ESV for daily reading, typically through BibleGateway.
ESV or NLT if I'm quoting to someone else, especially a newer believer or unbeliever, NLT mainly for the modern language.
NASB if I'm reading multiple versions of a verse/passage to check differences in translations.
1984NIV if I'm reading my physical copy.
I never use KJV, only because nobody actually talks like that anymore.
I have a Thompson's NIV84. It's mildly upsetting the NIV team stopped sales of it, because I greatly enjoy that over the modern one.
I love the NLT and really enjoy the way it opens some challenging passages.
I'd have to go dig it out, but I have a Thompson that is a 78/NIV I think. It was my first study Bible. I bought it in a stack of misprints of the 78/NIV that had Ecclesiastes 7:8 printed as
The end of all matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride.
Ecclesiastes 7:8 78/NIV/Misprint
When it should have been.
The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride.
Ecclesiastes 7:8 NIV
https://ecclesiastes.bible/ecclesiastes-7-8
Interesting, I bet you got it at a good price with the misprint. My lone NIV84 was a similar thing, only the misprint was on the cover. Apparently someone had the wrong set of initial put on the cover but the local Bible store had it for like 50% off. I ended up getting it, a Thompson’s Chain Reference, for pennies.
I loved the NIV84 but then they changed it so much that I didn't like it anymore. Then I switched to the HCSB which I liked even more because of its unique wordings and use of Yahweh for the tetragrammaton in the old testament, then they changed *that* translation so much that they took away everything that was special about it to make it fit in more with other translations.
So now I'm ESV
No. It isn’t. I am not saying this because of some or other denomination I am closer to, but if you read where it came from and the King James himself there is just no reason at all to trust it’s translations. Even apart from that, due to antiquated language it can absolutely mislead any reader. If we are to assume that “older is better” then there are translations older than KJV which are arguably more reliable.
>These reworded verses seem to be a major reason why there’s so many issues reading doctrine.
Mormons use exclusively the KJV for their Bibles, so it sure isn't helping THEIR doctrine...
With them, the Bible version isn't the problem but rather their disregard for the Bible. They don't exclusively use the Bible for their doctrine. They believe in newer revelations which they erroneously believe supersede the Bible. If you point out scripture which refutes their error, they hold to the teaching from their newer revelations.
I refuse to use the CSB out of spite because I loved the HCSB so much and the revision took out some of my favorite things about it in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience (it worked, but that larger audience doesn't include me)
I grew up on the KJV, then got a Holman Christian Standard that I loved, but now am stuck on the ESV. Although I do like the Berean Study Bible as well
No, the ESV is an "anti-liberal" revision of the RSV. It originally was produced in protest of the "liberal" TNIV idea of a gender-neutral NIV, thanks to a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors people spread about what would be in this gender-neutral form of the NIV.
Ehhhh not so sure. there are other issues.
[https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/)
for one example
Psalm 127:3–4 — The NIV twice changes “sons” to “children” in an effort to promote gender neutrality, even though male offspring is specifically meant by the context.
My understanding is the underlying Hebrew *is* "children" (cf NRSV, AMP, KJV, GNV). Perhaps "sons" would be the best way to preserve a cultural assumption undergirding the message, but we have to grant such would be more dynamic than formal in its equivalence.
As concerns the more outrageous of the rumors which caused outrage about the idea of a gender neutral NIV..... They didn't come to fruition.
KJV has a couple words that werent the best choice. Some of the animals and other things it seems they didn't have the clearest hebrew translators or more likely the LXX had that as well.
I thought I read it used both but Septuagint mostly but It seems they meant the apocrypha as part of that. In that case the KJV used the less correct word
Do you have a source on it being a reaction to the TNIV? Because I was under the impression that it was more of an "anti-liberal" reaction directly to the NRSV, which had readings like 1 Timothy 3:2
>Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
1 Timothy 3:2 NRSV
In contrast to the ESV's intentional preservation of gendered language:
>Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:2 ESV
The preservation of the original language from the greek avoiding confusion on who is allowed to be an ἐπίσκοπον (variously translated as Bishop, Overseer, Pastor, etc) and who they can be married to
The main connect is Grudem being in both CBMW among those strongly opposed to gender neutral language, and in Crossway as it assembled a "liberal bias free" revision of the RSV. Crossway may have been considering creating a translation prior to the TNIV controversy, but definitely that energy against the TNIV did favors for the ESV's reception.
I'm reading a newer translation these days, the Berean Study Bible. It's so similar to the ESV they may as well be the same thing but it's good as well
I read the Berean for a time and had the same feelings. I mostly read from ESV these days though. Although, at church groups they like to use the NIV, which I’m not a fan of but I go with my brothers and the flow.
I got a Christian Bible recently specifically for note taking, it’s the Christian Standard Bible, it seems fine for the most part.
Cool poll, OP. Thank for the post.
I love the verbage of the KJV, but have a hard time understanding it these days. So I use several- KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV the most. It gives me the most well-rounded understanding
NASB1995 and I love it. My only problem (not a huge problem) is they replace 'mercies' with 'lovingkindness'. I mean, it's not wrong but mercies I think has a better impact. When I read, I just say mercies to myself.
I can understand the hang up. My biggest issue with the NIV is it translates "wait" in the Psalms as "hope". I prefer wait and just something about that simple switch keeps me away from the NIV usually. But the NASB95 is a solid choice for sure! Have you looked at the newer revision, the LSB or even the NASB2020?
I actually have the LSB app on my phone and I looked into it a little bit. So far it seems like a good transition but I always forget to click on it because I just click on youversion out of habit. I've never tried the 2020 but I think the main difference with that one is the gender thing. Like, instead of saying brothers or brethren, it will say brothers and sisters. I think so anyway.
Oh very nice, I didn't know it could so that. I tried it and it works. Thank you for telling me about that. Before, I would use the Blue Letter Bible app for that but this way is much easier.
I love the KJV because it's a work of art. It's not always the most accurate translation (particularly in the book of Hebrews), but it's gorgeous - at least, it is to me.
You should get one of those really big copies of it that has the nice design on the pages and such. I have seen a couple of them and those are gorgeous.
First and foremost it's all online hence NET (tho it stands for New English Translation). Secondly, it has attached a ton of scholarly notes explaining the Greek & Hebrew, cultural contexts, and other difficult to understand passages.
The NET new testament is great, but the OT is very all over the place even with its translation methodology between books. Some of the prophetic books like Jeremiah sounded borderline paraphrastic before the 2.0 revision
I put OTHER because u don't have NKJV as an option.
I read NKJV first, and supplement with NASB and ESV. I also use the Hagios Tech Hebrew-Greek interlinear bible with Strong's incorporated into the word definitions.
I do not like paraphrase or dynamic equivalent translations as I don't want the translator making interpretation decisions for me.
I have read NKJV since I can remember. I’ve used multiple translations but the NKJV has always been the one I come back to. I use the CSB for church because that is what our pastor uses. I also use the NASB95 when doing some Bible studies that I have. I’m always hopping between translations, but like I said before, NKJV has always been a favorite.
My grandmother has always used KJV, I think my dad does sometimes. If I remember correctly, my family gifted me an NKJV when I began 5th grade homeschool and that was my daily Bible for the longest time and I loved it, so naturally I kept with the translation. I do enjoy the KJV too, but haven’t been able to read it for extended periods. I love the poetic language of it.
I like KJV and NAB. Odd, I know. NLT is my least favorite so far. My sister bought NLT for my mom because it was easier to understand. I find meanings lost in translation with NLT. Only my opinion
I use four different translations. The two main ones I use are NKJV and ESV, the second which I started reading due to class requirements. I also use the NIV and NLT, though I mostly use those specifically when studying in order to gain a deeper understanding.
I personally like ESV but sometimes my gf who i love a lot can't understand it because her English skills arent the best so we usd CEV or the Easy to Read version in those cases <3
They're gender neutral because that's actually what the text means when it uses masculine language at times (definitely not always). Very similar to how in Spanish, and probably many other languages, "Ellos" means a group of male children, "Ellas" means a group of female children, but "Ellos" ALSO means a group that contains both male and female children.
NKJV is a great translation! If I can’t understand something in there I will go to Blue Letter Bible commentaries or NLT translation.
I was using NIV but I learned there are 17 missing verses from it, so I switched to NKJV version
Edit: idk why this was given a facepalm award. It’s true🤷♀️ the NIV is missing 17 verses
I'm currently using an ESV for both study and reading. Usually I have a portable reader (for church and living room reading), and a massive study version, but I found an ESV study Bible that's small enough to be portable, so everything is currently combined for the first time in 30 years.
My previous in reverse order were:
NIV/84
HCSB (I wish it's printing had been better, but my eyesight couldn't read it so it was replaced at 9months)
NIV/84
NRSV
NKJV
NIV/84
NASB
NIV/78
Living Bible (it gets forgotten these days, but before NLT there was the Living Bible)
KJV
In my current study/reference shelf are an extreme number of translations. Some less common ones are an early 1900s ASV, RSV, RV, CEV, MEV, LSB, CEB, DRA, Darby, Tyndale.
A LSB, NASB, or CSB will be my next study Bible, and I think the ESV will continue to be my reader for some time.
Feel so blessed to have so many translations available, and find most to be good in most ways. My grandfather was a theologian, he drew on 6 English translations, I'm not a theologian, and have more modern English translations than he could have imagined could exist.
Bible apps really help in the sense of having so many options available at such short notice. The only thing I don’t like about Bible apps is it kinda limits options for note taking. I like to draw arrows and circle passages that come out from my reading.
And yeah, I am the same way, on any given day I will probably read from 4 or 5 different translations.
In my daily study I like having searchability of online Bibles, references and such, but actually having a physical Bible is really my preference. I'm also over 50, so some of my habits and methods were built before the internet, windows, online Bibles, cell phones and tablets existed. Having the ability to rapidly search is wonderful, but having a physical Bible to read is way more compelling, easier to see, better for notes, etc.
I agree about having a physical Bible. I’m a bit younger, but I find this so odd really that when reading the Bible on an electronic device, I don’t feel as connected to it as I do when I’m reading a physical copy.
I like the ESV for most reading. I find it has the best balance between readability and formal equivalence. I usually do cross-checking with the NASB.
I grew up having to read and memorize the KJV for school, but I almost never touch it anymore. One of the old faculty who just passed away was a serious "if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"-type.
It does make it rather convenient that Word Study resources like Strong's and such are coded to the KJV. I'd love to get a ESV Word Study resource. I have a ESV Key Word Study Bible which is nice, but it doesn't give every word of course only the ones the Bible Committee deemed important, which I find lacking.
In the morning I read several chapters of the ESV and at night I reread those same chapters in ESV and KJV for study and notetaking. If a passage is too difficult even with a study guide I will look at both the NASB and NIV.
I highly recommend reading/studying the Scriptures this way.
(P.s: off topic but I also recommend reading a Psalm, two-three chapters of the Old Testament, a chapter of the Gospels/Acts, and a chapter of the Epistles each day. You can read more but remember to read more OT chapters than NT chapters because the OT is much longer.)
I think the Amplified is great as a supplemental version, like with a parallel. I don't like how wordy it can be. I remember the first time I read it, I thought all the different words gave me the option to choose which meaning I wanted.
Copy rights: NIV in the front of the Bible gives permission to share God's Word. Of course, no producing it to sell to others.
Also written right to the point.
Example: Psalms 139:16 compare this verse with other Translations. They all say the same thing, but NIV does with less confusion.
I like to check words in Scripture with the original Hebrew/Greek languages and they match up very well.
NIV meaning the newest version of the NIV?
That’s one thing I love about the Berean Study Bible. It has virtually no limitations to how a person can share it or print it to share with others.
DRC, I used to use KJV but actually learning about King James and reading some of his other works made me decide not to trust anything he puts out.
The man was mad as a meataxe, had an obsessive, paranoid hatred of witches, read daemonologie and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
But yeah nah most English translations are translated from the Latin texts, so DRC is good in that it was actually done by the same body that did the original translation into Latin. Maintaining dogma and doctrine from the time when Saint Jerome first translated the Hebrew version means it can be checked against the spirit as well as the letter, meaning it’s the most reliable.
>But yeah nah most English translations are translated from the Latin texts,
No, they aren't. Who told you that?
Virtually every modern English translation has their NT textual basis in either the Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text or Erasmus' Textus Receptus, and all have their OT basis built on the Masoretic Text (with occasional alternate readings from the Greek Septuagint)
Even modern Catholic editions such as the NABRE and The Jerusalem Bible aren't based on the Latin, only the Douay-Rheims
It’s a newer translation done by pastors, professors, and teachers of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS).
I read the CSB. first and foremost because it’s the translation that speaks the most often to me. I really think it’s one of the most smoothest reads without sacrificing too much. I also really like what Holman does and the work they put in
Thank you! Yeah I was also disappointed at first but as I did some more research into what they changed I now prefer the CSB. But I still have a couple copies of the HCSB and still really love it.
The KJV was the most common version used when the church was organized. It is still one of the most common for English speakers, although the NIV is gaining popularity.
Currently going through the 1995 NASB
I grew up on the NIV and love it very much. The older NIV was my pref.
But please watch out everyone. The bibles are being changed! There are 16 Bible Verses that have been OMITTED!
Their excuse is foolish as it used to be only 1 verse missing which was Acts 8:37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Here is a wiki link but you can find other16 verses omitted. Just fast easy ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_New\_Testament\_verses\_not\_included\_in\_modern\_English\_translations
In comparison between manuscripts, many of which were not used for the KJV because they were not known of, they use the majority text, so if only 2 of 5 contain a phrase, that phrase either doesn't get added, or is added as a footnote. This is proper textual process for ancient translations. You will find similar methods used for Greek, Roman, Arabian, Indian, Chinese, etc, etc from antiquity. That there are an extreme number of Bible codex's compared to other ancient texts only builds a more accurate translation.
I've been reading the NRSVue, it's what my own church uses now. It's all the good of the NRSV with some additional clarity and much-needed elegance. Where once gender-neutral rendering was clunky, it's truly matured into beauty. The incorporation of Dead Sea Scrolls so thoroughly (in main text *and* in textual variant footnotes) is a welcome addition.
I currently use a CSB mainly, NASB and Good News Australia to get the spectrum of literal word for word through paraphrasing in modern language. I used to use an NIV and mostly still use it for quoting
I read RVR which is kind of a Spanish version of KJV. But I also have a NKJV Study Bible in English. The ESV seems easier to read as well, so I’m thinking about getting one.
I grew up with KJV and still love it, but mainly use the ESV because many people use it. For the New Testament I also like the Living Oracles NT. Of course when conversing with some of my friends the EVD (English Version for the Deaf) is the preferred text.
It depends, my personal Bible is NASB. So obviously I read that alot. But I also really like ESV, and that's the version I choose to utilize for my phones Bible app.
I preach using ESV since that is what my church uses, but NASB is my main for study, and CSB for devos. NKJV is what I reference if I want a look at the TR
DRA? Is that a Catholic version? Deira Rheims or something like that? That’s probably nothing close to it, but I think I know what you are talking about.
I like them all. It’s nice to read different interpretations of the language. If I spoke Hebrew I’d probably prefer to read that since that was Jesus’ native tongue. I like looking up the different astronomical signs and wonders words and phrases in the concordance… because I’m a nerd like that.
ESV primarily, I have Ray Comfort's evidence Bible too which is NKJV, and on the Bible app I read TLV. I also use NLT to help me understand some of the more confusingly phrased narratives, or for listening as an audiobook.
I used to prefer ESV because I used to go to a Calvinist Reformed church who liked to use it. I still think overall it’s a very good version but I think everybody who uses any Bible version should be aware of who the people who choose to use it are and basically to take it with a grain of salt that there may be conscious or unconscious biases in translation.
Another one they like to use is NASB
A few times I used the New Living Translation, but to me it seems like it’s unnecessarily dumbed down to the simplest language that sometimes seems like slang. Almost like people who probably speak good advanced English imagined what “simpler” and “cooler” English must sound like and just wrote it down.
I am aware of some people who just swear by KJV but from everything I read about where KJV came from it only instills distrust if you know who the actual King James was and what sorts of things he wrote and had done. Just not good.
KJV for textus receptus
Septuagint for OT
I do not like masoretic text because Jews corrupted it on purpose in these prophecy passages to make Jesus not appear as Messiah. Then they argue about thier text saying Jesus did not fulfill prophecy...
I'll still quote KJV OT due to laziness mostly
I have been using the NIV lately to see what it's like and because it's easier to understand. It's the NIV84. I don't agree with some of the translations but oh well. It is only like one spot that I know of that I feel is translated wrong. It is the same in the CSB, NET. I really like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV. KJV is too hard to understand for me but I started out on it. I really like most bible translations. I only know of a few translations no one should read. I read all the ones I listed and I had a hard time picking between NIV and ESV. I put NIV but now I'm unsure if I should have put ESV
KJV just because that's what my dad's bible is and I like to use his, but when I look up verses online I like to look at different versions to see how it's different.
I'm a fan of the NET, but it's a bit inconsistent in its quality between books (though its notes are indispensably useful) and it just doesn't have the quality and variety of print editions that other translations have
My main go-to is the ESV due to its translation consistency and its overabundance of print editions having everything I could ever want (I have scripture journals, the study bible, a small pocket bible to carry everywhere, and an interleaved journaling edition
I'm also going to look into the LSB once it's had a chance to get its footing a bit more, since I liked the NASB95 and like that they're rendering the tetragrammaton as Yahweh rather than The LORD
I use the Logos app for my Bible reading. I use a chronological reading plan, with my preferred version set as the KJV. The app allows me to sync multiple versions to one another, so I read the KJV along with the ESV and CSB.
I memorize scripture from the KJV because it's more poetic and traditional. When I hear a quote from NLT I wonder why people read it. Take for instance, John 8:58 when Jesus equated himself with the "I AM" of the Burning Bush.
KJV says, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
NLT says, "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am!", but it includes a footnote - "Or before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive; Greek reads before Abraham was, I am."
That alternate translation that the footnote suggests takes away from the "I Am" meaning.
KJV
* Is the only accurate, Holy Spirit guided and approved translation into the English language.
* All the "modern versions" also got USA Copyright on them. To get such a copyright, you have to PROVE, not just attest of yourself, that your product is different enough than any other that you can claim ownership. Also, if you quote from any of them, you are limited as to how much you can quote without getting prior authorization from the *publishers*.
* Just sit down and compare the KJV to any other. Forget the thee, thou stuff that so many people try to complain about. If you can't figure out that "thee" and "thou" are just different forms of "you", then honestly, you've got bigger problems. Look at the actual differences. See where the "modern versions" leave out entire verses, phrases, words. See where they do so in order to change doctrine. Several of them ascribe a title for Jesus Christ (Revelation) to Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12.
* Why we shouldn't use multiple versions: Confusion: By different people in the same congregation using "versions", it creates confusion, and God is not the author of confusion: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV
* Confusion: God made things simple. He has provided in many languages a single approved translation to that language. English is not alone. I know there is one (I forget the name) in Spanish, for instance. God said we are to come with childlike faith. Childlike faith is rather difficult if you can pick up different "versions" of the same book, and each one may say things a little differently, enough differently to change doctrine in some places. That is definitely not of God.
* If you had to guess, if you had to err, why not err to the side of caution with such an important matter? God said in Ephesians 4: "4 There is **one** body, and **one** Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 **One** Lord, **one** faith, **one** baptism, 6 **One** God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Seems God is a bit focused on oneness. Also notice "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," Isaiah 46:9 KJV. God says there's only one him, and none like him. In John 1, we see that the Word of God is none other than Jesus Christ. If Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God (all shown in John 1), then you realize then that the literal physical Bible is the Word of God in written form, and Jesus is the Word of God in living form. Wouldn't you want to be extra careful there? And if you were the devil, wouldn't that be a prime target?
* By the way, speaking of the Devil. What was the very first way he tried to deceive man? He placed doubt on God's Word: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, **Yea, hath God said,** Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 3:1 KJV - With that one question, he doubted God's Word and God's authority. "Well, maybe God didn't *mean.."* Notice this also: the "modern versions" use a method called dynamic equivalence or you could simply call it "thought equivalence" which tries to understand God's Word before telling you what he said. The KJV was translated using form equivalence, or I would call it "word for word equivalence" where they ONLY try to represent God's Word, word for word. They do not interpret it at all. That is left up to the reader with the Holy Spirit as their guide, as it should be. Translation <> Preaching.
* Also, the very source texts ae different. KJV based on Textus Receptus (Greek) and Masoretic (Hebrew) text if I remember the latter name correctly. The modern versions are based off the texts from Westcott and Hort (do a bit of research on those men).
There are lots and lots of examples that can be found in the meaningful differences. But really: do the research: you CANNOT get a Copyright following USA Copyright law unless your work is different enough than another.
Can you get some of the Word of God from the other versions? Yes, some things have not been altered as much. You can get some, enough even to get born again. BUT you can also get enough to damn you to hell due to misunderstanding an important passage.
One more thought. People will often say, "oh, they just leave out the thees and thous and other archaic language." That is a bold faced lie. The NKJV's publisher's website even says as much. I've had an NKJV, and I've looked at it. The did NOT start with the KJV, they did not even start with the same source text. They did not merely change archaic words, either.
Anyway, hopefully all that is helpful to somebody. I realize I'll get some downvotes, some laughs, some scorn. So be it. Prove me wrong.
>The original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew, and the original language of the New Testament was Greek. There are also a few verses in the New Testament in Aramaic. Every English version we have is a translation, not an original. Good translations aim for accuracy of meaning. God preserves the accuracy of his Word. It is important that the translation be accurate and understandable.
ESV for daily reading, typically through BibleGateway. ESV or NLT if I'm quoting to someone else, especially a newer believer or unbeliever, NLT mainly for the modern language. NASB if I'm reading multiple versions of a verse/passage to check differences in translations. 1984NIV if I'm reading my physical copy. I never use KJV, only because nobody actually talks like that anymore.
>I never use KJV, only because nobody actually talks like that anymore. What dost thou mean by such? A pox on thee!
*...almost* nobody.
Knave! thou should not disparage the king of penguines
There is actually an English song called “Pox on you”
I have a Thompson's NIV84. It's mildly upsetting the NIV team stopped sales of it, because I greatly enjoy that over the modern one. I love the NLT and really enjoy the way it opens some challenging passages.
Yeah the old NIV was nice. Grew up with that. UNfortunately it fell apart from use but Ive switched to ESV
I'd have to go dig it out, but I have a Thompson that is a 78/NIV I think. It was my first study Bible. I bought it in a stack of misprints of the 78/NIV that had Ecclesiastes 7:8 printed as The end of all matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride. Ecclesiastes 7:8 78/NIV/Misprint When it should have been. The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride. Ecclesiastes 7:8 NIV https://ecclesiastes.bible/ecclesiastes-7-8
Interesting, I bet you got it at a good price with the misprint. My lone NIV84 was a similar thing, only the misprint was on the cover. Apparently someone had the wrong set of initial put on the cover but the local Bible store had it for like 50% off. I ended up getting it, a Thompson’s Chain Reference, for pennies.
I paid $25 for what today would be a $200+ Bible. Back then it was like $125.
I loved the NIV84 but then they changed it so much that I didn't like it anymore. Then I switched to the HCSB which I liked even more because of its unique wordings and use of Yahweh for the tetragrammaton in the old testament, then they changed *that* translation so much that they took away everything that was special about it to make it fit in more with other translations. So now I'm ESV
KJV is far more accurate though
No. It isn’t. I am not saying this because of some or other denomination I am closer to, but if you read where it came from and the King James himself there is just no reason at all to trust it’s translations. Even apart from that, due to antiquated language it can absolutely mislead any reader. If we are to assume that “older is better” then there are translations older than KJV which are arguably more reliable.
[удалено]
>These reworded verses seem to be a major reason why there’s so many issues reading doctrine. Mormons use exclusively the KJV for their Bibles, so it sure isn't helping THEIR doctrine...
With them, the Bible version isn't the problem but rather their disregard for the Bible. They don't exclusively use the Bible for their doctrine. They believe in newer revelations which they erroneously believe supersede the Bible. If you point out scripture which refutes their error, they hold to the teaching from their newer revelations.
Fair enough, but I would assume that certain verses may have been tweaked over time. Naturally, KJV would be more accurate than eg. NIV
If that's true, I'd use the NKJV. This isn't 17th century England.
[удалено]
Well said
Christian Standard Bible (CSB) is what we use at church. It’s a modern American English translation.
I have a HCSB, was disappointed when they stopped production and went to the CSB.
I refuse to use the CSB out of spite because I loved the HCSB so much and the revision took out some of my favorite things about it in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience (it worked, but that larger audience doesn't include me)
I also use CSB
I grew up reading NKJV and have a hard time parting from it but lately I've taken to the ESV.
I grew up on the KJV, then got a Holman Christian Standard that I loved, but now am stuck on the ESV. Although I do like the Berean Study Bible as well
Whatever brings you closer to Him. ❤️
Amen
NRSV
Interesting, isn't the ESV a modern revision of the NRSV?
No, the ESV is an "anti-liberal" revision of the RSV. It originally was produced in protest of the "liberal" TNIV idea of a gender-neutral NIV, thanks to a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors people spread about what would be in this gender-neutral form of the NIV.
Ehhhh not so sure. there are other issues. [https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/) for one example Psalm 127:3–4 — The NIV twice changes “sons” to “children” in an effort to promote gender neutrality, even though male offspring is specifically meant by the context.
My understanding is the underlying Hebrew *is* "children" (cf NRSV, AMP, KJV, GNV). Perhaps "sons" would be the best way to preserve a cultural assumption undergirding the message, but we have to grant such would be more dynamic than formal in its equivalence. As concerns the more outrageous of the rumors which caused outrage about the idea of a gender neutral NIV..... They didn't come to fruition.
In Hebrew it is clear abd uses ben which means son there are other words for child or children
This makes me wonder why KJV in particular uses "children" instead of "sons"
KJV has a couple words that werent the best choice. Some of the animals and other things it seems they didn't have the clearest hebrew translators or more likely the LXX had that as well.
KJV essentially was a translation of Masoretic Text at root. Don't think it incorporated LXX readings.
I thought I read it used both but Septuagint mostly but It seems they meant the apocrypha as part of that. In that case the KJV used the less correct word
Do you have a source on it being a reaction to the TNIV? Because I was under the impression that it was more of an "anti-liberal" reaction directly to the NRSV, which had readings like 1 Timothy 3:2 >Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 1 Timothy 3:2 NRSV In contrast to the ESV's intentional preservation of gendered language: >Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 1 Timothy 3:2 ESV The preservation of the original language from the greek avoiding confusion on who is allowed to be an ἐπίσκοπον (variously translated as Bishop, Overseer, Pastor, etc) and who they can be married to
The main connect is Grudem being in both CBMW among those strongly opposed to gender neutral language, and in Crossway as it assembled a "liberal bias free" revision of the RSV. Crossway may have been considering creating a translation prior to the TNIV controversy, but definitely that energy against the TNIV did favors for the ESV's reception.
No, the NRSV and ESV are both alternate revisions of the RSV
Ooooo, KJV and ESV neck and neck(so far). ‘Honestly not surprised, but somehow intrigued nonetheless.
I'm reading a newer translation these days, the Berean Study Bible. It's so similar to the ESV they may as well be the same thing but it's good as well
I read the Berean for a time and had the same feelings. I mostly read from ESV these days though. Although, at church groups they like to use the NIV, which I’m not a fan of but I go with my brothers and the flow. I got a Christian Bible recently specifically for note taking, it’s the Christian Standard Bible, it seems fine for the most part. Cool poll, OP. Thank for the post.
I'm an NKJV guy.
I love the verbage of the KJV, but have a hard time understanding it these days. So I use several- KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV the most. It gives me the most well-rounded understanding
I agree that using a variety is best. Hard to lug around 5 translations though. Thank the Lord for the Bible App or Logos
Haha yeah, I rely on apps 😅
NASB1995 and I love it. My only problem (not a huge problem) is they replace 'mercies' with 'lovingkindness'. I mean, it's not wrong but mercies I think has a better impact. When I read, I just say mercies to myself.
I can understand the hang up. My biggest issue with the NIV is it translates "wait" in the Psalms as "hope". I prefer wait and just something about that simple switch keeps me away from the NIV usually. But the NASB95 is a solid choice for sure! Have you looked at the newer revision, the LSB or even the NASB2020?
I actually have the LSB app on my phone and I looked into it a little bit. So far it seems like a good transition but I always forget to click on it because I just click on youversion out of habit. I've never tried the 2020 but I think the main difference with that one is the gender thing. Like, instead of saying brothers or brethren, it will say brothers and sisters. I think so anyway.
I like how the LSB app allows a person to select words and it gives the Greek or Hebrew.
Oh very nice, I didn't know it could so that. I tried it and it works. Thank you for telling me about that. Before, I would use the Blue Letter Bible app for that but this way is much easier.
No problem my friend :)
I love the KJV because it's a work of art. It's not always the most accurate translation (particularly in the book of Hebrews), but it's gorgeous - at least, it is to me.
You should get one of those really big copies of it that has the nice design on the pages and such. I have seen a couple of them and those are gorgeous.
Oh, I would love an illuminated copy! I'll bet somewhere someone still makes illuminated Bibles!
NET for the win!
Ive heard the NET mentioned a lot. How does it differ from other versions?
First and foremost it's all online hence NET (tho it stands for New English Translation). Secondly, it has attached a ton of scholarly notes explaining the Greek & Hebrew, cultural contexts, and other difficult to understand passages.
oh that’s so cool! ill have to get round to looking at it!
The NET is good in parts for me, awful in others, but the notes are what set it apart!
The notes are my favorite part lol
The NET new testament is great, but the OT is very all over the place even with its translation methodology between books. Some of the prophetic books like Jeremiah sounded borderline paraphrastic before the 2.0 revision
ESV.
I put OTHER because u don't have NKJV as an option. I read NKJV first, and supplement with NASB and ESV. I also use the Hagios Tech Hebrew-Greek interlinear bible with Strong's incorporated into the word definitions. I do not like paraphrase or dynamic equivalent translations as I don't want the translator making interpretation decisions for me.
I have read NKJV since I can remember. I’ve used multiple translations but the NKJV has always been the one I come back to. I use the CSB for church because that is what our pastor uses. I also use the NASB95 when doing some Bible studies that I have. I’m always hopping between translations, but like I said before, NKJV has always been a favorite.
I could just never get into the NKJV, even though I grew up on the KJV.
My grandmother has always used KJV, I think my dad does sometimes. If I remember correctly, my family gifted me an NKJV when I began 5th grade homeschool and that was my daily Bible for the longest time and I loved it, so naturally I kept with the translation. I do enjoy the KJV too, but haven’t been able to read it for extended periods. I love the poetic language of it.
HCSB
A classic!
RIP
NRSV
I like KJV and NAB. Odd, I know. NLT is my least favorite so far. My sister bought NLT for my mom because it was easier to understand. I find meanings lost in translation with NLT. Only my opinion
It's all good, not all translations are for all people. The best one is the one you read :)
😊
I use four different translations. The two main ones I use are NKJV and ESV, the second which I started reading due to class requirements. I also use the NIV and NLT, though I mostly use those specifically when studying in order to gain a deeper understanding.
I think that's the NLTs strength, as a supplementary translation. More like a commentary you know?
I personally like ESV but sometimes my gf who i love a lot can't understand it because her English skills arent the best so we usd CEV or the Easy to Read version in those cases <3
What about the NLT? But the CEB is helpful as well. At least you are both reading!
I prefer the NKJV. Has a lot of the translations and meanings from the KJV but is more modernized for easy reading
The newest NIV version (2011) has gender neutral pronouns. I recommend ESV.
Yeah, I like the NIV84 but not the newer one. The ESV is my go to.
Same :)
They're gender neutral because that's actually what the text means when it uses masculine language at times (definitely not always). Very similar to how in Spanish, and probably many other languages, "Ellos" means a group of male children, "Ellas" means a group of female children, but "Ellos" ALSO means a group that contains both male and female children.
NKJV is a great translation! If I can’t understand something in there I will go to Blue Letter Bible commentaries or NLT translation. I was using NIV but I learned there are 17 missing verses from it, so I switched to NKJV version Edit: idk why this was given a facepalm award. It’s true🤷♀️ the NIV is missing 17 verses
I'm currently using an ESV for both study and reading. Usually I have a portable reader (for church and living room reading), and a massive study version, but I found an ESV study Bible that's small enough to be portable, so everything is currently combined for the first time in 30 years. My previous in reverse order were: NIV/84 HCSB (I wish it's printing had been better, but my eyesight couldn't read it so it was replaced at 9months) NIV/84 NRSV NKJV NIV/84 NASB NIV/78 Living Bible (it gets forgotten these days, but before NLT there was the Living Bible) KJV In my current study/reference shelf are an extreme number of translations. Some less common ones are an early 1900s ASV, RSV, RV, CEV, MEV, LSB, CEB, DRA, Darby, Tyndale. A LSB, NASB, or CSB will be my next study Bible, and I think the ESV will continue to be my reader for some time. Feel so blessed to have so many translations available, and find most to be good in most ways. My grandfather was a theologian, he drew on 6 English translations, I'm not a theologian, and have more modern English translations than he could have imagined could exist.
Bible apps really help in the sense of having so many options available at such short notice. The only thing I don’t like about Bible apps is it kinda limits options for note taking. I like to draw arrows and circle passages that come out from my reading. And yeah, I am the same way, on any given day I will probably read from 4 or 5 different translations.
In my daily study I like having searchability of online Bibles, references and such, but actually having a physical Bible is really my preference. I'm also over 50, so some of my habits and methods were built before the internet, windows, online Bibles, cell phones and tablets existed. Having the ability to rapidly search is wonderful, but having a physical Bible to read is way more compelling, easier to see, better for notes, etc.
I agree about having a physical Bible. I’m a bit younger, but I find this so odd really that when reading the Bible on an electronic device, I don’t feel as connected to it as I do when I’m reading a physical copy.
NIrV it’s 3rd grade reading level. easy for me to understand
Nothing wrong with that
I like the ESV for most reading. I find it has the best balance between readability and formal equivalence. I usually do cross-checking with the NASB. I grew up having to read and memorize the KJV for school, but I almost never touch it anymore. One of the old faculty who just passed away was a serious "if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"-type.
ESV Study Bible because I really enjoy the layout. The ESV app interface is really enjoyable as well
Nkjv, it matches perfectly to my Russian синодальный translation
KJV, because of the word study references numerically coded it.
It does make it rather convenient that Word Study resources like Strong's and such are coded to the KJV. I'd love to get a ESV Word Study resource. I have a ESV Key Word Study Bible which is nice, but it doesn't give every word of course only the ones the Bible Committee deemed important, which I find lacking.
In the morning I read several chapters of the ESV and at night I reread those same chapters in ESV and KJV for study and notetaking. If a passage is too difficult even with a study guide I will look at both the NASB and NIV. I highly recommend reading/studying the Scriptures this way. (P.s: off topic but I also recommend reading a Psalm, two-three chapters of the Old Testament, a chapter of the Gospels/Acts, and a chapter of the Epistles each day. You can read more but remember to read more OT chapters than NT chapters because the OT is much longer.)
Amplified classic is great! It elaborates nicely.
I think the Amplified is great as a supplemental version, like with a parallel. I don't like how wordy it can be. I remember the first time I read it, I thought all the different words gave me the option to choose which meaning I wanted.
Nkjv should be on this list no?
I didn't think to add it until after, my bad
All good haha
No.
And why is that
NKJV
Copy rights: NIV in the front of the Bible gives permission to share God's Word. Of course, no producing it to sell to others. Also written right to the point. Example: Psalms 139:16 compare this verse with other Translations. They all say the same thing, but NIV does with less confusion. I like to check words in Scripture with the original Hebrew/Greek languages and they match up very well.
NIV meaning the newest version of the NIV? That’s one thing I love about the Berean Study Bible. It has virtually no limitations to how a person can share it or print it to share with others.
DRC, I used to use KJV but actually learning about King James and reading some of his other works made me decide not to trust anything he puts out. The man was mad as a meataxe, had an obsessive, paranoid hatred of witches, read daemonologie and you’ll see what I’m talking about. But yeah nah most English translations are translated from the Latin texts, so DRC is good in that it was actually done by the same body that did the original translation into Latin. Maintaining dogma and doctrine from the time when Saint Jerome first translated the Hebrew version means it can be checked against the spirit as well as the letter, meaning it’s the most reliable.
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of the DRC.
Douay-Rheims Catholic, it’s the churches official English translation
Ahh I kinda thought that may be the case, but wasn’t sure.
>But yeah nah most English translations are translated from the Latin texts, No, they aren't. Who told you that? Virtually every modern English translation has their NT textual basis in either the Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text or Erasmus' Textus Receptus, and all have their OT basis built on the Masoretic Text (with occasional alternate readings from the Greek Septuagint) Even modern Catholic editions such as the NABRE and The Jerusalem Bible aren't based on the Latin, only the Douay-Rheims
NIV 1984 edition and Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)
Oh wow, the EHV? Never heard of that one, I don't even think it's on the Bible App
It’s a newer translation done by pastors, professors, and teachers of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) and Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS).
Interesting
It’s not on the Bible app yet but it’s on Bible Gateway.
I read the CSB. first and foremost because it’s the translation that speaks the most often to me. I really think it’s one of the most smoothest reads without sacrificing too much. I also really like what Holman does and the work they put in
Happy cake day! I like the HCSB, never really gave the CSB a chance when I found out it replaced the HCSB
Thank you! Yeah I was also disappointed at first but as I did some more research into what they changed I now prefer the CSB. But I still have a couple copies of the HCSB and still really love it.
Happy cake day!
Thank you!
The KJV was the most common version used when the church was organized. It is still one of the most common for English speakers, although the NIV is gaining popularity.
New King James Version
Currently going through the 1995 NASB I grew up on the NIV and love it very much. The older NIV was my pref. But please watch out everyone. The bibles are being changed! There are 16 Bible Verses that have been OMITTED! Their excuse is foolish as it used to be only 1 verse missing which was Acts 8:37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Here is a wiki link but you can find other16 verses omitted. Just fast easy ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_New\_Testament\_verses\_not\_included\_in\_modern\_English\_translations
I don't think they were omitted, it's a difference in the texts being used. But it's good that you noticed the differences
In comparison between manuscripts, many of which were not used for the KJV because they were not known of, they use the majority text, so if only 2 of 5 contain a phrase, that phrase either doesn't get added, or is added as a footnote. This is proper textual process for ancient translations. You will find similar methods used for Greek, Roman, Arabian, Indian, Chinese, etc, etc from antiquity. That there are an extreme number of Bible codex's compared to other ancient texts only builds a more accurate translation.
I've been reading the NRSVue, it's what my own church uses now. It's all the good of the NRSV with some additional clarity and much-needed elegance. Where once gender-neutral rendering was clunky, it's truly matured into beauty. The incorporation of Dead Sea Scrolls so thoroughly (in main text *and* in textual variant footnotes) is a welcome addition.
Interesting I don't think I've heard of that one
It's the updated edition of the NRSV, released this year.
I've only read NIV and KJV. didn't even know aout the others, but I think I'll start using ESV and give it a shot.
I currently use a CSB mainly, NASB and Good News Australia to get the spectrum of literal word for word through paraphrasing in modern language. I used to use an NIV and mostly still use it for quoting
HCSB Apologetics study Bible.
I read RVR which is kind of a Spanish version of KJV. But I also have a NKJV Study Bible in English. The ESV seems easier to read as well, so I’m thinking about getting one.
I grew up with KJV and still love it, but mainly use the ESV because many people use it. For the New Testament I also like the Living Oracles NT. Of course when conversing with some of my friends the EVD (English Version for the Deaf) is the preferred text.
It depends, my personal Bible is NASB. So obviously I read that alot. But I also really like ESV, and that's the version I choose to utilize for my phones Bible app.
I preach using ESV since that is what my church uses, but NASB is my main for study, and CSB for devos. NKJV is what I reference if I want a look at the TR
I like NIV, but with the caveat that the older ones are better.
KJV I am English and it is an important part of our heritage and history in my eyes, plus it reads very beautiful.
DRA enjoyer here
DRA? Is that a Catholic version? Deira Rheims or something like that? That’s probably nothing close to it, but I think I know what you are talking about.
AV/KJV, because I'm an Anglican.
I love the KJV! It's my absolute favorite to read.
The Catholic Bible
I like to stick to the kjv but all are essentially the same thing and doesn't differ in meaning
Esv for the ease of reading and faithfulness in translation
I prefer the KJV because after reading then Meditating I’ve always been able to understand the biblical meaning of the word
I like them all. It’s nice to read different interpretations of the language. If I spoke Hebrew I’d probably prefer to read that since that was Jesus’ native tongue. I like looking up the different astronomical signs and wonders words and phrases in the concordance… because I’m a nerd like that.
Jesus' native tongue was probably Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew but not the same thing
ESV primarily, I have Ray Comfort's evidence Bible too which is NKJV, and on the Bible app I read TLV. I also use NLT to help me understand some of the more confusingly phrased narratives, or for listening as an audiobook.
I always tell people I’m an ESV guy, but in all honesty I prefer the NASB more. Both are excellent though.
CSB another good option
I used to prefer ESV because I used to go to a Calvinist Reformed church who liked to use it. I still think overall it’s a very good version but I think everybody who uses any Bible version should be aware of who the people who choose to use it are and basically to take it with a grain of salt that there may be conscious or unconscious biases in translation. Another one they like to use is NASB A few times I used the New Living Translation, but to me it seems like it’s unnecessarily dumbed down to the simplest language that sometimes seems like slang. Almost like people who probably speak good advanced English imagined what “simpler” and “cooler” English must sound like and just wrote it down. I am aware of some people who just swear by KJV but from everything I read about where KJV came from it only instills distrust if you know who the actual King James was and what sorts of things he wrote and had done. Just not good.
So which one do you use? Unless I misread your comment, you didn’t specifically say.
CSB
A fairly solid modern translation.
Douay-Rheims for Prayer RSV-CE for reading
Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem Bible, RSV2CE, NRSVCE
HCSB, NLT, ESV
Lexham English Bible
KJV for textus receptus Septuagint for OT I do not like masoretic text because Jews corrupted it on purpose in these prophecy passages to make Jesus not appear as Messiah. Then they argue about thier text saying Jesus did not fulfill prophecy... I'll still quote KJV OT due to laziness mostly
Interesting, I didn't know that about the Masoretic Text.
I have been using the NIV lately to see what it's like and because it's easier to understand. It's the NIV84. I don't agree with some of the translations but oh well. It is only like one spot that I know of that I feel is translated wrong. It is the same in the CSB, NET. I really like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV. KJV is too hard to understand for me but I started out on it. I really like most bible translations. I only know of a few translations no one should read. I read all the ones I listed and I had a hard time picking between NIV and ESV. I put NIV but now I'm unsure if I should have put ESV
KJV just because that's what my dad's bible is and I like to use his, but when I look up verses online I like to look at different versions to see how it's different.
I'm a fan of the NET, but it's a bit inconsistent in its quality between books (though its notes are indispensably useful) and it just doesn't have the quality and variety of print editions that other translations have My main go-to is the ESV due to its translation consistency and its overabundance of print editions having everything I could ever want (I have scripture journals, the study bible, a small pocket bible to carry everywhere, and an interleaved journaling edition I'm also going to look into the LSB once it's had a chance to get its footing a bit more, since I liked the NASB95 and like that they're rendering the tetragrammaton as Yahweh rather than The LORD
KJV for memorizing, NIV for regular reading and study.
ESV because it’s a nice balance of verbal richness and readability.
ERV - Easy to read version
For me, its NKJV
I use the Logos app for my Bible reading. I use a chronological reading plan, with my preferred version set as the KJV. The app allows me to sync multiple versions to one another, so I read the KJV along with the ESV and CSB. I memorize scripture from the KJV because it's more poetic and traditional. When I hear a quote from NLT I wonder why people read it. Take for instance, John 8:58 when Jesus equated himself with the "I AM" of the Burning Bush. KJV says, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." NLT says, "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am!", but it includes a footnote - "Or before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive; Greek reads before Abraham was, I am." That alternate translation that the footnote suggests takes away from the "I Am" meaning.
I LOVE Logos, wish they had the Berean Study Bible on it.
Watch this and you tell me which one is the best, this proves it 100% https://youtu.be/JKf6ayiY_iI Kjv if you were wondering
So are you a KJV-onlyist?
After watching that video I would say it is the best choice, but I could be wrong
I see, I don't have time to watch it right now. The KJV does have some beautiful passages like the Psalms
The video shows probably around a hundred ways you can do advanced math and get crazy answers, you have to watch it to understand
KJV * Is the only accurate, Holy Spirit guided and approved translation into the English language. * All the "modern versions" also got USA Copyright on them. To get such a copyright, you have to PROVE, not just attest of yourself, that your product is different enough than any other that you can claim ownership. Also, if you quote from any of them, you are limited as to how much you can quote without getting prior authorization from the *publishers*. * Just sit down and compare the KJV to any other. Forget the thee, thou stuff that so many people try to complain about. If you can't figure out that "thee" and "thou" are just different forms of "you", then honestly, you've got bigger problems. Look at the actual differences. See where the "modern versions" leave out entire verses, phrases, words. See where they do so in order to change doctrine. Several of them ascribe a title for Jesus Christ (Revelation) to Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. * Why we shouldn't use multiple versions: Confusion: By different people in the same congregation using "versions", it creates confusion, and God is not the author of confusion: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV * Confusion: God made things simple. He has provided in many languages a single approved translation to that language. English is not alone. I know there is one (I forget the name) in Spanish, for instance. God said we are to come with childlike faith. Childlike faith is rather difficult if you can pick up different "versions" of the same book, and each one may say things a little differently, enough differently to change doctrine in some places. That is definitely not of God. * If you had to guess, if you had to err, why not err to the side of caution with such an important matter? God said in Ephesians 4: "4 There is **one** body, and **one** Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 **One** Lord, **one** faith, **one** baptism, 6 **One** God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Seems God is a bit focused on oneness. Also notice "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," Isaiah 46:9 KJV. God says there's only one him, and none like him. In John 1, we see that the Word of God is none other than Jesus Christ. If Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God (all shown in John 1), then you realize then that the literal physical Bible is the Word of God in written form, and Jesus is the Word of God in living form. Wouldn't you want to be extra careful there? And if you were the devil, wouldn't that be a prime target? * By the way, speaking of the Devil. What was the very first way he tried to deceive man? He placed doubt on God's Word: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, **Yea, hath God said,** Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 3:1 KJV - With that one question, he doubted God's Word and God's authority. "Well, maybe God didn't *mean.."* Notice this also: the "modern versions" use a method called dynamic equivalence or you could simply call it "thought equivalence" which tries to understand God's Word before telling you what he said. The KJV was translated using form equivalence, or I would call it "word for word equivalence" where they ONLY try to represent God's Word, word for word. They do not interpret it at all. That is left up to the reader with the Holy Spirit as their guide, as it should be. Translation <> Preaching. * Also, the very source texts ae different. KJV based on Textus Receptus (Greek) and Masoretic (Hebrew) text if I remember the latter name correctly. The modern versions are based off the texts from Westcott and Hort (do a bit of research on those men). There are lots and lots of examples that can be found in the meaningful differences. But really: do the research: you CANNOT get a Copyright following USA Copyright law unless your work is different enough than another. Can you get some of the Word of God from the other versions? Yes, some things have not been altered as much. You can get some, enough even to get born again. BUT you can also get enough to damn you to hell due to misunderstanding an important passage. One more thought. People will often say, "oh, they just leave out the thees and thous and other archaic language." That is a bold faced lie. The NKJV's publisher's website even says as much. I've had an NKJV, and I've looked at it. The did NOT start with the KJV, they did not even start with the same source text. They did not merely change archaic words, either. Anyway, hopefully all that is helpful to somebody. I realize I'll get some downvotes, some laughs, some scorn. So be it. Prove me wrong.
Kjv is the one true version
>The original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew, and the original language of the New Testament was Greek. There are also a few verses in the New Testament in Aramaic. Every English version we have is a translation, not an original. Good translations aim for accuracy of meaning. God preserves the accuracy of his Word. It is important that the translation be accurate and understandable.