Which Bible English translation do you prefer?

[Ingledsva]

I have those above, and many more, including the Greek and Hebrew, on my computer.

I like looking up the original language, and also looking at how earlier Bibles translated a text.

For instance I have copies of a 1568 Bishop's Bible, a 1587 Geneva, a 1611 KJB, a 1889 Darby, and an 1899 Douay Rheims.

It is interesting to see how wording and punctuation (which can change meaning) has changed over time.

However, I always take a look at the original language if in a debate.

*

 

[Orbit]

I love the poetry of the KJV

 

[Thinking Homer]

@Thinking Homer...as a JW I appreciate the accuracy and readability of the NWT, but it is by no means the only translation I use, especially here on these forums. I love to compare and resolve translation issues using Strongs Concordance. We have so many research tools available to us if we are genuine students of God's word. It is one harmonious story from Genesis to Revelation, which means that it does not contradict itself.

I like the ASV because it uses God's name as does the YLT. Holman uses God's name as well. It makes me angry when translations deliberately choose to eliminate the divine name from Jehovah's own guidebook. No human author would tolerate their name being removed from their own work.

I grew up with the KJV and studied it before becoming a JW. It was the only Bible I owned. I believe that the truth can be gleaned from any accurate translation because it is God who opens spiritual eyes to comprehend the truth of his word.

The rendering of John 1:1 is also more in keeping with the rest of scripture, since there is nothing in the Bible to suggest any equality between the Father and his son. Replacing the Father with the son as "God" (which I believe Christendom has done) is actually a breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)

I have been an avid student of God's word for over 45 years. I just love it!

There is actually an interesting debate going on about this. Feel free to check it out.

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

 

[Thinking Homer]

I have those above, and many more, including the Greek and Hebrew, on my computer.

I like looking up the original language, and also looking at how earlier Bibles translated a text.

For instance I have copies of a 1568 Bishop's Bible, a 1587 Geneva, a 1611 KJB, a 1889 Darby, and an 1899 Douay Rheims.

It is interesting to see how wording and punctuation (which can change meaning) has changed over time.

However, I always take a look at the original language if in a debate.

*

Yeah that's true. We look a bit ignorant when we start using Capital letters as an argument in a debate haha...

 

[Thinking Homer]

I use multiple different translations but tend to prefer the most literal ones.

NASB?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I grew up reading the New International Version (NIV) most of my life, but in recent years I have started reading other translations like the New Living Translation (NLT) and the English Standard Version (ESV). Which English translations do you prefer, and what is your reason? Do you tend to stick to one version or do you read multiple versions? Let me know in the comments

I like the KJV as it seems the best translation. I have an NIV study bible as its good for cross referencing and being familiar with a conservative Christian perspective.

 

[iam1me]

I'll often use the NIV and NASB. I grew up using NIV and its fairly reliable. The NASB is a superior translation to most, however, so as I have grown older I have tended to use it more and more. I will look at other translations as well for more controversial verses - and I will more importantly try to dig into the Hebrew and Greek, though I'm not expert.

I avoid very loose translations and also old, corrupt translations like the KJV

 

[Deeje]

There is actually an interesting debate going on about this. Feel free to check it out.

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

Been there and done that too many times.

Don't get me started.....

Revelation 3:14....
“The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV) As the one delivering the Revelation to John by means of an angel, Jesus identifies himself as "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation". This is confirmed by Paul in Colossians 1:15...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

He also says in Revelation 3:12...."The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name."

Here Jesus is in heaven after he has returned to his Father. If Jesus is God, why is he still addressing him as "my God"? How does God have a God in heaven?

In the Hebrew scriptures YHWH (Jehovah) has only one name (Psalm 83:18 KJV) But Jesus has many names which are all tied in with the various roles he plays in the outworking of God's purpose.

In Isaiah 9:6-7 the "son" is given various titles.....
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

What "government" is this? God's Kingdom...upon the shoulders of its appointed King, Jesus Christ. Who appointed him? His God and Father.

The titles that he carries all reflect his roles in that arrangement. Who can doubt that he is a "Wonderful Counselor"? A "Mighty God" (but not an "Almighty one) and in what capacity is Jesus a father? In Strongs it gives four meanings for the word "'ab" translated "father".

1. father of an individual
   
2. of God as father of his people
   
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
   
4. ancestor

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

It is obvious that Jesus cannot be "the Father" (even trinitarians do not believe this) but he can be "the head or founder of a household". His sacrifice is the means by which everlasting life is granted to the faithful, making him an "everlasting father".

He is also called "the Prince of Peace"...a Prince is the son of a King.

None of those titles carries the thought of any equality with the Father, but they certainly describe Jesus' roles in the Kingdom arrangement.

Another scripture that clinches it for me is Jesus' clear statement in John 17:3...
" And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus identifies his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. As one that God "sent", Jesus is also an "apostle" (Hebrews 3:1) and as a servant of his Father, (Acts 3:13) he is certainly not his equal, doing nothing of his own initiative or will....but only what the Father instructed him. (John 5:30; John 8:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3)

His response to satan's temptations also reveal which God we should all serve. (Luke 4:8) After the devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for one act of worship, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 10:20 which states..."Jehovah your God you should fear, him you should serve, to him you should cling, and by his name you should swear." The tetragrammaton was used there in Deuteronomy, so Jesus is saying that only "Jehovah" was to be worshipped. Jesus is not Jehovah.

There are so many more.....

 

[blü 2]

Which English translations do you prefer, and what is your reason?

I like the RSV, perhaps as a matter of habit, but I know a bit of koine Greek and (very largely) I'm happy with their translation. I'm not acquainted with Hebrew, but I have reasonable confidence in their scholarship.

Young's Literal Translation can also come in handy.

I haven't examined other reputable translations much so I can't say whether their scholarship is any less than the RSV's. The KJV is wonderful to read out loud, made to be rolled or thundered from the pulpit, but the best the 17th century could do is not as good as the 20th and 21st's. And, loose impressionistic translations eg the Living Bible annoy me.

Do you tend to stick to one version or do you read multiple versions?

Multiple parallel translations can be found on the net. They're particularly handy for showing that experts agree or disagree on how to render particular words and phrases into English. But if I'm just looking stuff up, I reach for my RSV.

 

[Thinking Homer]

I'm not going to answer every point you raised because the same points are being repeated on another thread, however I'll make some comments.

In the Hebrew scriptures YHWH (Jehovah) has only one name (Psalm 83:18 KJV) But Jesus has many names which are all tied in with the various roles he plays in the outworking of God's purpose.

Not true. God only officially reveals his true name to Moses in Exodus:
'God spoke to Moshe; he said to him, “I am Adonai . I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai , although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [ Adonai ]. ' Sh'mot (Exodus) 6:2-3 [CJB]

 

[Deeje]

Not true. God only officially reveals his true name to Moses in Exodus:
'God spoke to Moshe; he said to him, “I am Adonai . I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai , although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [ Adonai ]. ' Sh'mot (Exodus) 6:2-3 [CJB]

Well, right from the get go, you are as mistaken as the information in your video.

If you refer to the Tanach, you will that God's name is not, and never was, "I AM". Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am" without ever once indicating that he was God? It was a very common expression picked up by trinitarians in just a couple of instances as if Jesus was then declaring his godship.....he never did.
He only ever said he was "the son of God"....NEVER did he ever call himself "God the Son".

This is where translation issues manifest themselves..and why we must do our own homework when reading God's word.

Here is Exodus 3:14-15 with the Hebrew from the Jewish Tanach......

"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:


14God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:


15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

Why did trinitarian scholars decide to change the meaning of God's name in their Bible translations unless they were subtly influenced by God's enemy to do so? Why did they eliminate the divine name altogether from most of their translations? What has that resulted in?
I'll leave you to contemplate those questions.

The first thing you will notice is that God's name is NOT a statement of his being, but a statement of his intentions. It is future tense...."I Will Be What I Will Be". God's name was telling Israel what he would "BE" or "BECOME" for them as their God. He provided Moses as mediator, prophet and deliverer for the nation in captivity.
But Moses indicated that a 'prophet greater than himself' was to be expected in the future. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Jesus proved to be that prophet who spoke about things to come....he was also a mediator, not just for fleshly Jews but for Gentile Christians as well....and by his death he proved to be their deliverer from slavery to sin and death.

Your video blurs the line between the Father and his role as the prime mover in man's salvation, and that of his primary servant in the outworking of his purpose to redeem fallen humanity.

There are many titles used in the scriptures to describe God's role, AND others that describes the roles given to Christ as Messiah. The trinity doctrine has saturated the thinking of "the Church" so thoroughly down through many centuries, that most cannot even contemplate that it might just be the greatest blasphemy perpetrated on Christianity by the one sowing "weeds" among the "wheat". It is almost inconceivable to them!

But, why would the Greatest entity in existence need to become a mere human in order to carry out his will? He has servants to fill that role. His most trusted son (his only begotten) volunteered to be that servant and offer to become our redeemer because God loved us that much and provided the means to rescue us. (John 3:16)

Do you understand the role of a redeemer (or repurchaser) in Israel? What qualified one as a redeemer? (Leviticus 25:25-27)

Why did Jesus need to be born as a human child, rather than just 'arriving' as other spirit beings had done, and simply materialized in the flesh to carry out his mission?

Why did he need to be baptized in order to begin his Messianic course? And why did God need to audibly confirm the role of his son as Messiah?

The understanding is in the detail, not in slick videos designed to tug at emotions.

Can you use the scriptures to answer those questions?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Well, right from the get go, you are as mistaken as the information in your video.

If you refer to the Tanach, you will that God's name is not, and never was, "I AM". Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am" without ever once indicating that he was God? It was a very common expression picked up by trinitarians in just a couple of instances as if Jesus was then declaring his godship.....he never did.
He only ever said he was "the son of God"....NEVER did he ever call himself "God the Son".

This is where translation issues manifest themselves..and why we must do our own homework when reading God's word.

Here is Exodus 3:14-15 with the Hebrew from the Jewish Tanach......

"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:


14God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:


15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

Why did trinitarian scholars decide to change the meaning of God's name in their Bible translations unless they were subtly influenced by God's enemy to do so? Why did they eliminate the divine name altogether from most of their translations? What has that resulted in?
I'll leave you to contemplate those questions.

The first thing you will notice is that God's name is NOT a statement of his being, but a statement of his intentions. It is future tense...."I Will Be What I Will Be". God's name was telling Israel what he would "BE" or "BECOME" for them as their God. He provided Moses as mediator, prophet and deliverer for the nation in captivity.
But Moses indicated that a 'prophet greater than himself' was to be expected in the future. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Jesus proved to be that prophet who spoke about things to come....he was also a mediator, not just for fleshly Jews but for Gentile Christians as well....and by his death he proved to be their deliverer from slavery to sin and death.

Your video blurs the line between the Father and his role as the prime mover in man's salvation, and that of his primary servant in the outworking of his purpose to redeem fallen humanity.

There are many titles used in the scriptures to describe God's role, AND others that describes the roles given to Christ as Messiah. The trinity doctrine has saturated the thinking of "the Church" so thoroughly down through many centuries, that most cannot even contemplate that it might just be the greatest blasphemy perpetrated on Christianity by the one sowing "weeds" among the "wheat". It is almost inconceivable to them!

But, why would the Greatest entity in existence need to become a mere human in order to carry out his will? He has servants to fill that role. His most trusted son (his only begotten) volunteered to be that servant and offer to become our redeemer because God loved us that much and provided the means to rescue us. (John 3:16)

Do you understand the role of a redeemer (or repurchaser) in Israel? What qualified one as a redeemer? (Leviticus 25:25-27)

Why did Jesus need to be born as a human child, rather than just 'arriving' as other spirit beings had done, and simply materialized in the flesh to carry out his mission?

Why did he need to be baptized in order to begin his Messianic course? And why did God need to audibly confirm the role of his son as Messiah?

The understanding is in the detail, not in slick videos designed to tug at emotions.

Can you use the scriptures to answer those questions?

Again, if you want to talk about this in detail you can join the appropriate thread:

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

You can follow the discussion between myself and iam1me, the debate has gotten very interesting.

 

[rosends]

I use this one, or the Stone Edition, or even the NJPS which is used at sefaria. I also like to compare among Aramaic translations.

 

[blü 2]

Why did trinitarian scholars decide to change the meaning of God's name in their Bible translations unless they were subtly influenced by God's enemy to do so?

Perhaps it has nothing to do with the Trinity and is more concerned with translating the words as well as their scholarship allowed.

What has 'changing the meaning of God's name' to do with the Trinity doctrine anyway?

But Moses indicated that a 'prophet greater than himself' was to be expected in the future. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Jesus proved to be that prophet who spoke about things to come....

He said, for example, that he'd return in the lifetime of some of his audience, who are now looking forward to celebrating their 2000th birthdays around 2030 or so.

he was also a mediator, not just for fleshly Jews but for Gentile Christians as well....

No, he won't mediate for anyone not on the team. You have to believeth in Jesus before that will happen. As history shows, that doesn't include the Jews.

Why did Jesus need to be born as a human child, rather than just 'arriving' as other spirit beings had done, and simply materialized in the flesh to carry out his mission?

If you read Mark, you'll find he didn't. In Mark he isn't the son of God until God adopts him in the same way he adopted David in Psalm 2:7 (see Acts 13:33). That's Jewish tradition. In Luke and Matthew Jesus is born by divine insemination, which is what Greek gods do.

Why did he need to be baptized in order to begin his Messianic course?

That makes sense in Mark. It makes no sense in the other gospels.

And why did God need to audibly confirm the role of his son as Messiah?

That too makes sense in Mark, and not in the other gospels.

 

[Deeje]

Perhaps it has nothing to do with the Trinity and is more concerned with translating the words as well as their scholarship allowed.

What has 'changing the meaning of God's name' to do with the Trinity doctrine anyway?

Changing the meaning of the divine name allowed apostate Christians to promote their trinity. I can't find Jesus ever saying "I will be what I will be" but he said "I am" many times, never once claiming to be God whilst doing so.

He said, for example, that he'd return in the lifetime of some of his audience,

He didn't actually. He said that some standing with him would not pass away until they saw the son of man coming in his kingdom....shortly after that three of Jesus apostles saw him transfigured in his heavenly glory. When he returns to judge mankind, it will be with "great glory".

The "generation" that would 'not pass away before all the signs of Jesus' presence were manifest' are the chosen ones, who saw the beginning of the end times and as a group, would not all pass away before the end came.....this is confirmed by Paul who said that those who are alive when Christ comes will be taken to heaven at that time. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-16)

No, he won't mediate for anyone not on the team. You have to believeth in Jesus before that will happen. As history shows, that doesn't include the Jews.

I guess that is why I said that they were "Christians". The fleshly Jews who rejected Christ will never gain the Kingdom promises...but those Jews who became Christ's disciples were certainly taken into "the new covenant"....the initial "team" were all Jews. (Hebrews 8:7-13)

If you read Mark, you'll find he didn't. In Mark he isn't the son of God until God adopts him in the same way he adopted David in Psalm 2:7 (see Acts 13:33). That's Jewish tradition. In Luke and Matthew Jesus is born by divine insemination, which is what Greek gods do.

That is a little twisted IMO. If the Bible is the word of God then there are no contradictions...only misinterpretations.

Paul wrote...."But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." (Galatians 4:4-7 NASB) Jesus opened the way for others to become 'adopted sons of God' but he was a legitimate son who needed no adoption.

Until his baptism, Jesus was referred to as the carpenter's son....but at his baptism his real father identified his son and told the people to listen to him. Thankfully some did.

 

[blü 2]

Changing the meaning of the divine name allowed apostate Christians to promote their trinity. I can't find Jesus ever saying "I will be what I will be" but he said "I am" many times, never once claiming to be God whilst doing so.

Ah, so you're referring to 'Before Abraham was, I am"? Yes, that can't be claimed to be Jesus asserting he's God: especially because he so specifically denies it again and again and again.

He didn't actually. He said that some standing with him would not pass away until they saw the son of man coming in his kingdom....shortly after that three of Jesus apostles saw him transfigured in his heavenly glory.

I don't buy that. The imminence of the Kingdom was the heart of the original message, probably following John the Baptist. It wasn't until the passing decades robbed it of credibility that it had to be explained away. Thus it's not present in the non-synoptical John.

The "generation" that would 'not pass away before all the signs of Jesus' presence were manifest' are the chosen ones

That's not what the gospels say. It's someone else's invention.

I guess that is why I said that they were "Christians". The fleshly Jews who rejected Christ will never gain the Kingdom promises...but those Jews who became Christ's disciples were certainly taken into "the new covenant"....the initial "team" were all Jews. (Hebrews 8:7-13)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that it was not possible for a Jerusalem Jew around 30 CE to conclude in all honesty and good conscience that Jesus was NOT the messiah, was NOT anointed by the priests, was NOT the leader to restore Israel to its independence, was NOT a leader of the Jews at all. I would have thought all those were demonstrably valid arguments against early Christian claims.

That is a little twisted IMO. If the Bible is the word of God then there are no contradictions...only misinterpretations.

Nowhere does the bible make such a claim. On what basis do you do so? After all, the bible overflows with contradictions. It upholds the morality of slavery, human sacrifice, invasive war, total massacre, mass rape, it recognizes multiple gods ─ Who is like thee amongst the gods? (Numbers 33:4), Will you not possess what your god Chemosh gives you? (Judges 11:24), In the midst of the gods he {Yahweh) holds judgment (Psalm 82:1), no other gods before me, and so on, with the general idea that each people has its own god. Later, Jewish culture develops monotheism, so that Isaiah 45:7 can say, I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things. (since if there's only one God no other conclusion is possible). Oh, and so much more!

Paul wrote...."But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

That simply shows the Greek side of Jewish culture (eg the reason why synagogues ares so-called). Mark's view is from Jewish culture, as I pointed out, and Mark's Jesus is a mortal until he's made son of God by adoption, just as David was. It's not helpful to pretend the two views are the same, when plainly they're not, and the reason why they're not is clear.

Until his baptism, Jesus was referred to as the carpenter's son....but at his baptism his real father identified his son and told the people to listen to him. Thankfully some did.

Where does Mark say that? If it was true of Jesus then it was true of David, as Acts 13:33 makes clear.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I grew up reading the New International Version (NIV) most of my life, but in recent years I have started reading other translations like the New Living Translation (NLT) and the English Standard Version (ESV). Which English translations do you prefer, and what is your reason? Do you tend to stick to one version or do you read multiple versions? Let me know in the comments

KJV is accurate, but difficult to navigate. NASB and NKJV are best/excellent in English. NIV is weak.

 

[sojourner]

I use several. I like The Message sometimes (although that’s not a translation, but a paraphrase). I use the Scholar’s Version a lot for the gospels, because of the more attention to transliteration, yet the vernacular flavor. My mainstay is probably the NRSV. I also use the Tanah translation of the Jewish bible some. I use Robert Alter’s psalm translations quite a bit, too. Sometimes I’ll use the New American or even the Good News for Modern Man — depends on which has a particular turn of phrase that fits with my sermon best.

 

[Anna Therese]

Douay Rheims Haydock Bible

 

[12jtartar]

I grew up reading the New International Version (NIV) most of my life, but in recent years I have started reading other translations like the New Living Translation (NLT) and the English Standard Version (ESV). Which English translations do you prefer, and what is your reason? Do you tend to stick to one version or do you read multiple versions? Let me know in the comments

Thinking Homer,
Today, there are many good Bibles, but some are worded in a way that is easier to understand God’s message, which is most important.
I have over 50 Bibles that Irefer to frequently. I want to know what God’s message is, so I compare many Bibles, to make sure I can determine the TRUTH, which is very important to God, our Creator and Lifegiver, John 4:23,24, 2Thessalonians 2:9-13.
There are several Bibles I like, because they put in brackets, other information, that explains or adds additional information, to help in understanding Scripture. The Net Bible is very good, especially with full notes. Another Bible I like very much is the Darby Bible, but ALL Bibles have a few errors in them, so it is important that you compare Bibles, since they will not have the same errors in each Bible.
I think the Modern King James Version, is as good as any. There are many different King James Version Bibles, and the older ones are not as accurate as the newer ones. There are said to be,between 20 and 50 thousand errors in the 1611 Version. These are very slight errors, having to do with numbers and names. This is because there were several different languages usually, in the same places, and some writers used different words from each language. Names were also numbers, because the letters of the Hebrew language also meant numbers. The errors have nothing to do with God’s Message. Another point with the older KJV is, they are in old English, which is not in regular use today, and the word structure is so different today that some things said, actually mean the opposite as what it sounds like.
God’s TRUTH is in almost every Bible, the only difference is, you have to do more research on some to find the truth.
God, Himself, promised that His truth can be found if a person is truely interested enough to do research, Psalms 12:6,7. Jesus said that God’s Word is Truth, John 17:17. Agape!!!