favourite bible version?

[David T]

Greek of course. Only those that are really really in the know and really understand it read it in greek.all the rest are mere translations for the intellectually impoverished!!!

Sorry for my make believe moment . I did take ancient greek but the snobbery moment was sooo normal sooo fun. Its bs of course ignore it.

 

[Lee Hays]

I remember when I was a Christian and trying to find a version of the bible with no New Testament. For some reason it didn't exist.

Sure - it’s the Tora

 

[HolyHolyHolyEvil]

What’s your favourite translation of The Holy Bible, and why?

I use the Common English Bible the most as I find it’s the easiest to follow

(I also own a NIV and a New King James Version)

the voice, for its beauty.

 

[dingdao]

What’s your favourite translation of The Holy Bible, and why?

I use the Common English Bible the most as I find it’s the easiest to follow

(I also own a NIV and a New King James Version)

When I say I bring enough knives to a gun fight this is what I mean:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Strong's Concordance
Today' Parellel Bible (NIV, NASB (Updated),KJV,NLT)
The Parallel Apocrypha (Greek, KJV, Douay,The Holy Bible by Ronald Knox,NRSV,NAB,NJB)
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (RSV, xrefed)
The Children's Bible (Golden Press)
NIV Red Letter Edition
Crudens Concordance of the Holy Scriptures
KJV Meridian
Holy Bible with Apocrypha NRSV Oxford
Study Bible The New Student Bible NRSV - source matterial
The Other Bible Ancienct Alternative Scriptures
Good Day

 

[SA Huguenot]

I simply love the Haleluyah Scriptures. But I use it for references only.
The King James is the most descriptive version, and funny enough, for someone who's second language is English that is poor, the King James Version is the best understood by me.
I dont like the NIV, ESV and the new translations, but do read it to get a different view on specific verses. But due to the construction of it sentences, I just can not remember what I read in these versions. Anyhow.
All the Bible versions has one thing in common.
The crucifixion, and ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Therefore I follow them all.
The Book of Mormon and Quran on the other hand, denies the Bible as the Word of God, divinity, crucifixion, andressurection of Jesus, and as such can not be included in the Bible versions we have.

 

[Tumah]

OJB
And, Avot, do not provoke your yeladim to ka’as, but nurture them in the musar of Hashem and His tokhechah (reproof).

.​

I know this isn't what you're on about @Skwim , I just can't help but take the opportunity you've given here.

This translation is called the Orthodox Jewish Bible.
Sounds like it's a version put out by Orthodox Jews and the transliteration of Hebrew nouns appears to follow a penchant Orthodox Jews have when conversing with other Orthodox Jews, to pepper their sentences with Hebrew Aramaic and Yiddish.

Well, this is

The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible.
-source
​

And it's goal is to

Integrates well with the present practice of Orthodoxy restoring the textual roots of how to have intimacy with G-dThis must-have draft book contains almost 1000 different patterns on more than 25 weave structures Introductory chapters provide a thorough understanding of how each structure works This must-have draft book contains almost 1000 different patterns on more than 25 weave structures Introductory chapters provide a thorough understanding of how each structure works Bible in Orthodox Jewish vernacular
-source
​

Orthodox Jews obviously do not translate and publish translations of the NT. Orthodox Jewish translations are in plain English, not this joke of a mess they call "restoring textual roots". What we have here, is an example of what Jerome himself sees in Christianity's founders

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)​

​

 

[PruePhillip]

I like the New King James. It's easy to easier to read than the KJV.

This version respects the old translations, and keeps a lot of the poetry of the King James.
A good test is to read Psalm 23 in the various translations.

 

[Rival]

Sure - it’s the Tora

I meant a Christian translation without the NT.

 

[David1967]

This version respects the old translations, and keeps a lot of the poetry of the King James.
A good test is to read Psalm 23 in the various translations.

That's the main reason I like it so well. If you're in a bible study with folks who use the Old KJV, it goes well with it and clarifies the meaning of some of the old terms with updated English.

 

[Katzpur]

All the Bible versions has one thing in common.
The crucifixion, and ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Therefore I follow them all.
The Book of Mormon and Quran on the other hand, denies the Bible as the Word of God, divinity, crucifixion, and ressurection of Jesus, and as such can not be included in the Bible versions we have.

The Book of Mormon does no such thing. You obviously know next to nothing about it as it fully affirms these things. The assumptions people make never cease to boggle my mind.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Book of Mormon does no such thing. You obviously know next to nothing about it as it fully affirms these things. The assumptions people make never cease to boggle my mind.

I feel that anyone who writes their own bible is, in effect, doing so to challenge the bible.
Both the Muslim and the Mormon have their own bibles - not just some errant translation
such as the JW's have with their New World Translation, but a whole new bible.
This beggars belief: it's one thing to add or change a word or verse, but to write a WHOLE
NEW BIBLE ??????

 

[exchemist]

What’s your favourite translation of The Holy Bible, and why?

I use the Common English Bible the most as I find it’s the easiest to follow

(I also own a NIV and a New King James Version)

Why have you chosen John Bolton as your avatar?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Complete Jewish Bible.

Genesis 1 - CJB Bible - Bible Study Tools

Genesis 3 - CJB Bible - Bible Study Tools

Luke 1 - CJB Bible - Bible Study Tools

I always consider two things to be important when looking at a Bible. Their treatment of the creation, especially the nature of the firmament and of knowledge of good and evil, and how they handle the new testament. This is because theology can be different at this point by a sumple poor word choice.

The one I have now, New Living Translation, frequently makes poor choices and has to footnote. Although, they do manage to call the first man a them. Because this is what Adam is, a them. An undivided person.

The problem is I can't afford a new bible right now, so I'm reading online.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The Book of Mormon does no such thing. You obviously know next to nothing about it as it fully affirms these things. The assumptions people make never cease to boggle my mind.

Oh, does the Book of Mormon hold the Bible as the Word of God, or does it say that God revealed other books also to allow Joseph Smith his so called revelation as equal to the Bible?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Who says this?:
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
and
"the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries it has “suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts.” *Someone*believe the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” and that the “most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.” The KJV is *Someone's* official English Bible. [though it has been foot-noted in a way that interprets the meaning to compliment LDS doctrines.(Insert by me)]
And who does this:
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” *Someone* believe such apostolic revelation is inspired, but not infallible, and can supersede previous revelation, including that found in their scriptures. The only one authorized to bring forth new doctrineis the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be accepted the church’s First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and then sustained by the body of the church.

So, tell me again, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God, or is your presidents' words the word of God?
Do you think the Bible can be changed wholesale to the purpose of some church?

So, how can you even say that you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, when your book say the Bible is false?
Circular reasoning?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I feel that anyone who writes their own bible is, in effect, doing so to challenge the bible.
Both the Muslim and the Mormon have their own bibles - not just some errant translation
such as the JW's have with their New World Translation, but a whole new bible.
This beggars belief: it's one thing to add or change a word or verse, but to write a WHOLE
NEW BIBLE ??????

...and the only reason is to change what was written in the Bible to suit their greed and lust.
Muhammad with his sex slaves, and Joseph with his sex child brides.
Jesus and the disciples warned that we should not believe what some Angel reveal as a different Gospel than the one we have.
Joseph Smith was met by an angel Moroni, and Muhammad by Gibriel.
I call them all Legion!

 

[Katzpur]

I feel that anyone who writes their own bible is, in effect, doing so to challenge the bible.
Both the Muslim and the Mormon have their own bibles - not just some errant translation
such as the JW's have with their New World Translation, but a whole new bible.
This beggars belief: it's one thing to add or change a word or verse, but to write a WHOLE
NEW BIBLE ??????

Mormons use primarily the KVJ -- the whole thing, cover to cover. We rely heavily on its teachings and study it constantly. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that states that God is through talking, so it doesn't really matter how you happen to "feel" about it. In response to the question posed by the OP, the New English Bible is my personal favorite as I find it easiest to understand, and to me, understanding it is pretty important.

 

[Katzpur]

...and the only reason is to change what was written in the Bible to suit their greed and lust.
Muhammad with his sex slaves, and Joseph with his sex child brides.
Jesus and the disciples warned that we should not believe what some Angel reveal as a different Gospel than the one we have.
Joseph Smith was met by an angel Moroni, and Muhammad by Gibriel.
I call them all Legion!

It's so entertaining when the uninformed attempt to display their "knowledge." Every different version of the Bible (and there are hundreds) changes it. Did you ever stop to think of that? Mormons use primarily the King James Version of the Bible. It contains exactly the same wording as every other KJV in use by thousands of Protestants today. You've been using highly biased and inaccurate reference material, and I suspect nothing I could possibly say is going to change that. Some people would rather believe lies than get their facts straight. Lies, after all, all much more fun to believe because believing lies makes it so much easier to justify one's own prejudices and contempt for others.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh, does the Book of Mormon hold the Bible as the Word of God, or does it say that God revealed other books also to allow Joseph Smith his so called revelation as equal to the Bible?

Actually, both the Book of Mormon and the Bible use the phrase, "the word of God" to describe any teachings God has given to mankind. Neither book refers to the Bible itself as "the Word of God" (with "Word" capitalized), though all Christians recognize Jesus Christ as "the Word." The Bible does not specifically mention books outside of it for the obvious reason that there was no "Bible" at all until certain books were compiled into a single volume and ultimately given the title of "the Bible." The Bible does say, though, that Jesus Christ said and did so many things during His ministry that they could not fill all of the books on the earth. You may presume that none of these were important enough for them to have been revealed again to another group of God's children, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that presumption.

 

[Katzpur]

Who says this?:
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
and
"the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries it has “suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts.” *Someone*believe the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” and that the “most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.” The KJV is *Someone's* official English Bible. [though it has been foot-noted in a way that interprets the meaning to compliment LDS doctrines.(Insert by me)]
And who does this:
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” *Someone* believe such apostolic revelation is inspired, but not infallible, and can supersede previous revelation, including that found in their scriptures. The only one authorized to bring forth new doctrineis the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be accepted the church’s First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and then sustained by the body of the church.

Sure, we believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." If certain passages were found to be translated incorrectly, would you still believe them? The Bible has been translated a myriad of times. Which translation is perfect down to the last letter? Oh, and with respect the Book of Mormon also being the word of God, even on the cover page of the book, Joseph Smith acknowledges that it was translated by human hands and is therefore subject to error. Only a completely clueless individual would believe that any of the Bibles we have today have been translated exactly as the original words came from the mouth of God.

You also object to the footnotes in our KJVs. Why on earth would that bother you? There are thousands of Christian Churches in the world today and no two interpret the words of the Bible in exactly the same way. The footnotes in the our KJV are primarily cross-references to other verses than the ones they are footnoting. A verse in Corinthians may direct the reader to a passage in Romans, for instance. Or it may direct the reason to read more about the subject of temptation or envy or some other pertinent topic. And you seriously find this to be problematic?

So, tell me again, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God, or is your presidents' words the word of God?

Jesus Christ alone is "the Word of God." The "words of God" may be found in many different places and may be spoken by many different individuals, both within my church and outside of it. I have never been asked to accept anything as truth that has not been confirmed to me personally by the Holy Ghost as having come from God. If I use that as a guideline, I don't believe I can go wrong, because the Holy Ghost does not speak anything but the truth.

Do you think the Bible can be changed wholesale to the purpose of some church?

It probably shouldn't be, but it clearly has been on countless occasions since the original manuscripts were written. If you want to take the time to actually learn how the canon has changed since the earliest days of the Church after Christ's death, you'll come to see what I mean.

So, how can you even say that you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, when your book say the Bible is false?
Circular reasoning?

Well, since "my book" doesn't say that the Bible is false, you question is entirely meaningless.