Which Bible version

[todd_vetter]

To have multiple translation of Roman doctrine only adds to the confusion of Babylon (the mixing of words causing confusion).

When are you going to come to your God whom you claim to serve? God simplified the message he taught... keep the commandments of God For this is mans all... everything else is to identify Christ as the one who would give the knowlege of how this is done since even the Jews could not get it right and played the harlot with false God's just as the gentiles are doing today.

Jeremiah 16:19

O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction, The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, “ Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and unprofitable things.” Will a man make gods for himself, Which are not gods?

By not commming to God throught the wisdom he gave to all men. The Law (pentacost) (shavot)

They all make a God of a book and writings.

[todd_vetter]

Untill mankind can dicern why God allowed this gospel to surface in history and what it means for mankind. they will never know the truth. They know not how to keep the Law.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_index.htm

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/gospel%20of%20holy%2012.pdf

This link illustrates how to use Prophecy (God's word) as a light to the world and differing testimonies of men even within your bible.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

It's time to wake up.. the shaking is here!

[TreeOfLife]

Davar – Another Free “Scripture Study Tool”

Use It - and e-Sword Too!

You can have as many Bibles as you feel you need to do a credible job of finding truth, all for free. Google E-Sword or for Mac users MacSword. There you will find numerous down-loadable Bibles, Concordances, Strong's Greek and Hebrew lexicon and other source books all for free. I also use an very easy to use interface called Bible Desktop into which you can place all this material and access it in multiple windows so you can do Biblical comparison with ease. Try it, I think you will really like it.

I have included the links:

E-Sword MacSword

Here’s Davar v. 3 - another great “Scripture Study Tool!” It can do some things e-Sword doesn’t do for you yet… Like helping you read the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament using either Arabic or Hebrew font!

Praise the Lord!

[Musicman1228]

Thanks, I'll get it.

[Ted Oplinger]

The vast majority of my reading and studying is through the NASB version.

However, in deeper study, I'll use my BibleWorks to pull up just about any version known to man to get to the root of a text. In English, though, the RSV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, and TEV versions get the nod.

In Christ,

[TreeOfLife]

”Which Bible version…”

... are you currently using?

Dear Gail,

Answering your question directly, and in terms similar to those of Ted Oplinger’s post just above…

I use which ever Bible version that, from my point of view, is best helping me perceive the underlying original writ. When the original text is not available or when it is not even known with certainty which one may be closest, then I consider the internal evidence of the extant available texts in close comparison with the reality and with the laws of nature as designed and upheld by the Creator.

For instance, I’ve been impressed that, re the Gospel of Matthew, the closest thing we have to the original is that transcript which is known as Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, which I find is definitely not a translation from the Greek as has been commonly believed in the past. Re Mark, Luke, Acts, Revelation, and probably at least some of Paul’s epistles, which are more than likely also originally written in Hebrew, I use the Greek Textus Receptus while remembering always that that Greek is the translator’s best effort of accomplishing as literal a translation as possible of the text being translated, whether from the Hebrew or from an Aramaic intermediary translation.

Re the Old Testament, at one time, years ago, I used to believe that the LXX was the one closest to the original because at that time I believed that there was insufficient space of time for known dated historical events following the flood using the Masoretic text. After having studied the evidence provided by Immanuel Velikovsky in his Ages in Chaos series of books, I came to recognize that conventional ancient history has inflated the real ancient history by some 600 to 800 years that never were. In consequence of that I find that the remaining evidence points to the Masoretic text being the one closest to the original text written.

Given that I am not by far as fluent in either Greek or Hebrew as I wish I was, I use any and all translations of those texts that are available to me in a language I am more familiar with, for instance English or Swedish. My preferred English version is the Amplified English Bible because it really has a way of bringing out much more from the original languages than any of the other versions, yet, more often than not, I use KJV because of its close ties to the original by means of Strong’s numbers.

Lately, I’ve had the question raised in my mind as to whether or not the Peshitta may possibly be that intermediary Aramaic text between the original Hebrew New Testament books and the Greek Textus Receptus etc., but that question of mine I have yet to pursue before being better able to determine the answer…

Shalom,

Tree of Life©

[John317]

The vast majority of my reading and studying is through the NASB version.

However, in deeper study, I'll use my BibleWorks to pull up just about any version known to man to get to the root of a text. In English, though, the RSV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, and TEV versions get the nod.

Four of the best and most literal and accurate translations of the whole Bible are:

(1) Robert Young's Literal (which basically follows the same texts as the KJV);

(2) Joseph B. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (which follows texts similar to those followed by the NASB and RSV); (Except in a few places, this is the best, most reliable and most accurate single translation I know);

(3) King James II Bible (translated by J. P. Green, and following the same text as that followed by the KJV); and

(4) The New American Bible (Roman Catholic)-- this translation is the most faithful to the Critical Greek Text of Nestle-Aland (26th and 27th editions) and the United Bible Society (fourth edition).

[phkrause]

Ted when you say Bible Works, what do you mean?

pk

[Steve Billiter]

Hi, I would urge extreme caution with the Clear Word. All paraphrases will reflect the theology of the writer.

The author is proceeding to destroy the Adventist pillars of faith. Worse than that, what else is he doing to God’s Word? So am I to believe Jesus opens this seal and watches Himself oppose His own truth?

Here's what Revelation 6:1,2 of the Clear Word Bible says:

1. After the chorus had ended, I saw the Lamb break all the seals and unscroll the scroll. As He revealed the events of the first seal, I heard the first of the four living beings say to me in a voice that sounded like thunder, "Come! See the controversy over giving the gospel!"

2. I looked to where he was pointing and saw a galloping white horse.

The rider on it had a bow in his hand and arrows strapped to his back.

He was allowed to wear a victory wreath on his head and galloped into the future bent on stopping the gospel and overcoming the people of God. This is the first phase of the history of opposition to the gospel.

This is incorrect, white in the Bible always represents God, and the good and the right.

The white horse represents the early Christan dispensation as the early church went forward to conquer victoriously.

Here is the KJV:

Rev 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. God Bless, Steve

[Steve Billiter]

John, we've been through this before. Young's changes repentance in the KJV to reformation. There can be no reformation without repentance first.Not only that, reformation, is not repentance.

When one repents, that is reformation, but one can reform in a worldly way without true repentance. Since repentance is the very heart of the Gospel, for that reason I would throw out Young's. You can bet the devil wants to do away with repentance.

Acts 2:38 (Young's Literal Translation)

38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

This is very bad.

God Bless,

[phkrause]

Thanks for the info steve. I do love the CW but I would never try using it to uphold stuff.

pk

[Gail]

John317, today I picked up a Rotherham's Emphasized Bible!!! I got it in a Bible liquidation- super deal

I could see its potential when I had a look inside. I thought that besides the marks for emphasis, This book has some interesting study notes!

[John317]

Rotherham's translation is one of the most literal and accurate translations of the Bible ever published. But it was translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek text and before the discovery of many important ancient manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and a good number of NT manuscripts.

[Gail]

I will take that into consideration. Kinda like the RV?

[John317]

Yes, it is based on pretty much the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the English Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901. I have no problem with those texts but it's something to be aware of because there are quite a few significant differences between them and the KJV and NKJV. Ellen White quoted both the 1885 and 1901 translations.

Rotherham's translation is one of the few that is consistent (and accurate) in its translation of 2 Thess. 1: 12: "the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ."

Like any translation, though, it is far from perfect. See, for instance, Titus 2: 13, which contains exactly the same Greek construction as found in 2 Peter 1: 1.

[Gail]

I tend to use a variety, but do enjoy learning about these differences.

[Waymin]

I use TNIV as my study Bible.

If I go to caregroup I'd bring my Clear Word, because it's small and compact. However, it's a paraphrase so I don't use it for Bible study.

Since my husband is a pastor, he has lots of versions at home, including the Tanakh and the Greek Bible. Once in a while I'd open an NLT, or CEV, or ESV, whichever is closest to me.

[Johann]

It is with considerable interest I have read this, at times, heated discussion on Bible Versions which has been going on here for a few years. Personally I thank the Lord that there are so few errors or discrepancies and therefore almost any version can be used to find the TRUTH and salvation in Jesus Christ.

Many years ago while I was a ministerial student at Emmanuel Missionary College, Berrien Springs, I heard a certain sermon preached in the old chapel where offerings were taken up to build the Pioneer Memorial Church. What I remember of that sermon is that the speaker warned against any new translation, since the Lord Himself had only given us the KJV, and therefore the KJV was the only Bible teaching Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.

Coming from Scandinavia I wondered how this could be true since we had many Adventists all over the world who did not have the KJV at all, and where only newer versions of the Bible are available in the language of the people.

I love the KJV for the beautiful language, but it does have its limits. While serving as a Bible teacher at Ile-Ife in Nigeria a man from the British and Foreign Bible Society came to see me, and he sold me a whole box of New Testaments in Today's English. Somebody smelled they were there, and within a short time my box was empty. The nursing students, and others, were hungry for a message it was easier to understand.

Isn't that the purpose of the Word of God?

[Gail]

I tell people that the best version is the one that is READ.

[Johann]

I tell people that the best version is the one that is READ.

Not a bad conclusion

[JoeMo]

I tend to switch between the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, and ESV. There are subtle differences between all the versions. I prefer translations that are compiled by interdenominational committee rather than just one denomination (or worse yet - one person) they all tend to be biased to the beliefs of that denomination or person. I eschew paraphrases.

When I really need to take a "deep dive" into something, I use an interlinear and a Strong's Concordance.

I kinda wonder why we all are OK with the fact that the Canon of scripture was originally assembled basically by early church Catholic scholars (maybe because they were the only religion around?). Having read some of the more acceptable apocrypha, I wonder why they was excluded. For example, given that the Book on Enoch is even quoted in accepted scripture, why isn't it in the Bible?

[Johann]

I tend to switch between the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, and ESV. There are subtle differences between all the versions. I prefer translations that are compiled by interdenominational committee rather than just one denomination (or worse yet - one person) they all tend to be biased to the beliefs of that denomination or person. I eschew paraphrases.

When I really need to take a "deep dive" into something, I use an interlinear and a Strong's Concordance.

I kinda wonder why we all are OK with the fact that the Canon of scripture was originally assembled basically by early church Catholic scholars (maybe because they were the only religion around?). Having read some of the more acceptable apocrypha, I wonder why they was excluded. For example, given that the Book on Enoch is even quoted in accepted scripture, why isn't it in the Bible?

Some of the Apostolic Fathers could have been in the cannon.

I read recently where a former editor of a Catholic magazine claimed the early Catholic scholars eliminated everything they managed to avoid which spoke favorably of women serving in the church. He also mentioned that the present pope and most popes for centuries have placed two Marys as examples to choose between. They appeal to the girls not to follow the example of Mary Magdalene the whore, not mentioning that she was forgiven by Jesus. The girls should rather follow the example of Mary, the divine mother of God.

[james423]

If you want to see how the various versions compare, go to www.biblestudytools.com and type in a text and hit the compare versions tab. There must be about thirty to forty versions compared on that site.

[OzarkWoman]

I tend to switch between the KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, and ESV. There are subtle differences between all the versions. I prefer translations that are compiled by interdenominational committee rather than just one denomination (or worse yet - one person) they all tend to be biased to the beliefs of that denomination or person. I eschew paraphrases.

When I really need to take a "deep dive" into something, I use an interlinear and a Strong's Concordance.

I kinda wonder why we all are OK with the fact that the Canon of scripture was originally assembled basically by early church Catholic scholars (maybe because they were the only religion around?). Having read some of the more acceptable apocrypha, I wonder why they was excluded. For example, given that the Book on Enoch is even quoted in accepted scripture, why isn't it in the Bible?

Have you evert read the Book of Thomas or of Judas or any of the others? I have read them all and they are quite interesting.

[JoeMo]

OW,

Yes; I have read some of the apocryphal writings. many of them are quite interesting. I don't know why some of them were excluded from the Canon; but I ain't no rocket surgeon.