Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

[MatthewG]

I wanna buy an Easy Read Version. Sometimes it’s cool just to read a different style of writing and there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone who says otherwise is just not allowing you to have freedom of choice.

Holy Bible Easy to Read Version (ERV) English Green/Tan (Duotone)

The English language Easy to Read Version of the Bible (ERV) accurately expresses the full meaning of the original text in a style that is clear and easy to understand. The ERV Bible is especially helpful for those who have limited experience with English, including children, and people learning...

www.christianbook.com

 

[Michiah-Imla]

you would see as "poisonous" any attempt to use the oldest references to the Greek NT Bible?

Based on what I have seen in many modern translations I would not use any of them as an authority.

And I started out in a modern translation when I first got saved.

The KJV was more effective as spiritual food the more I got serious about following the Lord.

 

[RedFan]

My preference in choosing a Bible translation is for faithfulness to the original Greek or Hebrew, with no resolution of ambiguities in favor of particular agendas. An example might be Rom. 1:4 in the 1978 edition of the NIV:

and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared (ὁρισθέντος) with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

The participle ὁρισθέντος is translated as “declared” here. Yet in none of its other seven appearances in the NT is the word so interpreted. Elsewhere its meaning is given as “installed,” “designated,” “established,” “ordained” or “appointed,” as in the closely related passage of Acts 10:42, as well as in Luke 22:22; in Acts 2:23, 11:29, 17:26, 17:31; and in Hebrews 4:7. The 2011 edition of the NIV has fixed this, opting for consistency:

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed (ὁρισθέντος) the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

This more natural meaning suggests that Christ was appointed the Son of God at his resurrection, as opposed to having already been the Son of God and simply having that existing status declared by the fact of his resurrection.

The orthodox Christian view, of course, is that Christ was always the Son of God, even before becoming incarnate. Translating Rom 1:4 to suggest adoptive sonship rather than preexisting sonship is more faithful to the Greek, but it is not as faithful to orthodox doctrine. In the 1978 NIV, doctrine won out. And I have a problem with this. I do not doubt that the orthodox doctrine is correct. But I want literal accuracy from my Bible. If a word is ambiguous or has multiple meanings, I want the translator to choose the one that conveys the usual and ordinary meaning of the word whenever doing so is not inconsistent with the rest of the passage.

I do not care to be told by the translator what Paul meant; I want to be told only what Paul said. Paul’s true meaning I will discern elsewhere, from all the available contextual and historical evidence. Above all, I do not want the translator’s personal beliefs to slant that meaning. Not being fluent in Greek, I am at his mercy, and he does me a disservice by coloring the language to conform to his own doctrinal views. It is, in the end, better to distill doctrine from scripture than to distill scripture from doctrine!

 

[Peterlag]

Lets compare one verse in this study... 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"

So is it important, well lets look more closely at what scripture gives us on the 'antichrist' going back to 1 John 4:3..

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The antichrist has to deny Jesus came in the flesh. Let’s look up the Greek word “flesh” in the Greek Lexicon and see what it can mean..

Strong’s Hebrew/Greek Concordance:

sarx: Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): – carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

Thayer Definition:
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature” 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

So what is our human nature, what are all human beings guilty of according to the bible. They are all guilty of sin, they have the propensity or that which opposes God. The bible teaches that although Jesus never sinned, he became sin for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus came through the line of David, and we see what David said...

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This means that the whole line of David was a lineage individuals with a nature to sin, including Jesus. This is how Jesus, being God, could be tempted to sin as we see in the wilderness with the devil, Because he became man, and being made into a man he had the same human nature as man, the ability to sin. But yet He didnt sin...

So, how does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh (human nature)? Well when they teach that the Virgin Mary was sinless at her conception of the baby Jesus, they in essence teach that Jesus has not come in the flesh, because Jesus came through her lineage, and as David had a nature to sin, she also had a nature to sin. Here is from the Catechism:

491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of JESUS Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. -Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.

To say that Jesus came into the world this way, born of a virgin who was not of sinful “flesh” as we are all in our human nature, is to say he did not come in the “flesh” of sinful nature because he came through her lineage. That shows who is the spirit of antichrist and so its important which version of the Bible you have..

I'm an old KJV guy, but in the last few years I started looking at other translations. Mostly the oldest ones because I do not even believe the new modern English translations are Bibles. They seem to be written by churches who are writing their religion and nothing more.

 

[MA2444]

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"

I noticed that too.

I think most versions of the bible are useful. In my experience, about 95 to 98% of the bible can be understood plainly, but the perhaps 3-5% of it, if you don't know the original language or at least have a Concordance then you will not understand some parts of it. So I tink that whatever version that one chooses, to also use a concordance for this reason.

Online I use BibleGateway.com because they have a zillion versions and most will let you hear it also. And then Blueletterbible.org is an online concordance to the original languages, that I find extremely useful.

I was weaned on a KJV bible. I used a NIV version for awhile because I was gifted that bible by a brother in Christ. We used to bible study over the phone when his wifey poo wouldnt let him out, lol. And he wanted me to have the same version as him instead of a KJV. It was a nice bible!

Was? You say? Yes, was. A different frien & brother in Christ came over one day and said nice bible. Uh-oh it's NIV. I said what? Oh the NIV version has a lot of missing verses in it compared to the KJV. And we sat down for about an hour and we looked up maybe a dozen scriputeres and they were all missing! Wow.

A week or so later, I was on a (different) christian forum and the topic being discussed was what is the best version bible?! So I felt inclined to chime in with my new found knowledge about the NIV and it's missing verses. And I did.

One of their most respected memebers asked me for a couple examples of this. Sure I will, gimme a few and it will be done. Now I couldn't remember what scripture refrences they were exactly so I called that friend of mine at work and asked him for the missing verses refrences again. He gave me about a half dozen and then had to get back to work so I hung up. My ducks were almost in a row now! Now a quick double check of those verses that he gave me to ensure my own accuracy before posting. I looked the first one up...it is in there. My buddy must have misspoke. I looked up the 2nd one. This verse is in there also! (Come on Joe, what you doing to me?!). So I went on down the list to find any of them that isnt in the NIV. Now my friend Joe usually has a good memory, so how could he have given me 6 wrong scriptures that he knew ok on the first day! This is a little weird and I needed answers. I didnt want to bug him at work again, so I called in Mr. Google and got about a billion hits for missing verses in the NIV.

So I started looking up the so called missing verses from online to confirm them missing and it was the weirdest most Twilight Zone monent that I've ever had because they were all in my bible also. I spent two hours looking up verses in the NIV and the KJV and I saw with my eyes that there were indeed missing verses before...but not now. I did not find even a single verse that wasnt in there. Not one.

In frustration I closed my bible and shoved it away from me on the table, and just slumped back with my head spinning, what is going on here? I was just about to start praying about it to the Lord when the gaze of my eyes fell across the back of my bible that was sitting on the table. It says in big gold lettering: NKJV

Problem solved? Yeah but not quite, still more questions than answers. Like for instance, my Friend (Tony) gifted me this bible because it match his version which was an NIV! That was no dream. And when Joe came and we sat for an hur finding missing verses, that wasnt any dream either...but, where did this NKJV bible come from then? I had underlinings and highlighter marks in my NIV bible, are they there or not? SO I flipped it open and scanned through it and found that all of my underlined passages were still underlined, and high lighted here and there. This is very weird. I can not really have just entered into the Twilight Zone. The issue is that the word of God changed from an NIV to an NKJV. The time has come to pray about it, this must be the Lord doing something!

Lord what is going on here? That was an NIV bible and now it is not. What are you saying to me? What are you trying to teach me? Lord, I do not understand this...
And do you now the Lord did not speak to me about it? Oh! Total silence. No confirmation or anything.

So what can I conclude from what happened? I really have no clue. The only thing I can come up with so far is that...this was an endorsement by the Lord of the NKJV? To be preferred over the NIV version? What else can I possibly think?

I know this bible came to me as an NIV and I used it quite frequently. I now see that it is a NKJV so I know that it did change. I do not have another bible which is similar that could be mistaken for this bible. This is the biggest nicest Bible that I have, there is no mistake. Not only that but there are two witnesses to the same thing. Tony, who bought me the bible and bible studied with me, and Joe, which showed me the missing verses in it so in the mouths of 3 witnesses this can be established as truth.

Take it for what you will. True story.

 

[Grailhunter]

Does it matter what translation of the Bible you read?

Only if accuracy matters…..
The King James Version of the Bible is the most inaccurate translation unless you want to go back to the Britches Bible-the Geneva Bible. The KJV is so inaccurate that you could start a sect of Christianity separate from the actual scriptures.

As scriptures set in poetry it is pretty good and sounds good when read out loud. But a lot of people get lost in the poetic style of writing. As collectables they are awesome….the older KJV Bibles are worth money…. particularly the table top illustrated Bibles.

For the average Christian that is looking for accuracy the NASB and NIV Bibles are a good starting point. As it stands now a lot of the older tests of the Old and New Testaments have been discovered. And they found that the newer texts had additional verses. It is a time period thing, not just some texts had different verses. As time went on additional verses were added. And that is one of the differences between the NASB and the NIV. The NIV does not include the verses that were not in the older texts, but the NASB includes them but puts them in parentheses with notes that says they were not in the older texts. And sometime the NIV rephrase the verses and some people might take exception to that. But nothing as horrible as the KJV.

As far as a good understanding the NASB and NIV Study Bibles are very good. Not that they are the only good translations of the Bibles….Translations like the ESV translation are pretty good. These Bibles can provide an above average and accurate knowledge level. Of course it does not hurt to compare the wording with the actual scriptures and the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is a good resource and it is cheap and better than 95% accurate but because it is directly connected to the KJV it inherits some of its errors. But for all practical purposes this is a great level of understanding.

To go deeper than this, it is a big jump. You start with studying the biblical languages and you can buy books with photocopies of the oldest texts and you can read straight from them. And the higher level Lexicons are great to study from. Then you have college courses and college degrees. The college degrees are going to include biblical history from the Old Testament, the events in between the Testaments, and the New Testament…and onward.

Once you get into all this you will find out that something like the NASB will provide vastly more detailed information than what the early Christians had and millions of them were saved….Without Bibles….People did not have Bibles in their hands until the Protestant reform in the 1500’s.

Then you have the stumbling stones that people have been programmed with. People may not know the scriptures well but they will likely have the false beliefs memorized. False beliefs that change the understanding of the scriptures and Christian reality .….things like the one God formula of the Trinity, Original Sin….and the word fornication that is not biblical by name or definition but made its way into some translations and changes the meaning of scriptures and even reality.

The Protestants were the first to require a wedding ceremony to be married and that happened in the mid 1500’s. The word fornication makes people think that wedding ceremonies were happening and required all through the Old and New Testaments and that is false. Because the word fornication suggest anytime two single people have sex that it is a sin when the facts are that until the mid 1500’s that is how people formed marriages.

Wedding ceremonies were originally from Pagan cultures and they differed from region to region. When the Gentiles converted to Christianity they brought some of their customs with them… Wedding Ceremonies were one of them so voluntary Wedding Ceremonies were happening all along. And in the 1500’s the Protestants made them a requirement and that was a good thing. Funny that most Protestants do not know this….it is their own history. And another funny is that the Catholic Church did not make Wedding Ceremonies a requirement until after the Protestant made it a requirement.

The history of it will let you know that the names of God the Father and God the Son do not appear in most translations and a lot the names of the main characters and places have been changed. God the Father's name was removed entirely and that took around 6,800 removals and insertions and Christ's name was never in the New Testament. The word that represents Yeshua in the New Testament is Iesous and it is exactly that....a word....not a name....the word is a Greek word that means healer and that one confused people for centuries. Yahweh and Yeshua are the names of God the Father and God the Son but you will not see them in the Bible unless you have a Sacred Names Bible.

Then you have the J slam that changed the names of person, places, and things in the Bible that started with a Y and changed them to J's. Yob, Yoseph, Yericho, Yoshua, Yacob Yerusalem Yames Yohn etc.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The King James Version of the Bible is the most inaccurate translation

The KJV is so inaccurate that you could start a sect of Christianity separate from the actual scriptures.

Falsehood.

Stay away from this wicked and adulterous generation’s modern versions.

They are corrupt by the modernistic way of thinking.

 

[Peterlag]

Falsehood.

Stay away from this wicked and adulterous generation’s modern versions.

They are corrupt by the modernistic way of thinking.

I believe the KJV is one of the best translations out there.

 

[MatthewG]

Any Bible version that get you to express hatred, never read that version. Is cool to get to the most literal version if you want, young’s literal translation is a good one. Use vines dictionary or Greeks concordance to define words, from there. King James is alright, and so is NLT, or NKJV, Nasb, nasb1995,NIV, NET, ERV. If you wanna get down to more literal look for a literal translation.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Satan is on a spiritual battle against us.

When Satan comes after you to battle you better be 100% confident in the words of the version at hand.

You won’t have time to hesitate in consulting lexicons and different versions during his attack.

You better have your sword sharpened and ready. Be skillful with the best translation of our time!

THE KING JAMES BIBLE!!

“…take the… sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:” (Ephesians 6:17)

“…and he cast out the spirits with his word…” (Matthew 8:16)

 

[MatthewG]

Satan is on a spiritual battle against us.

When Satan comes after you to battle you better be 100% confident in the words of the version at hand.

You won’t have time to hesitate in consulting lexicons and different versions during his attack.

You better have your sword sharpened and ready. Be skillful with the best translation of our time!

THE KING JAMES BIBLE!!

“…take the… sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:” (Ephesians 6:17)

“…and he cast out the spirits with his word…” (Matthew 8:16)

It’s study and growth of the word that is needed. Not so much the version you use. People should always be confident in their faith, towards God, and realize that he is there able to commune with you, by and through supplications through prayer, he is able to be asked in order for us to gain help with the Holy Spirit, which helps us to endure through temptation that comes one’s way. God dwells inside believers who are his, which causes them in turn to love by the spirit.

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

It’s study and growth of the word that is needed.

Not at all.

We must know what the holy scriptures teach and retain that knowledge through repetition in reading.

 

[Grailhunter]

Falsehood.

Stay away from this wicked and adulterous generation’s modern versions.

They are corrupt by the modernistic way of thinking.

LOL

 

[MatthewG]

Study and growth of the word in context is beneficial to any person who desires to learn. Especially pertaining to the things of God, I would think. Without growth there is no maturing from a person who is a babe in Christ to a mature believer looked at as a son or daughter of God. Good mornings and good nights filled with taking time to read the Bible, perhaps with the New Testament first could be a candlestick which was needed to learn and grow seeing first hand what is there to witness. Some written notes along the way, to perhaps not forget what was read, and of course by willingness do it all over again. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Acts, and the Rest of the Letters. Looking at the contents and context, even if it’s hard for the flesh to do, is overall beneficial in learning. And growing one’s faith in a God who is near, who loves you and is always ready and willingly to help us by the spirit! Praise be.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Study and growth of the word in context is beneficial

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12)

 

[MatthewG]

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12)

But with the spirit, and God it’s possible. Many people tire out just because of old news of Jesus.

(Speaking rhetorically) to anyone.
God forbid! For you to read the whole thing, sounds exhausting! Especially the New Testament.

It is exhausting but greatly rewarding those who seek God in spirit and truth.

It definitely makes a temple empty reading those ancient words.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Based on what I have seen in many modern translations I would not use any of them as an authority.

And I started out in a modern translation when I first got saved.

The KJV was more effective as spiritual food the more I got serious about following the Lord.

Then you should use whatever version helps you the most. As for me, I was raised on RSV and when I tried to engage with others who used the KJV I had trouble with the old English.

I don't really see the big difference between KJV and modern versions unless a particular version over-simplifies the message to make it more comprehensible for those unable to tackle some of the more complex theological statements. Just making the Bible more readable in our language is not necessarily a dilution of what is being said.

Word for word translations can be as corrupting an influence as versions that try to be more "friendly" to the particular language with all of its nuances. Translation work is not as simple as transferring from one language to equivalent words, alphabets, and sentences in another language.

I could easily corrupt a colloquialism if I translated it word for word into another language. Or, it may not cover the meaning in a way that the reader will properly understand it.

But this is just translation work. When looking at the differences in the manuscripts, my understanding is that the differences are negligible when it comes to doctrine. If the various manuscripts are so similar I have to wonder why the argument at all?

 

[mailmandan]

Well you have tò check as they are changing the Word it appears in many Bibles.

The many changes made to the biblical text in the Clear Word Bible (not a translation but a paraphrase) printed by the Seventh-Day Adventists are ultimately destructive to the integrity of God's Word.

The Clear Word Bible: Is it the Word of God? | Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

www.watchman.org

 

[Michiah-Imla]

you should use whatever version helps you the most.

I use the only version that doesn’t add erroneous things to God’s holy word. One example (of many):

The scripture cited is from Malachi and Isaiah (prophets).

The KJV has the correct reading here:

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Mark 1:2-3, KJV)

The ESV (along with nearly all modern versions) has the incorrect reading:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”” (Mark 1:2-3, ESV)

 

[MatthewG]

Then you should use whatever version helps you the most. As for me, I was raised on RSV and when I tried to engage with others who used the KJV I had trouble with the old English.

I don't really see the big difference between KJV and modern versions unless a particular version over-simplifies the message to make it more comprehensible for those unable to tackle some of the more complex theological statements. Just making the Bible more readable in our language is not necessarily a dilution of what is being said.

Word for word translations can be as corrupting an influence as versions that try to be more "friendly" to the particular language with all of its nuances. Translation work is not as simple as transferring from one language to equivalent words, alphabets, and sentences in another language.

I could easily corrupt a colloquialism if I translated it word for word into another language. Or, it may not cover the meaning in a way that the reader will properly understand it.

But this is just translation work. When looking at the differences in the manuscripts, my understanding is that the differences are negligible when it comes to doctrine. If the various manuscripts are so similar I have to wonder why the argument at all?

People should use a Bible that they are gonna use for their reading. And for their studying if they want to. Overall if a person becomes a mean judgmental hateful person, then that Bible they should put away. The Bible is a spiritual guide to see where we are in our life with Yahavah.

Some people love to bicker over differences. Nothing new.