendering as ESV :

13:8 b tn The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity.

Sounds reasonable to me. Does this rendering work against a doctrine that you hold?

The reality is that translations are sometimes favored by individuals because they support their doctrinal position on peripheral issues.

I would wonder about the theology of the person who is expressing an opinion on a given translation in order to identify the bias.

Same thing with reading study bibles. For example, the MacArthur Study Bible has some good notes but I filter MacArthur’s remarks because he is a dispensationalist and I am not. Another study Bible was written by paedobaptists and I am not. Another study Bible was written by synergists and I am not.

Same thing can happen with a Bible translation except usually on a much more minor level because they are trying to be fair and it would limit their sales to different groups within Christianity.

I’m not so much concerned about the translators as the readers, though. If someone expresses a strong dislike for a translation, I’m always interested in their underlying theology and how that affects their opinion.

Umm, Due to rights that must be requested for any printed or online publication other than personal use, I would try to encourage you to visit the digitized online Vaticanus to see for yourself the weighty evidence I am speaking of. The earliest Greek manuscripts you are referring to are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. For brevity, the Vaticanus as observed leaves a blank column for Mark 16:9-20, thus providing additional testimony for the existence of this passage.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209?ling=en

Numerous shreds of evidence further relate to the longer ending/reading of the text. Examples:

The Syriac Peshitta has it. Whether the ancient version is of the 2nd Ce. Or 5th Century standard of the NT but the version is likely to favor the longer ending of Mark. The observation is that, where did this version translate from? It would certainly to the Greek original and not a 4th ce. Greek Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

https://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php

The Old Latin has it. This is actually older than Sin-Vat.

http://www.sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/NT-02_Marcus.htm

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/mark.shtml#16

The Gothic Bible of the 4th Ce. by Wulfilla has it.

http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/text/?book=4&chapter=16

The overwhelming evidence shows thus that the Sin-Vat had omitted by the unskillful scribe and has the origin of a longer reading of the text.

I understand that it's pretty obvious it's an addition due to the different writing styles...additionally, it is used to support whacky stuff.

I consider the KJV my written final authority. It seems to me that standards in use by modern bibles. We have the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Versions, the Holman Standard Christian Bible, etc. which is some kind of confusing to which standard we use.

Anyways, I am not turning this thread to a KJV only debate. I just posted some observations to UWC's earlier post which he may consider weighty pieces of evidence relative to the longer reading of Mark and not by just educated guesses.

Umm, see the evidence first, though these are second-hand pieces of evidence yet it's quite weighty. The assumption is but nothing, I mean.

In answer to the thread, I use the KJV. God bless

The inclusion of the word, "Standard" in the name of the translations is irrelevant. I am talking about an objective standard (lower-case 's'), not a marketing gimmick.

An objective standard is like a tape measure. You can say something is about three inches long, using your thumb, while someone else says it's closer to four inches. When you compare both estimates to an objective standard (the tape measure) you may find that the object in question is 3-3/8 inches long.

Using the KJV as your objective standard for Scripture means that you assume that it is perfectly translated (demonstrably false), perfectly complete without addition (also demonstrably false), and uses perfectly understandable terms (subjective, but generally false because of 400 years of language change). I also don't want to turn this into a KJV-only debate, but I do want to challenge the thinking of those who hold the KJV as the standard instead of holding the original-language texts as the standard.

One of the problems is that people listen to guys like Steven Anderson...I don't consider him credible, especially since he said gay people cannot repent and might as well shoot themselves in the head.. His behavior alone witnesses against him.

Some of the other major players in KJV Onlyism are also weird..Peter Ruckman, who claims that the CIA operated alien breeding facilities, and Gail Riplinger who said God directly spoke to her and gave her formulas that indicate the NIV is satanic. And, we know Kent Hovind spent time in prison.

So, when it comes down to it, non-experts rely on other authority figures...and KJV onlyists are some of the worst in terms of credibility in my opinion.

Anyways regarding Mark 16:9-20, I just don't think it sounds authentic. JWs would love for Christians to consider it inspired, though..it supports their denial of the bodily resurrection ( the "different form" verse).

These verses are included in other versions, though..they just are bracketed to indicate they aren't present in the earliest manuscripts.