Christians - What version of the Bible do you read?

[Deidre]

Since returning to the faith, I'm back into reading the Bible on a more regular basis. Curious as to if you could share what version of the Bible you read from mainly, and why? I'm intending on finding a Bible-based church, and of the ones I've visited, they have been using the ESV.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on the topic.

 

[atpollard]

I use NIV, but ESV and RSV are both good as well.
As a Catholic, you might be familiar with the King James Version and be comfortable reading the New King James Version (NKJV) which uses similar wording but updates the old English words (and fixes some transcript errors).

My advice is to visit BlueLetterBible.org and look up a favorite chapter and read it in different translations at the click of a button. Beyond that, it is convenient to have a Bible in your hand that you can read along in that matches the version they use on the screen at church. The most important thing is that you need to be comfortable reading it ... or you probably will not.

 

[Intojoy]

ASV 1901
NASB
NKJV
KJV

In that order

 

[Intojoy]

The difference between our faith and every other belief system is the difference between "advice" and "news". Yeshua didn't just come to give advice. He came to bear our debt, to pay for the penalty of our sins (the wages of sin is death), so that we could be free to forgive one another as he forgave us. Its not advice that is the message of the bible, but it is news, good news. The news that God has intervened on our behalf, and has provided forgiveness for our sins.
We are beings that need unconditional all accepting love. Our problem is that none of us know how to give this kind of love because all of our love is conditional in some way and is self serving. But God who is the embodiment of love, and who does not need love, became a willing sacrifice and gave his life as a ransom for sin. Why? Because we needed love. And so that we could receive the kind of love we as beings so desperately needed - unconditional, accepting love and so that we could become the kind of people He created us to be.

It's not what we can do for God but what He has done for us. He entered "our world," He took on
"our humanity," He bore "our sins," He died "our death, "He was resurrected for "our life," He's coming again for "our glorification."
Paul in his letter to the Romans is urging us on the basis of all that he taught on, on the basis of all that has been done, he urges us to become living sacrifices:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1, 2 KJV)
"therefore" meaning all Paul taught concerning grace and mercy, we have become thru Christ the objects of God's omnipotent, eternal love.

If we have not understood all that the mercies of God has done, if we have not understood doctrinally and theologically deep enough, all that Messiah has accomplished for us, then we have become useless to him. God is calling us to live our lives as living sacrifices unto him. Our problem is, we are so prideful that we are not willing to give up anything for others. When a sacrifice was laid upon the altar there was a great deal of suffering involved, the animal experienced pain and suffering. What are we willing to give up? What are we willing to place upon the altar? So that we can become a blessing to others, and become servants of the Most High God?

 

[Thana]

The Amplified Bible.
I like the detail and the simplicity. (Although I disagree with some of the commentary but that's not really important to the translation)

Then probably the CJB, NIV and ESV. But I mostly stick to my bible.

 

[Parsimony]

The King James Version (because that's the kind in my church) and the New International Version (when I'm reading it online).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since returning to the faith, I'm back into reading the Bible on a more regular basis. Curious as to if you could share what version of the Bible you read from mainly, and why? I'm intending on finding a Bible-based church, and of the ones I've visited, they have been using the ESV.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on the topic.

My co-worker studies from the Geneva Bible. She says thats older than KJV. Also easier to read:

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/1599-Geneva-Bible-GNV/

http://www.genevabible.com

I dont know if what she said was true; but, if it is, thats something to think of looking into. I was told you cant buy it from stores. Must order it.

Synopsis

When the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620, they brought along supplies, a consuming passion to advance the Kingdom of Christ, and the Word of God. Clearly, their most precious cargo was the Bible - specifically, the 1599 Geneva Bible. All but forgotten in our day, this version of the Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. William Bradford also cited the Geneva Bible in his famous book Of Plymouth Plantation.​

 

[Brickjectivity]

Stick with one version. I do not favor ESV, and the reason is that it is too dynamic. 'Dynamic' means that it obscures the original 'Thought forms' in favor of smoother reading. It also is not quoted much. You will more often hear NIV or KJV quoted. NIV is a better compromise between readability and meaning, dynamic but it relates well with most other versions. NIV will also work next to an ESV in a reading circle without breaking the feeling, but the ESV sometimes reads completely different from other versions so much that its unrecognisable. NIV reads beautifully and helps you sometimes with difficult material. That being said, the KJV has a very pleasing sound. It takes a little getting used to, but its nice and you will find it quoted in many places. Sometimes its just very pretty, but the downside is that it uses old arcane words. Another advantage of KJV is that the original nouns are translated the same way almost every time. For example 'Good' in the original Hebrew is the word 'Sedaq'. In the NIV and ESV it gets translated many ways and will appear as: righteous, good, upright, moral and so forth. It is sometimes very nice if you can figure out which verses have the same Hebrew word in them! So...I don't know whether to recommend NIV or KJV. Stick with one though, because I have the problem of remembering a verse but not remember which version it is in! That causes even more trouble, because then its hard to remember what is a Bible verse and what is not a Bible verse at all.

 

[Quetzal]

When I studied scripture, I would use the NIV.

 

[rusra02]

Since returning to the faith, I'm back into reading the Bible on a more regular basis. Curious as to if you could share what version of the Bible you read from mainly, and why? I'm intending on finding a Bible-based church, and of the ones I've visited, they have been using the ESV.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on the topic.

I find the New World Translation an accurate and easy to read translation. It is available free online here or in hard copy from Jehovah's Witnesses, also free. God's name, Jehovah, is used throughout.

 

[Deidre]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts to this! Hadn't been a factor in my life because, well...when you're indifferent for a while about faith and God, you don't really give much thought to the Bible. lol The ESV seems to be the favorite version for want of a better word, of non-denominational type churches. @Brickjectivity - your reply really helped me decipher some things, thank you. I wonder if that is used at some non-denom churches, so as to not bog down the congregation with too much of having to interpret things on their own? Not sure if I'm asking that right. lol

I will be back later to ask more questions of all of you, thank you again for your replies.

 

[Deidre]

My co-worker studies from the Geneva Bible. She says thats older than KJV. Also easier to read:

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/1599-Geneva-Bible-GNV/

http://www.genevabible.com

I dont know if what she said was true; but, if it is, thats something to think of looking into. I was told you cant buy it from stores. Must order it.

Synopsis

When the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620, they brought along supplies, a consuming passion to advance the Kingdom of Christ, and the Word of God. Clearly, their most precious cargo was the Bible - specifically, the 1599 Geneva Bible. All but forgotten in our day, this version of the Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. William Bradford also cited the Geneva Bible in his famous book Of Plymouth Plantation.​

The Geneva Bible. Hmmm, interesting. I haven't heard of the Geneva Bible. Thanks Carlita!

 

[Deidre]

The difference between our faith and every other belief system is the difference between "advice" and "news". Yeshua didn't just come to give advice. He came to bear our debt, to pay for the penalty of our sins (the wages of sin is death), so that we could be free to forgive one another as he forgave us. Its not advice that is the message of the bible, but it is news, good news. The news that God has intervened on our behalf, and has provided forgiveness for our sins.
We are beings that need unconditional all accepting love. Our problem is that none of us know how to give this kind of love because all of our love is conditional in some way and is self serving. But God who is the embodiment of love, and who does not need love, became a willing sacrifice and gave his life as a ransom for sin. Why? Because we needed love. And so that we could receive the kind of love we as beings so desperately needed - unconditional, accepting love and so that we could become the kind of people He created us to be.

It's not what we can do for God but what He has done for us. He entered "our world," He took on
"our humanity," He bore "our sins," He died "our death, "He was resurrected for "our life," He's coming again for "our glorification."
Paul in his letter to the Romans is urging us on the basis of all that he taught on, on the basis of all that has been done, he urges us to become living sacrifices:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1, 2 KJV)
"therefore" meaning all Paul taught concerning grace and mercy, we have become thru Christ the objects of God's omnipotent, eternal love.

If we have not understood all that the mercies of God has done, if we have not understood doctrinally and theologically deep enough, all that Messiah has accomplished for us, then we have become useless to him. God is calling us to live our lives as living sacrifices unto him. Our problem is, we are so prideful that we are not willing to give up anything for others. When a sacrifice was laid upon the altar there was a great deal of suffering involved, the animal experienced pain and suffering. What are we willing to give up? What are we willing to place upon the altar? So that we can become a blessing to others, and become servants of the Most High God?

This is an AMAZINGLY beautiful post!! Great way of putting it...there is a difference between 'advice' and 'news.'

 

[Deidre]

ASV 1901
NASB
NKJV
KJV

In that order

May I ask...why do you read from a variety of 'versions?'

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wonder if that is used at some non-denom churches, so as to not bog down the congregation with too much of having to interpret things on their own? Not sure if I'm asking that right. lol

Translation into English is full of problems. The two approaches to solving those problems are: Dynamic translation and Formal translation. Neither can accurately portray the meaning. In truth the Bibles that we buy and make notes on are never going to be as good. If you want an accurate translation you must translate yourself to the words, not the words to you. If you absolutely must know everything, then learn the language, translating your own brain into Hebrew and Greek.

Dynamic translations like NIV are easy to read and assert ideas. For example: in the NIV there is a lot of playing around with 'Spirit'. In Hebrew there is no equivalent to 'Spirit', but NIV scholars use that word 'Spirit' a lot. Hebrew has a term 'Ruach' that we do not have in English and which appears in no Bible translations at all! In Hebrew, all life shares the 'Ruach', all creatures. It is a mysterious force which can be 'Breath' can be 'Wind' and can be 'Spirit'. You will not see an equivalent in either Dynamic or Formal translations. The dynamic scholar tries to make up for the shortcomings of translation by hiding difficulties. The Formal translator gives you word study tools to find it out, perhaps, but not always. To some folks this seems like the scholars take liberties, but in fact a genuine translation is not possible. It is those people who insist that translations are accurate -- those are the people who take liberties.

Online Bibles if you want to compare:

• https://www.biblegateway.com
• https://www.blueletterbible.org
• http://biblehub.com/
• http://www.studylight.org/
• This one has only the Jewish Tanach: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

 

[Gambit]

Deidre,

I'm not a Christian, but I have studied the Bible. The KJV is clearly the most poetic and the only one that has withstood the test of time.

 

[Deidre]

Deidre,

I'm not a Christian, but I have studied the Bible. The KJV is clearly the most poetic and the only one that has withstood the test of time.

Hmm, interesting. It is the one I've mainly read before leaving the faith, and so I wonder how to deal with churches that don't read from this version. I mean, we are all worshiping the same God, lol But...still.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I find it best to keep two versions of the Bible then cross reference a troublesome passage.

Good News (direct translation from Aramaic) and King James often have interestingly different ways of expressing the same verse.

 

[Deidre]

I find it best to keep two versions of the Bible then cross reference a troublesome passage.

Good News (direct translation from Aramaic) and King James often have interestingly different ways of expressing the same verse.

This might be a dumb question, but why though? Why are there so many versions?

 

[Gambit]

Hmm, interesting. It is the one I've mainly read before leaving the faith, and so I wonder how to deal with churches that don't read from this version. I mean, we are all worshiping the same God, lol But...still.

Did you recently become a born-again Christian?