What Bible Translation are you using?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ccfromsc

Member
Jul 13, 2012
42
0
6
North Charleston, SC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
:D What Bible Translation are you using?

There many very good ones out there now.

The NIV, the NLT, NCV, NKJV, the Message, The Voice, my favorite HCSB, NET, God's Word, Then the ole ones like the KJV, Bishop's Bible, Geneva.

What you use, like?
 

DanielGarneau

Member
Apr 19, 2014
101
21
18
Quebec City, Province of Quebec, Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Hello,

I began reading the Bible In French, using the Louis Segond translation (1910 and 1979).
In English, I own a New International Version (2011), and in Spanish, a Nueva Versión Internacional (1999).
All three follow translation principles that make them very close to one another in their respective languages.
So to me, it is easier to read Spanish with the NVI, and English, in the NIV. I feel most at home in these than in any other French, English or Spanish translations.

Daniel Garneau
 

Hashe

New Member
Mar 1, 2014
65
4
0
I think the NRSV is the best english version. However it is not so easy to come across.
However, I think it is good to read many different versions to get a better idea of what the original was saying.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm flicking back and forth, at the moment, with the HCSB, NIV, ESV and KJV.

I'm probably reading the HCSB the most, and I am most comfortable with it. I like how the NIV is a little more polished in the English, but I also prefer the diction of the HCSB. It retains more traditional language like saint, propitiation, justification, etc. I just wish it were a little less choppy in the English at times.

Also keep a copy of the NRSV and RSV close. The NRSV is a solid version, minus a few agenda choices (ESV does the same, the other way).
 

RANDOR

Fishin Everyday
Apr 13, 2014
1,104
28
0
108
HEAVEN
Use to read a different translation every year...ya know that read the bible in a year thing :)

Still my sword is the NIV
 

Risen Angel

New Member
Jul 23, 2012
55
10
0
KJV. When the demons came, they just didn't respect the NIV. Ya know?

Compare Hebrews 4:12 in the two translations. How does 'powerful' change into 'active'? I am feeling powerful today; I think I will remove that mountain and throw it in the sea. On the other hand, I am feeling active today; maybe I'll mow the lawn.

Wanna really blow your mind? Compare 1 John 5:7-8 The Trinity is simply removed - VANISHED. And it's the only reference.

The translation war started a long time ago when the KJV was the standard. It had a monopoly on the market, so to speak. And then came RSV. The new and improved version of God's word. There were significant changes in the text. Obvious to a select few; and dangerous. Perhaps they had a flash of what would come next: the market was opened; and, in time - flooded. Then people just started writing their own, not even using a text to translate from. Just made up something new.

As yourself a question: what was wrong with God's word that it needed to be changed?

So, you're argument is that "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8) needed to be updated?

Then came the time where the people had never even heard of the KJV and were simply handed a book when they entered the church, or went to their bible studies. A book that wasn't even an acurrate copy of the original... it was a watered down picture book meant for children. A book mind you - NOT the Word. If my car starts in the morning, I don't pop the hood and rip out my battery, It's a ridiculous concept.

Yet, here we are.

This one revised standard version opened the doorway to the quiet, subtle, and slow destruction of a text that is meant to save us all. Once the text was no longer considered sacred in its orginal form, the translations cascaded. Each one different from the last and usually missing an essential part of the equation. It's interesting how humanity always thinks that the latest will be the greatest. People all rushing out to buy the iPhone.

I saw a commercial on the idiot box the other day. It's set with several youth walking through the city, an upbeat musical track playing in the background, as they discuss and project what the next advancement in cell phone technology will be. They are excited and curious, caught up in the fast pace of the coming world, full of possibilities. Maybe there will be a chip embedded in their hand, and they text with their palm. Maybe holographs will emerge from the screen, or holographic avatars will hover above it. And, finally they end with a girl saying, 'brain phones.' The other two youth ask, 'how would that work?' And she replies, 'hold on I'm on the other line.'

The stupidity of it all is that it's called telepathy and it's already been established a long time past. And the common have either forgotten it, dismissed it, rewrote it, abolished it, or don't even know it exists. So it's being sold to you as something new, called: 'brain phones.' Except this time they are going to market you a device to do it. A fix for a problem that doesn't exist.

A patch for software that still functions.

There have been translations for as long as there has been language. But be warned - I've always maintained that the easiest way to destroy a people is by never allowing them to know they are under attack. I am not writing this document to call you down, or hit you over your head with something. I'm sharing the information because I've found it to be pivitol in my own life. The KJV was not the first version I read, but it is the one I read today. From it come the words I scream at demons in the night; words I would have never learned by reading another book.

I never cared about this before, but when the world got dark and God sent a messenger, she gave me an NT. I read and slept with that text until it fell apart in my hands, binding broken and pages scattered on the ground. The words contained beneath the cover opened a world to me that I had never know before; the word lived. I refused to read any other version; I blatantly called all other copies useless, even the KJV.

And then my mom sat me down with a stern look, and poured some tea. She pulled out her bible and made me compare verse to verse, trying to break me free: and that's when I realized I had been reading the KJV all along.

That page was missing from mine. When God decided to open my eyes he gave a text I couldn't judge based on where it came from or who translated it. It was a blind study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregg

ccfromsc

Member
Jul 13, 2012
42
0
6
North Charleston, SC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Risen Angel.... I take it you are a KJV ONLY type am I correct? :huh:

The Bible also calls for "study to show thyself approved." 1 John 5:7 is known as the comma johanneum and is not new in that debate. For Example the KJV has had revisions in it from time to time. A guy named Erasmus had that phrase in some Latin Vulgate copies of his. No other manuscripts had it. When Erasmus helped witht the Catholic bible, the Douay Rhiems, they would not allow the phrase cause it was not in any older manuscripts. Yet Erasmus snuck it in on the KJV and at first not in the main text, just the margin notes. Now the part you are talkiing about was not ALWAYS in the KJV. It was added later and taken out of the "margin notes" that was in the KJV for so long. Things were added and things taken out of the KJV. Primary the Apocrypha was IN the KJV! Did you know that?

Also of note the KJV was not the bible the Puritans, etc. brought over with them to the colonies, they in fact detested the KJV. They had the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible... the other "Authorized" bible by an English king.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I use the KJV.

Sorry folks, but I gotta give my rant here. I only use the KJV, and I have my reasons. I won't give them because it's not important to my points I'm about to make. There are only a few Bibles that I've come accross that I'd dare even say, "What are you thinking?" In other words, I don't care what version you use.

What I don't like is when people switch which version they use when they don't like a particular verse. I've seen it often. I'll give you the most notable verse as an example: Isaiah 45:7. This verse says that God creates evil (KJV and the ASV). PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I do not want to debate at this point and in this thread if God is responsible for creating evil. My point is that it is wrong to run away from the KJV to another version on this verse or any other verse you don't like.

Essentially what you are doing is taking one verse from this Bible, another from that Bible, and going to a 3rd, 4th or maybe back to the first version for another verse. Why? Based on YOUR beliefs!

Being humble to God's Word is something everyone claims they do. It's pretty easy when you pick up a version of the Bible and look up a verse and you agree with it. But it really only counts when you read a verse and DON'T like it, but you change your thinking to line up with what God thinks. If you switch Bibles based on what a particular verse says and the way it words it, are you humbling yourself to what God said?

I see a lot of folks listing several versions of the Bible that they use. I know "their story". I know they don't switch Bibles based on their feelings. I know they are just consulting other versions to get a deeper understanding. I'm ok with that.... IF that is really what their doing. I do it too from time to time. AND from one of the worst translations: Strongs! Yea.... I go to Strongs and look up words in a passage, and many other people who use the KJV do as well... But I don't retranslate the word after that. Some people do and to their liking. But if you are one who just does it to "get a deeper understanding", fine. God bless you if you are telling the truth.

So let me say again my peeve. I'm against people switching versions of the Bible in order to make the Bible line up with their beliefs instead of the person lining up with God's beliefs. I don't care if you use the KJV or NIV or any other Bible. Just be 100% consistent. Make your stance on the Word, don't make the Word line up with you! If you do that, you might as well start your own translation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregg

DanielGarneau

Member
Apr 19, 2014
101
21
18
Quebec City, Province of Quebec, Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Hello FHII,

The first Bible I ever read was the French language Louis Segond 1910. It is a very good translation, but some of the words used in it are no longer the words one would normally use to convey the same ideas. Then came a Louis Segond update they called "la nouvelle édition de Genève" (NEG, 1979). I used it for a number of years, and still do, having purchased a French translation of the Mac Arthur commentaries paired to that edition of the 1979 NEG Bible. It is convenient to me for several reasons : one, the structure of the Bible text that is locked in my heart and brain comes from that translation; second, a complete concordance can be purchased for that translation of the Bible, which was not the case with the Segond 1910.

From about 2008 to 2010 I spent a lot of time reading this new study Bible with the MacArthur commentaries, and I still do... Currently reading through Romans along with the MacArthur commentaries. It is like having a Bible teacher helping me to see aspects of the Bible I have not seen before or have not recalled in many a year.

Now, around 2011, I came in contact with a yet more recent update of the old Louis Segond, called Segond 21. They shortened the sentences and made several ajustments to make it easier to undersand for someone of high school level. But I suppose it is also a bit like moving from NIV 1984 to NIV 2011, where some changes are not necessarily always for the better.

Also around 2011, I found a French study Bible and translation that really amazed me, and which turned out to be the Bible I have been reading the most from for a certain amount of time: La Bible du Semeur version étude. The Bible text is translated in such a way that it is as if someone was preaching to me at the same time as I read the Bible text itself without even looking at the comments. Its effect on me is kind of a mix between the HCSB which always seems to be so clear and easy to understand, and The MESSAGE which wakes me up when I am just passing by a text I am so familiar with that I don't get its main point any more.

The study notes of my Bible du Semeur are interesting because they provide answers for Christians who need to interact with those who approach the Bible from a critical perspective, not considering Moses to be the author of Pentateuch, for example or theorizing that prophets like Daniel could not have written before the events they prophesied. I did not know such a study Bible existed, and so I found it very helpful in defending the view that the Bible is truly the Word of God as does MacArthur in his study Bible, but MacArthur is talking more to Christians who already hold to these views, whereas la Bible du Semeur spells out the same teaching but for people who might have been exposed to secular university teachings.

My posting at the beginning of this topic only mentionned my interest in Spanish Nueva Versión Internacional, English New International Version and French Louis Segond, because they are so similar in their theological choices and linguistic choices that they can be very helpful for someone knowing one of these three languages to pick up the other two reading those translations of the Bible. At least this was true for me when learning Spanish. The Nueva Versión Internacional was a great help to pick up the language faster than I could have otherswise. All of that being true, I also love reading the Bible in other translations. And as a matter of fact, I greatly enjoy reading the default HCSB text of the verses quoted within the posts found at www.christianityboard.com.

May we all apply Colossians 3:16 to our daily life and thought,
Daniel Garneau
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
One simple test I use to determine a valid bible translation is Exodus 16:12. If the word "twilight" is in this verse, then I reject the translation. In order to do serious and critical study I need a translation that is as pure and unbiased as possible. If the word twilight is present that means the translator(s) has interpreted the verse for me. The worst possible scholarly offense a translator can make is to become an interpreter. It destroys his credibility as an unbiased translator. I know that some translations do not strive for a pure translation, and usually they will tell you in the preface or introduction that which they hoped to accomplish with their brand of translation. These bibles are of little use to me for detailed research.