Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am still studying that rather lengthy and detailed link...no solid "cast in concrete" opinion on my part yet. However, I have always liked the KJV. If forced to choose just one, it would be the KJV. (I've got at least 12 Bibles, in at least 6 different versions sitting on the shelf right now...)
The Tynsdale bible (first english translation) was used to keep the KJV accurate.
The KJV is clearly the best english language version and most inspired.
I actually use the NASB for the simple reason the "inserted" words are in italics, and it's translation is by far the best word for word translation available. And even when it makes more sense to insert words to help the meanings, sometimes they should have just left the words out and let us be the reader, with the Spirit as a Guide, with no interference.
Here is a verse that seemly looks normal, but remove the words in the wrap.
2Th 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the falling away comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
The Concordant Literal Version is simply the most accurate translation I've ever seen. But, it's not very readable. I will use it for studying and comparing.
I use the Nestles-Aland text for the Greek text because it is the best text available, based on the evidence at hand. (Although I take issue with their take on John 3:5, but that's a protracted and drawn out argument.)
I use the KJV for preaching because a) It's the one I'm most familiar with b) I think that a common translation is important for group study and it's the version that most people have and c) it's a very good translation, especially if you keep in mind the English words that have changed meanings over the years and remember that the words in italics are the ones that the translators knowingly added.
The Concordant Literal Version is simply the most accurate translation I've ever seen. But, it's not very readable. I will use it for studying and comparing.
I use the Nestles-Aland text for the Greek text because it is the best text available, based on the evidence at hand. (Although I take issue with their take on John 3:5, but that's a protracted and drawn out argument.)
I use the KJV for preaching because a) It's the one I'm most familiar with b) I think that a common translation is important for group study and it's the version that most people have and c) it's a very good translation, especially if you keep in mind the English words that have changed meanings over the years and remember that the words in italics are the ones that the translators knowingly added.
Quote:
The Concordant Literal Version is simply the most accurate translation I've ever seen. But, it's not very readable. I will use it for studying and comparing.
I use this as well. But you are right, it is hard sometimes to understand.
Here is a link if anyone chooses to read along as well.
The Concordant Literal New Testament - HTML format (http://www.concordant.org/version/html.html - broken link)
Well I won't debate about the "Authorized King James Version", and I do like what William Tyndale did as far as research and translation. Especially in the area of dumping a lot of wrong Latin terms from the text. He's also the one who gave us the pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton of YHWH using the Latin vowel sounds to give us our Enlglish pronounciation. This apparently is where the original (AKJV) use of the name in their rendering. Sadly the modern translations have taken it out because of wanting to promote Trinity, but the possitive is they have dumped most of the older archaic english so that the reader can understand what they are reading.
Here's a couple of websites I've run across recently in doing some Googling on the Net. The first is an online site for comparing various translations.
The next website I stumbled across while actually looking up info on the Tetragrammaton and William Tyndale himself. I was curious why modern day translations have taken the name out completely, especially since the oldest bible manuscripts & bibles found contain the name around 7000 times in the reading. This organization seems to be a Bible resource collection society.
Thank you Bud for posting this article/study. I will just tell you my experience with choosing which Bible version to use.
When I first started seeking and following the Lord I so earnestly wanted to know what He wanted me doing and reading. I was then using the NIV and was not getting anything out of it. I started seeking the Lord on which version He wanted me using and I know without a doubt that He led me to the KJV. I began to grow in so many ways and then understood that I was to read the Bible with the Holy Spirits guiding and not with my own understanding.
I had visited a new church once and the pastor was using atleast 4 different versions in his sermon, while I was using the KJV. I had never been so confused regarding reading the Bible. What he said was not lining up with what my Bible said. Should I have said, wait pastor let me dig out my 4 other Bible versions so we are all on the same page? Does that not seem ridiculous?
I know who the author of confusion is and I see in people who use many different versions a lot of, CONFUSION!
I will stick with what the Lord led me to and what many saints have bled and died for.
I personally prefer to use the New American Bible (Catholic Version), although I do have copies of the NIV, KJV, NJB, and one or two others (I'm at work at the moment, so I can't just turn my head and look at the bookshelf). I do have copies of both the 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' versions and use both for references.
I find it to be arrogant that the author of that article somehow feels he alone knows what is being referenced in Amos 8:11. Furthermore, I find it astonishing that the "solemn warning" he quotes by Edward F. Hills basically states that if you don't accept the veracity of the KJV, you are not using the only true version of Scriptures that God apparently approves. Funny how that KJV didn't even exist until after the Protestant reformation. I wonder oh wonder whatever did the church do BEFORE that time?
I actually use the NASB for the simple reason the "inserted" words are in italics, and it's translation is by far the best word for word translation available.
Why is a word for word translation a guarantee of accuracy? Should not the goal of any translator be to accurately convey the original's intent? My high school German textbook used the term schlecht to indicate illness- Der Junge ist schlecht- the boy is ill. However this term literally means "bad”. Schlecht means illness only when used among young people who understand the term in that meaning. While taking a college German course I used schlecht to indicate illness and the professor did not know what I meant. Likewise the English term "bad" can be used to indicate something is poor quality: a bad meal, one that is poorly prepared- or a bad meal, one made with spoiled food. A translator must take great pains to accurately indicate the English meaning. A literal word for word translation does not always convey an accurate translation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
