What is your favorite version of the Bible?

[David]

A question for all: What version of the Holy Bible do you read? Do you use different ones for personal devotion and study? Do you like to jump back and forth between several or do you have a trusty favorite?

I'm curious because I need a new set of Scriptures. My old RSV was so tattered that I was reading it with both covers having fallen off. It finally had to split in two before I decided it was time to buy a new one. I have been using a KJV to be more of a "purist" but I'm finding it very tough rowing and I'm not sure it's helping me; my Bible reading has sharply decreased. :( So I need help to get back on track. :cool: I am considering either a NKJV, an NIV, or another RSV.

Are there any of these that I should rule out entirely? Should I just buy them all? I am definitely no scholar, so any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

A question for all: What version of the Holy Bible do you read? Do you use different ones for personal devotion and study? Do you like to jump back and forth between several or do you have a trusty favorite?

I'm curious because I need a new set of Scriptures. My old RSV was so tattered that I was reading it with both covers having fallen off. It finally had to split in two before I decided it was time to buy a new one. I have been using a KJV to be more of a "purist" but I'm finding it very tough rowing and I'm not sure it's helping me; my Bible reading has sharply decreased. :( So I need help to get back on track. :cool: I am considering either a NKJV, an NIV, or another RSV.

Are there any of these that I should rule out entirely? Should I just buy them all? I am definitely no scholar, so any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.
Hi David,

Welcome to the forum! It is great to have you here.

My favorite is the KJV, but it didn't start that way. During the "early years" of my Biblical studies (ca 1991), I would search through various versions looking for what ever translation I thought best captured the idea I was trying to communicate. This habit can lead to pretty idiosyncratic readings, as evidenced by the Purpose Driven Live in which Warren scours through every version until he finds words that can be twisted into his pop-psycho-babel Gospel. (Not that I have an opinion about that! :lol: ) It's no coincidence that he usually settled on horrific paraphrases like the Message and the NLT which are not even translations at all.

My wife and I recently bought a couple New KJVs, which I would recommend for anyone who stumbles over the old style language. I read it, but its just doesn't "ring" like the old KJV.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a KJV Only person by any stretch, though I do believe that God did have a special "providence" over its production.

I think I'll be moving this thread over to Biblical Studies section, since that seems more appropriate. I'll let you know when I do.

And again, welcome to the forum!

Richard

[Abigail]

Hi there David
My Bible is the NAS Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Spiros Zodhiates) I enjoy it because of the Hebrew and Greek keys. My husband has the Thompson Chain Reference Bible - NIV. I like that too because I find the chain reference useful. We bought our boys a Quest study Bible - NIV, this is quite cool for them as it has nice little explanations about certain verses in the margins. I also got Henry Morris' Defender Study Bible which has a wealth of commentary info in the margin - it is KJV. Lastly I bought a ESV and although the translation seems pretty good my particular Bible doesnt have any kind of Key or tools to enrich my reading so i must say I dont often use that one. So I guess in using everyone in the family's Bible I dont really have a favourite (well if I was pushed it would be NAS), but I would recommend getting a Bible with those extra things in the margins and keys and red words etc - they really open up the Bible IMO.

[shalag]

Sorry - still after many years when I read 'Gird up thy loins' I have to go look up where the loins are.

I am very comfortable with the New King James - as an understandable version. I rely heavily on the concordance to gain insight into meanings. My prayer is always, 'Lord, open my eyes to see and my ears to hear what your Holy Spirit is saying'.

Although King James is a most inspired work - for those who did not understand Hebrew and Greek or Latin - I appreciate the New King James for even more understandability (on my part). I also appreciate the JPS OT for its clarity.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry - still after many years when I read 'Gird up thy loins' I have to go look up where the loins are.
Nuttin to be sorry for there! Not a lot of folks like that "ol time linguistics" :lol:


I am very comfortable with the New King James - as an understandable version. I rely heavily on the concordance to gain insight into meanings. My prayer is always, 'Lord, open my eyes to see and my ears to hear what your Holy Spirit is saying'.
Mine too! And I think the NKJV is a fine version.


Although King James is a most inspired work - for those who did not understand Hebrew and Greek or Latin - I appreciate the New King James for even more understandability (on my part).

I think the KJV played a really important role in establishing the "text-form" for the Bible that was destined to be the dominant translation on the planet, thanks largely due (in human terms) to the British empire.


I also appreciate the JPS OT for its clarity.
I do too, except when they choose to ditch their clarity to hide the messianic prophecies. Take a look at their rendition of Isaiah 9:5 (9:6 is Christian Bibles):

TNK Isaiah 9:5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" --

Hummm .... :mad: kinda hard to recognize the names of our Lord there. Note also the past tense "He has been named" .....

KJV Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Richard

[dwhite]

Hi all,

I'm a new member to the group and also a new reader of the Bible Wheel and am really excited by everything I'm reading!

As I was growing up the only version of the Bible I was familiar with was the King James Version. I found the "thees" and "thous" and such challenging and thought God sounded so angry and was to be feared.

A few years ago, I found the Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, George M. Lamsa's translation, and really resonated with it.

I've been comparing verses from Lamsa's translation and the King James Version and find many passages are translated very differently...mainly where "fear and anger" are involved. An example is that the KJV says to "fear" God and Lamsa's version says to "Revere" God. There are many of these throughout. It has a completely different energy.

Would love your comments.

Dusty

[dwhite]

Hi David,

I just posted almost the same question on the Biblical Studies Forum. I'll repeat my comments here, because it follows your thread.

The translation I most resonate with is the Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Test, George M. Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

The reason I really like this version is because the message is more to "Revere" God instead of "fear God". My view is of a loving, caring, forgiving God, which is different from what was taught while I was growing up with the KJV.

Dusty

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi all,

I'm a new member to the group and also a new reader of the Bible Wheel and am really excited by everything I'm reading!

As I was growing up the only version of the Bible I was familiar with was the King James Version. I found the "thees" and "thous" and such challenging and thought God sounded so angry and was to be feared.

A few years ago, I found the Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, George M. Lamsa's translation, and really resonated with it.

I've been comparing verses from Lamsa's translation and the King James Version and find many passages are translated very differently...mainly where "fear and anger" are involved. An example is that the KJV says to "fear" God and Lamsa's version says to "Revere" God. There are many of these throughout. It has a completely different energy.

Would love your comments.

Dusty

Hi Dusty,

Welcome to the forum! I think we all would benefit looking at Lamsa's translation, since it is so easy to get "locked" into a particular way of thinking without even know it because we grow up in a particular society that speaks a particular language, and has its own peculiar prejudices.

As for the translation of "fear the Lord." The phrase originated in the Old Testament, written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word used there is yirah. Now the fact is that it really does mean "fear" in the sense of "to be afraid", but that is only part of its range of meanings called its "semantic domain". It also means "profound reverence" as well as "awesomeness", as seen in this entry from Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew:


3711 יִרְאָה (yir∙˒ā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 3374; TWOT 907b—1. LN 87.4-87.18 reverence, fear, i.e., a state of piety and respect toward a superior (Ex 20:20; Pr 1:7); 2. LN 25.251-25.269 fear, terror, i.e., a state of great anxiety and alarm (Dt 2:25; Ps 55:6[EB 5]; Jnh 1:10, 16); 3. LN 53.53-53.64 worship, i.e., the act. or speech of showing profound reverence toward a superior, which may include ritual action (Ps 5:8[EB 7]; Job 4:6; 15:4; 22:4); 4. LN 25.206-25.222 awesomeness, i.e., that which causes wonder and astonishment (Eze 1:18), note: for MT text in 2Ch 26:5, see 8011
So at first glance, it may look like the problem is that most folks don't want to have to have to walk around with a big fat Hebrew dictionary, looking up every word as they read their Bible.

But the problem is not really with the translation. It is with the modern educational system which has failed to educate the people. The phrase "fear the Lord" is a perfectly good translation into English. Everyone should know that the word "fear" actually does have the meaning of "reverential awe," since that is definition number 3 in Websters:



1fear \ˈfir\

(before 12th century)

transitive verb

1 archaic : frighten

2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)

3 : to have a reverential awe of 〈fear God〉

4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.
Still, it will be very interesting to review Lamsa's translation. I'm glad you brought it up.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi David,

I just posted almost the same question on the Biblical Studies Forum. I'll repeat my comments here, because it follows your thread.

The translation I most resonate with is the Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Test, George M. Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

The reason I really like this version is because the message is more to "Revere" God instead of "fear God". My view is of a loving, caring, forgiving God, which is different from what was taught while I was growing up with the KJV.

Dusty

Hi Dusty, and everyone else posting in this thread,

I merged the "What is your favorite version?" thread from the "Book Review" forum with this thread that Dusty started here in the Biblical Studies forum since they were both talking about the same subject, and that subject is much more suited to this forum.

All the posts have been combined into one thread, and put in their chronological order, all with two clicks of my mouse. I must say, that the vBulletin forum software is truly an excellent product. Makes managing this forum a snap!

So post on!

Richard

[dwhite]

Richard,

Thanks for the great information on the meaning of fear. I'm sure there are many words that we get stuck on a certain meaning because of the way we learned them...and how they were reinforced over the years. It reminds me to take a new look at things from time to time.

I have great discussions with a friend, an engineer, about the word "Truth". From a scientists point it's very different from someone studying metaphysics.

Thanks for the reminder!

Dusty

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have great discussions with a friend, an engineer, about the word "Truth". From a scientists point it's very different from someone studying metaphysics.

I know the question is very old, since Pilate asked "What is truth." But note that he asked that question when he was face-to-face with Truth Incarnate! That's why I tend to think that the philosophical search for truth is usually vanity.

So how would you define the difference between the scientific vs. metaphysical definitions of truth?

Richard

[Brother Bob]

I used RSV for a long time but didn't like how they put some Scripture in the margin!

I now use NASB in the Zodiates Key Word setup. It really helps me look up the Greek and Hebrews. NASB is supposed to be the most accurate translation, but I prefer the NKJV. The only problem is that the Key Word Bible isn't published in the NKJV.

God bless

[yinonyavo]

This is a great discussion...not only to recommend different versions, but to be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of each. I find I like different versions for different purposes (general reading through, specific word studies, topical studies, etc.)

I mostly use my online Bible software which has mulitple versions. ..and by the way, if any here are not familiar with John Gill's commentary, it is my very very favorite because he usually quotes many points of view INCLUDING the ancient Hebrew sources, which I find almost no where else, or at least not in such a thorough way. It is part of my online Bible software, but also free online at:

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

As to the KJV, I have found that when studying types and OT images found in the NT, that the KJ often retains the exact literal translation of certain phrases that if changed, one would lose the reference to the OT type. An example that first made me take notice of this:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

They here retain the exact phrase "holy thing" which in the OT was the price paid for a field set apart for the Lord.

Le 27:22-23 22 And if a man sanctify unto the LORD a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession;Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the LORD.

Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

(I agree with the commentator Phillip Mauro on this verse that the purchaser of the field is Christ and the treasure is Israel (the church). Many interpret the treasure as the gospel and the purchaser as the believer, but that does not agree with the fact that salvation is free. ...but that is another discussion)

[alec cotton]

My favourite is the King James .I can quite well understand how some would have difficulty in understanding the old English ,but I grew up wifh it. In the early part of the twentieth century,in the small market town where I lived,such language was normal. Thee ,thou, thine and yonder were normal. If someone was to say 'you 'or 'your,' he would be seen as odd. That was the language of the big knobs and snobs. Some of the more educated would call it Oxford English. To give you an example, Some 70 years ago I passed two housewives chatting on their front doorstep. I heard one say 'Does thou know I'm pregnant/.' the other said 'Don't thee smittle me' . Smittle meant ,'to pass on contagion or infection'.Many years later I worked in a smithy. The blacksmith and his striker worked facing each other in close proximity. Two of these were Jimmy Newby and Joe winder. Now Jim had a big Roman nose and Joe had a long straight one . Jim often had a big dewdrop on the end of his. One day Joe said ,' wipe thy nose Jim'. Jim said 'Thee wipe it,thou's nearest.'As the years passed the language changed and those words were seen as vulgar or common. Old habits die hard. Sometimes you can still hear it in remote places. The Quakers originated near where I lived. Some people took offence at being called 'thou' . I once heard a chap say ' Don't thee thou me thou quaker. I wasn't born to be theed by thou. I would steer clear of THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION. It was printed by the Watchtower and is skewed to suit their doctrine. The douay translation isn't so hot either. Having said all that .The N.K.J.V is probably the best choice to-day. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
Alec

[Bob May]

King James 1611 version.

Once in a while The Greek interlinear
The closer to the source, the clearer the water. I find a lot of revelation in those little "in between" phrases. Those are the first to go, it seems, when trying to make an "easier to read" version. Those seem to lack a lot of character. And important info in my opinion.

[gregoryfl]

For me it would be the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. It has the Septuagint and Majority Text with a literal meaning under each word. Plus, in the back, it has all the instances of each English word and then a concordance for each Greek word keyed in the text and listed in the back, so you can a word throughout the old and new testaments. I have to read it slower of course, but it helps me focus better on getting the sense of what is written.

Ron