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.
If I remember correctly it was the church that outright forbid it. Their motives, I'm not 100% sure, power and control?
Edit: Here's some info after a quick google search:
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/23/bible-translators/
Edit: Here's some info after a quick google search:
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/02/23/bible-translators/
-
1
- Show all
Yes I agree thanks for the info, I just read something on the history of products used, I had no idea the original Old Testament was written on leather scrolls, later Egyptian papyrus was used but this I thought was a good read too. I don’t know how many other churches followed suit but what happened to Tyndale might have started from these early churches do that very same thing.
https://www.biblica.com/resources/b...fore-the-printing-press-was-invented-in-1455/
a church council in Toulouse, France, in 1229 forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible.
https://www.biblica.com/resources/b...fore-the-printing-press-was-invented-in-1455/
a church council in Toulouse, France, in 1229 forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible.
-
1
- Show all
I wonder if it all was for 'protecting' the Word and doctrines due to so many heresies that sprung up in the early times. You see this in the need for creeds (Nicene Creed for example) to unify the faith in Truth to protect against heresy. I'm still early on in my research in this stuff so if anything I think or say is incorrect, i'm more than willing to be corrected.
-
1
- Show all
If you claim Jesus as Lord and Savior, and read through any translation I am sure you will know if it true or not.
I go by the KJV, and read through it, and do not know much about other translations, but I am sure the other translations would be alright.
The only way I can see a translation not being right is if they are changing it on purpose to deceive the original meaning.
And even some Churches that I know that preach holiness, and very good at understanding the word of God, and sound doctrine, will go by the other translations as well as KJV.
But really if it is all the word of God it would be the same meaning just worded so some so people can understand.
I do not have a problem with the KJV so I stayed with it, and scripture will harmonize with scripture.
We need not that any person teach us but the Spirit will teach us, guide us in to all truth, and show us things to come.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the newer translations.
If they claim Jesus is Lord and Savior, and God manifest in the flesh, and there is one God, and have faith, and confess Christ, and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and repent of your sins, and Jesus' blood washes away our sins, and be led of the Spirit and act Christlike, I am sure everything else will fall in to place concerning the translation, and they would not be trying to deceive on purpose.
If any translation would not be right, and they are doing it on purpose to change it to reflect the common ways of people today they would want to undermine the authority of Jesus, have a relaxed attitude towards sins, promote homosexuality, promote being a vegan, and things that are common place, or becoming common place eventually.
I just do not understand how people have a hard time with the KJV, but I like the way it is written, and everything fits in to place for me concerning the KJV and the way it is worded.
I go by the KJV, and read through it, and do not know much about other translations, but I am sure the other translations would be alright.
The only way I can see a translation not being right is if they are changing it on purpose to deceive the original meaning.
And even some Churches that I know that preach holiness, and very good at understanding the word of God, and sound doctrine, will go by the other translations as well as KJV.
But really if it is all the word of God it would be the same meaning just worded so some so people can understand.
I do not have a problem with the KJV so I stayed with it, and scripture will harmonize with scripture.
We need not that any person teach us but the Spirit will teach us, guide us in to all truth, and show us things to come.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the newer translations.
If they claim Jesus is Lord and Savior, and God manifest in the flesh, and there is one God, and have faith, and confess Christ, and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and repent of your sins, and Jesus' blood washes away our sins, and be led of the Spirit and act Christlike, I am sure everything else will fall in to place concerning the translation, and they would not be trying to deceive on purpose.
If any translation would not be right, and they are doing it on purpose to change it to reflect the common ways of people today they would want to undermine the authority of Jesus, have a relaxed attitude towards sins, promote homosexuality, promote being a vegan, and things that are common place, or becoming common place eventually.
I just do not understand how people have a hard time with the KJV, but I like the way it is written, and everything fits in to place for me concerning the KJV and the way it is worded.
-
1
- Show all
I can certainly see that as a plausible reason, something had to be quite intense to actually sentence a person to death for it. that I still can’t quite understand the extreme punishment. Another is reading on the Christian crusaders seems to get more violent but at the start was a good cause pushing back on Islamic advances but then it turned into something else afterwards if I’m not mistaken or maybe it was Hollywood shows I got duped lol.
-
1
- Show all
I'm thinking at the beginning it may have been a reason but hundreds of years later it seems more like power and control. I don't know much about Christian crusades except i've heard about it (doesn't sound christian to me lol) but at the moment i'm somewhat focusing on the church, culture and times between the book of Acts and 400 AD just before Constantine came to power which was astounding.
-
1
- Show all
No doubt power and control was their theme, I’ve read at some point churches used mechanical devices to fool the congregation basically in thinking miracles happening within the church. now that was a pretty low point in church history, the practiced caused a sizable underground business in creating the allusions like magicians behind the scene. I think it was in 12th or 13th centuries somewhere back then I’ve read.
-
1
- Show all
I think it depends on a lot of things. What is your reason for reading the Bible? If you want a general read through, I would pick CSB or HSCB. They are word for word, but less formal. If you have a lower level of reading comprehension, you might want to try NLT or a paraphrase in simpler English.
If you want to get a feel for Greek and Hebrew word order, then NASB and KJV are best. I read NASB for 25 straight years. I always found it to be wooden or stilted. I guess ESV is good for formal structural studies. I've read it a few times. Didn't like it. My Greek prof was on the translation committee of the ESV. He was told it was going to be a "fresh, new" translation. When they got to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, they were told to follow the "traditions" of the KJV, which was not a good translation in some places.
And speaking of Koine Greek, the best way to read the NT is learn Biblical Greek, and then read the Bible in Greek. Then you really get the word order, syntax and vocabulary right.
I'm reading the NET, mostly for the footnotes. A lot about terms in Hebrew or Greek, plus historical and geographical background. But after I am finished this read through, I am going back to HSCB, it is an easier read.
I know lots of scholars who read the Message. I've read parts of it, but it was too much of a paraphrase for me.
If you want to get a feel for Greek and Hebrew word order, then NASB and KJV are best. I read NASB for 25 straight years. I always found it to be wooden or stilted. I guess ESV is good for formal structural studies. I've read it a few times. Didn't like it. My Greek prof was on the translation committee of the ESV. He was told it was going to be a "fresh, new" translation. When they got to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, they were told to follow the "traditions" of the KJV, which was not a good translation in some places.
And speaking of Koine Greek, the best way to read the NT is learn Biblical Greek, and then read the Bible in Greek. Then you really get the word order, syntax and vocabulary right.
I'm reading the NET, mostly for the footnotes. A lot about terms in Hebrew or Greek, plus historical and geographical background. But after I am finished this read through, I am going back to HSCB, it is an easier read.
I know lots of scholars who read the Message. I've read parts of it, but it was too much of a paraphrase for me.
I am not launching attacks on people but on false, misleading statements made by you. Those who are still learning will not make categorical statements. And those who are stiil learning desire the truth.
You said: "KJV also added and removed passages according to older translations". That is completely false. And had you researched the history of the KJV and the character of the translators, you would not have said this.
Furthermore, people suggesting to the OP that a dozen translations (all different from each other) are suitable for someone asking for "the best" translation are also misleading people.
You said: "KJV also added and removed passages according to older translations". That is completely false. And had you researched the history of the KJV and the character of the translators, you would not have said this.
Furthermore, people suggesting to the OP that a dozen translations (all different from each other) are suitable for someone asking for "the best" translation are also misleading people.