What bible translation do you read and why?

CPerkins

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
God admonishes each of us:

1 Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV)

If you have proven to your satisfaction that the Bible you use is the Word of God, then the words of others regardless of source are just noise. We must come to trust that God acts in us, leads us, guides to the truth. That requires time in study listening to God, talking with God in prayer and allowing God to lead you to the truth.

Personally, I'm comfortable with the Bible I use for study and reading. God desires each of us individually to prove these things and then to trust God.
 
Hi Shepherd Boy

At first I did not have a preference, (I read what was understandable to me) until someone told me that many bible translations have missing bible verses. The person also told me that the KJV bible is the only complete bible and the other bibles have missing words, and verses.

I was shocked and decided to investigate different bibles and found that there are missing bible verses in other bibles.

Let us look at Mark 11:26

  • Verse 26 is missing in the Good News Bible
View attachment 5970
  • It is also missing in the NIV
View attachment 5971
  • It is also missing in the ESV
View attachment 5972
  • However, it exists in the KJV
View attachment 5973
I do not know the total number of bible verses that are missing in other bibles. I know for example that the following bible verses are missing in the NIV:
  • Luke 17:36
  • Mark 9:44
  • Mark 11:26
  • Matthew 23:14
  • Mark 15:28
So since then I have been using the KJV. I have only investigated the NIV, Good News and ESV. I do not know if there are other bibles which are complete like the KJV. It will be great if there is someone in the forum that knows.
Do not buy into the KJVO myth, as what is "missing" are those words probably not found int he Originals themselves!
 
The problem is that people compare other Bibles to the KJV as if the KJV were what the men who wrote each and every book and letter in it themselves and itself was around since Moses. It wasn't.

Newer source material has been found showing that some of what was put into the KJV wasn't in the original writings. So newer Bibles omitted them or put them into footnotes as they should. It wasn't done for some nefarious purpose. It also doesn't mean that the KJV is complete because others don't have what the KJV does.

The KJV is a fine Bible, but it is a translation just like the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and NKJV.

If you notice, those who read other translations than the KJV generally have no issues with those who only read the KJV, but many who only read the KJV have an issue with those who read other translations. Who do you suppose is behind that strife?
You and I are on same thought process here, as common KJVO myth is used to hype"see modern bibles water down bible"
 
What people don't really get is there aren't originals just many copies of the first language versions, then translations of translations.
Because there are many copies, some had missed things out that others had.

As you do. It can be like chinese whispers if you aren't careful. The main manuscripts were the Alexandrian ones and the Byzantian ones.

The Byzantian ones are fuller, whereas it seems like the Alexandrian ones only had maybe 90% of scripture. It turns out that the textus receptus, which the KJV follows as a translation, uses the Byzantian manuscripts and the modern Bibles tend to use the Alexandrian ones. Of course they are going to be a bit different.

Its not that the KJV itself as a translation is anything special, other than it's in English. But it used the fuller scripture. It didn't translate from the Latin vulgate, or use the Septugint which was the greek translation of the Hebrew. It went back to the Hebrew for the Old Testament. But since the Greek New Testament (was never in Hebrew) did follow the Septugint (Hebrew translated to Greek) you'll find some differences there.
 
The problem is that people compare other Bibles to the KJV as if the KJV were what the men who wrote each and every book and letter in it themselves and itself was around since Moses. It wasn't.

Newer source material has been found showing that some of what was put into the KJV wasn't in the original writings. So newer Bibles omitted them or put them into footnotes as they should. It wasn't done for some nefarious purpose. It also doesn't mean that the KJV is complete because others don't have what the KJV does.

The KJV is a fine Bible, but it is a translation just like the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and NKJV.

If you notice, those who read other translations than the KJV generally have no issues with those who only read the KJV, but many who only read the KJV have an issue with those who read other translations. Who do you suppose is behind that strife?
Hi Naomanos

You raise interesting points

However, how do people know which parts included in the KJV were not included in the original writings?

The other issue is that the new bible versions have more bible verses or words omitted than others. Also there are differences in the wording in the newer bible versions and therefore the newer versions that do not agree to each. Look at the following examples.

Example 1: 1 Samuel 13:1 is removed in the GNT, but exists in the NIV.

1 Samuel 13.1 NIV.PNG
1 Samuel 13.1 GNT.PNG

Example 2: If you compare the NIV, GNL and NLT in 2 Samuel 23:5, they are not entirely saying the same thing.

2 Samuel 23.5 GNT.PNG
2 Samuel 23.5 NIV.PNG
2 Samuel 23.5 NLT.PNG

You have stated that some of the verses in the KJV were not in the original writings. Based on the examples shown above there are discrepancies in the new bible versions when you compare them to each other.

Therefore which new bible translation is based on the original writings. Is it NIV, ESV or GNT or another new version?
 
Hi Naomanos

You raise interesting points

However, how do people know which parts included in the KJV were not included in the original writings?

The other issue is that the new bible versions have more bible verses or words omitted than others. Also there are differences in the wording in the newer bible versions and therefore the newer versions that do not agree to each. Look at the following examples.

Example 1: 1 Samuel 13:1 is removed in the GNT, but exists in the NIV.

View attachment 5986
View attachment 5987

Example 2: If you compare the NIV, GNL and NLT in 2 Samuel 23:5, they are not entirely saying the same thing.

View attachment 5988
View attachment 5989
View attachment 5990

You have stated that some of the verses in the KJV were not in the original writings. Based on the examples shown above there are discrepancies in the new bible versions when you compare them to each other.

Therefore which new bible translation is based on the original writings. Is it NIV, ESV or GNT or another new version?
NO translation will be error/mistake free, and you should compare formal ones, such as Nas/Nkjv.Esv, and not to Nlt.Niv, dynamic ones!
 
I think we try to do the best we can with what we have.
The Dead sea scrolls were well preserved, but the New testament, which was mostly Paul's letters, would have been copied and copied and copied over and over again. Because it was also sent round all the churches (as it was letters or epistles meant to be read by everyone in those churches) Funnily enough we don't get any of the written replies to those letters Paul may have received back. So if looking at errors you're most likely looking at hand copied manuscript errors since they did not have printing presses, photocopiers or typewriters back then. People were the word processors, not machines.

KJV is based on the Masoretic text, which is Hebrew OT not the Septugint OT translation which was Greek, even though it was widely used at the time of Jesus and was a faithful translation. I think more care was taken over the OT than the NT because the NT had to get out to people quickly and be read, as it was the gospel, while the OT was more record of history over time with people looking back on events as well as prophecy on future events.

I really get the feeling of immediacy when I read the gospel, and the letters even though it took place over 2000 years ago. When I read the OT, because its written for the Israelites rather than just all believers, I don't get that.
In the NT the YOU is personal and is addressed for all of us, even now when we weren't the original audience of those letters. They were written so WE may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and by believing we will have life in His name.

The OT doesn't have this. Moses mostly writes in the third person. The faithful are always THEM(the chosen ones, the Israelites) and all the ways they triumphed or fell short. The Prophets were mostly raging that nobody bothers listening to them!
 
What people don't really get is there aren't originals just many copies of the first language versions, then translations of translations.
Because there are many copies, some had missed things out that others had.

As you do. It can be like chinese whispers if you aren't careful. The main manuscripts were the Alexandrian ones and the Byzantian ones.

The Byzantian ones are fuller, whereas it seems like the Alexandrian ones only had maybe 90% of scripture. It turns out that the textus receptus, which the KJV follows as a translation, uses the Byzantian manuscripts and the modern Bibles tend to use the Alexandrian ones. Of course they are going to be a bit different.

Its not that the KJV itself as a translation is anything special, other than it's in English. But it used the fuller scripture. It didn't translate from the Latin vulgate, or use the Septugint which was the greek translation of the Hebrew. It went back to the Hebrew for the Old Testament. But since the Greek New Testament (was never in Hebrew) did follow the Septugint (Hebrew translated to Greek) you'll find some differences there.
You are correct.

Since we no longer have any original manuscript, Bible scholars have to compare later transcriptions and translations to determine what the most likely original reading was. This school of study is called 'textual criticism'. This has led to most translations being based primarily on either Byzantium manuscripts or Alexandrian texts.

It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, due to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language.

That being said, it actually means that there is no 'perfect' translation. My suggestion then would be to find several good translations that have different strengths. Word-for-word often make great study Bibles. And thought-for-thought often make great devotional Bibles.

Personally I was raised and taught in the KJV of the Bible and as I have grown older I have moved to the ESV, but really the New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible.
 
Hello Behold;
Yes, and with the help of the publishers. I suggest you stick with the Bible God has led you to learn and grow, daily. I also suggest you allow others who may be reading a translation you don't agree with to respect their decision and pray for them. I personally had seasoned disciples encourage me to stay away from the Amplified. Like yourself, they had their reasons but they prayed for my study and well being and this was over 30 years ago. Today I'm enjoying the ESV and use other translations as a cross reference which has been very beneficial in the ministry.
God bless you, Behold, and your whole family.



Hello naomanos;

I encourage you to receive the opinion of others, but you made the right choice to seek what God says about the translation you are studying. On a good note, churches worldwide are using the NIV as their chosen pew Bible as well as the KJV, NJB, RSV, etc...
What truly matters is your growing in the Word so when you apply the Gospel you are equipped and prepared to give an answer regarding the Christ.

God bless you, naomanos, and your wonderful children.
One problem I've observed about single-issue Christian believers who display a singularly focused polemic point of view, whether it's KJV-onlyism, baptismal regeneration, or tongues, they generally fail in the area of growing in grace because they are more focused on proving to others the rightness of their point of view than they are with personal Christian growth.
 
One problem I've observed about single-issue Christian believers who display a singularly focused polemic point of view, whether it's KJV-onlyism, baptismal regeneration, or tongues, they generally fail in the area of growing in grace because they are more focused on proving to others the rightness of their point of view than they are with personal Christian growth.
Just say well your point of view is absolutely right for YOU. And then smile.

It's like when Peter was nagging Jesus about what John was doing. Jesus was like it doesn't matter what John is doing, he's on the misson I sent him on, the important thing is that YOU follow ME.

People that are busybodies in other peoples matters are truly annoying.
 
You are correct.

Since we no longer have any original manuscript, Bible scholars have to compare later transcriptions and translations to determine what the most likely original reading was. This school of study is called 'textual criticism'. This has led to most translations being based primarily on either Byzantium manuscripts or Alexandrian texts.

It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, due to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language.

That being said, it actually means that there is no 'perfect' translation. My suggestion then would be to find several good translations that have different strengths. Word-for-word often make great study Bibles. And thought-for-thought often make great devotional Bibles.

Personally I was raised and taught in the KJV of the Bible and as I have grown older I have moved to the ESV, but really the New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible.
the Nas does its best to bring over the aspect even of the Greek verb tense! The 2020 update seems to be more dynamic though, reads like Csb, not bad, but prefer 1977 and 1995, and frelly looking to the complete Lsb!
 

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
You are correct.

Since we no longer have any original manuscript, Bible scholars have to compare later transcriptions and translations to determine what the most likely original reading was. This school of study is called 'textual criticism'. This has led to most translations being based primarily on either Byzantium manuscripts or Alexandrian texts.

It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, due to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language.

That being said, it actually means that there is no 'perfect' translation. My suggestion then would be to find several good translations that have different strengths. Word-for-word often make great study Bibles. And thought-for-thought often make great devotional Bibles.

Personally I was raised and taught in the KJV of the Bible and as I have grown older I have moved to the ESV, but really the New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible.

the Nas does its best to bring over the aspect even of the Greek verb tense! The 2020 update seems to be more dynamic though, reads like Csb, not bad, but prefer 1977 and 1995, and frelly looking to the complete Lsb!

Thanks for sharing, brothers. When we can open up our discussions of the translations, then there is a benefit to learning.

I'm curious. Does anyone have an idea of how many translations all of us have in our personal libraries?
 

CPerkins

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Thanks for sharing, brothers. When we can open up our discussions of the translations, then there is a benefit to learning.

I'm curious. Does anyone have an idea of how many translations all of us have in our personal libraries?

Not sure how many, most I rarely open. It is over 50 though. The translations that I like to read and study from I have in standard book form mostly. Many others are in my digital library. Some are just earlier editions of the same translation.
 

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Is the Koran as lousy reading as I heard?

Hello YeshuaFan;

Avid reading of the Bible includes indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I have the Quran (translated by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.) So when I read it, it was enough to fill me with a discernment.

In the Heifer 2:111, They declare, None shall ever enter Heaven unless he be a Jew or a Christian. This is their own wishful thinking. Prophet say, Produce your evidence if you are telling the truth.

In the Heifer 2:113, The Jews say, The Christians have no ground to stand on, and the Christians say, The Jews have no ground to stand on. Yet they both recite the Book, and those who have no knowledge say the same; God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their disputes.

In the Heifer 2:120, Neither the Christians nor the Jews will be pleased with you until you follow their ways. God's guidance is the only true guidance.

In Women 4:34b, As for those from whom you apprehend infidelity, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them lightly. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.


Whoever wrote this book did not go to the cross for me.


 
Hello YeshuaFan;

Avid reading of the Bible includes indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I have the Quran (translated by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.) So when I read it, it was enough to fill me with a discernment.

In the Heifer 2:111, They declare, None shall ever enter Heaven unless he be a Jew or a Christian. This is their own wishful thinking. Prophet say, Produce your evidence if you are telling the truth.

In the Heifer 2:113, The Jews say, The Christians have no ground to stand on, and the Christians say, The Jews have no ground to stand on. Yet they both recite the Book, and those who have no knowledge say the same; God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their disputes.

In the Heifer 2:120, Neither the Christians nor the Jews will be pleased with you until you follow their ways. God's guidance is the only true guidance.

In Women 4:34b, As for those from whom you apprehend infidelity, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them lightly. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.


Whoever wrote this book did not go to the cross for me.



Allow me to add a few more to your list............

Surah 27:63-
This is what Allah says… ‘Now go and strike the Infidel and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Surah 34:12-
Happy is he who repays the infidel for what they have done to us – he who seizes their infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

Surah 135:27-
So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

Surah 21:7-8-
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.

There is something very fundamentally missing in those who accept and follow the Quran. My 1st thought is "Common Sense"!
 
Top