Bible question..........?

Question

What "version" of the bible is best.............

King james...... etc...

Answer 1

Whichever one is right for you. Prefferably the origional hebrew, but the King James version comes pretty close when you're looking for all the right words and correct meanings. However, I find the King James version very stuffy, and difficult to read and to enjoy reading. If you're young, you're going to want to read a childrens' Bible to begin with, since it will make it easy to understand. If you just want to know the Bible stories for general information, you can't beat the 100-minute Bible, which says all the main stories and can be read in 100 minutes - it gives a brilliant overview of the Bible. If you want to read the Bible for enjoyment not study, why not try to Good News Bible or the New International Version, which might not be so totally-correct as the King James Version, but which are, to a lot of people, easier to understand and read. Certain branches of Christianity use their own translations, for example, the LDS church uses the King James Version alongside the Joseph Smith Translation, and Jehova's Witnesses use the New World Translation of the Holy Bible.

Really, it depends on the person. I don't understand people who say there is 'one correct' version of the Bible - it depends on who you are, why you're reading it and what you're trying to find out.

Answer 2

Well, the fact is... The King James Version was translated out of the Textus Receptus, or the received texts. Most of the other versions were translated out of either the Vaticanus or the Synaticus manuscripts.

When the Bible translators wanted to translate the Bible into English, they gathered as many of the original copies of the Bible (in Hebrew and Greek) as they could find. I think they got around 64,000 manuscripts in the end. Each of those manuscripts matched each other perfectly. That group of manuscripts is called the Textus Receptus.

Just after the life of Christ, the Bible was completed. The book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written around 95AD. At that time they had a complete copy of the Old and New Testament. But one copy will soon wear out of course, so they made exact, precise copies of the original. So precise that if one mistake was made, they would burn the copy and start over. Anyways, as the Christians were being persecuted they began to leave the area they were being persecuted in, and expand throughout the world--taking their copy of the Bible with them. Meanwhile making more and more copies of the Bible. The Text that these Christians had was the original, Inspired, accurate word of God. These were the text that the King James, the Tyndale Bible, Luther's German Bible, etc were translated out of.

Mean while, in the Synaticus Desert, a cult had taken a copy of the bible, and changed it to suit their cult belief. They removed ideas and altered passages that disagreed with their religion. For instance, if a passage disagreed with what they felt like teaching, they reworded the passage to agree with, or be neutral about the idea. The manuscripts edited by this cult are called the Vaticanus, and the Synaticus.

Wescott and Hort translated the manuscript that the NIV came from out of the Synaticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts. All modern translations are translated out that manuscript.

Which Bible is better? Personally I like the King James Version, or the Authorized Version. (Named King James Version in honor of the king that authorized its translating) The King James Version is the flawless word of God. Personally I would not want to defend any belief in the Bible using any other version then the King James. The King James is what it said in the original... Modern versions are edited and if you will, corrupted.

The King James can be related to a two edged sword. Newer Versions--to a Butter knife, or a steak knife... depending on the version. A person reading newer versions can still accept Christ and become a Christian from that version, but I would not suggest trying to win any "debates" or disagreements using a NIV or an NASB or any other modern version.

Am I against the other versions? No! However I don't support them. I feel that they are bad copies. But I would suggest that if you want to grow in Christ, that you should read your Authorized Version of the Bible, more commonly known as the King James Version.

Answer 3

Well I use the 'new living' version since it is very easy to read and understand. I have loads of my friends that uses the New King James version or the NIV they're both good.The New King James has more of a poetic flair to it specially when reading the book of Jeremiah or Isaiah. But you can purchase two different translations or go to Esword.com it's a very cool website. If you really want to study the bible and have a better understanding of the bible, this website will be an excellent tool. They're a lot of cool softwares that you can download, and most all it's free!!!

Answer 4

Well it depends on what you are looking for. If you want something that is easier to read try the new international version. If you are kind of old school and like the older language go King James, but I would be sure to get one with good footnotes. As to which one is 'more accurate' keep in mind that most of the time, they have the same meaning. KJV will say 'thou' and NIV will say 'you'. Also no matter which you choose keep in mind that the versions we have today were translated, edited and hand copied many times over from the real original version.

Answer 5

The "Best" versions of the Bible are the older versions, the original versions. Since we've begun translating it into our more modern language from the Greek language inwhich the oldest version of the New Testament was originally written, we've mistranslated words and numbers - therefore altering the Bible's contents to mean something very different than it was intended.

For example; When translating the Number of the Best from Greek to English they mistranslated the original number into what we have now, 666. What was actually written, and was recently deciphered was 616!

So in which case, the oldest version of the Bible you can find - will be the most accurate and "best" version you can read.

Answer 6

25 answers and counting as I write - hope you're illuminated and not confused!

Bit surprised no-one's mentioned Petersen's 'The Message', which gives an excellent modern rendition of the Koine Greek (though it is part paraphrase, and the colloquialisms are conspicuously American). JB Phillips is still good for NT.

On the topic of U.S. as opposed to the rest of the world, I'm amazed at how many even young Americans seem fixated on English which is effectively half a millennium old (when you take into account the period in which the KJV translators would have learnt their English). Maybe there's a subconscious sentimental attachment because 1611 is so close to the Pilgrim Fathers. A very important question arises here, depending on what you mean by "best": if best for private study, then KJV may be OK if you're versed enough in Early Modern English to know that, for example, "prevent" didn't mean "stop" but "go before". But if you mean best to bring the Word to the "unchurched", KJV is totally impenetrable. I think NIV's mostly accurate, and have had NASV highly recommended.

By the way, the New World Translation is exclusively Jehovah's Witnesses, and vital passages DON'T mean the same - as when Jesus is called "a god" in John 1:1, and his "ego eimi" in John 8:58 is changed unaccountably from the title of God "I AM" (for which they tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy), to "I have been".

Answer 7

I'm very partial to the New Jersusalem Bible. It has introductions to each of the books, explaining who is thought to have written it, when, what it meant, how it was translated, and so on. In the margins, to the side of the text, there are references to other places in the Bible that pertain to it in some way. If it's a quote or near-quote from somewhere else, the reference will show you where. Then, there are very helpful footnotes. If there's dispute over how something should be translated (the famous 'I am who I am' passage, for instance), then in the footnotes there will be the words originally used in the Greek and the Hebrew. If there's a passage that's difficult to understand, the footnotes will explain it, or if in the original language the passage is meant to be a play on words, the footnotes will tell you that as well. It's a great study Bible, but is also very helpful for the non-Biblical scholar, explaining things that you might not catch otherwise.

Answer 8

Kings James is the accepted version that most Christians would use.

Answer 9

I liked the old KJV when it had God's name in it more than 7 thousand times. Unfortunately the devil caused the churchs to take it out. Also the addition of text to make the trinity acceptable is a no, no.
Bible scholars also showed there were thousands of errors in the original version that needed corrections.
Yes! I do prefer the wording against the modern day translations, but I also prefer NOW, the New World Translation in plain english over all others. It has God's name where it belongs, and I put him first in all things.

Answer 10

Many Bibles today contain various versions in one.
For instance, you could get a King James, Amplified and
NIV all in the same book. This is very intersting because the
various translations are often quite different.

Answer 11

sheeple you are so cute, you make me laugh every time I run across your posts LOL!! As for the question, I believe the King James Version is the most accurate, but really the language is so old, it is easier for me to read something with more modern wording. But I have noticed some severe word changing, even to the point of changing the meaning altogether in other translations.