Welcome to my 10,000th answer!
I like the New King James Version because you can look up the original Greek and Hebrew using a concordance and Interlinear.
2007-11-30 11:54:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I read the New Century Version for simple understanding. When I look something up for clarity though, I often compare with King James Version of New King James Version.
2007-12-01 09:02:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Joyful 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I like the King James version. I also have a parallel bible which has King James version on left of each page, and the Amplified bible on the right side of each page. That helps clarify the original meaning of some of the words. I use it and other sources when studying the bible.
I take my King James version to church with me because that is the one my pastor preaches from and it is easier to follow along.
2007-11-30 11:57:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Faye 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
New World Translation
Like several of the newer translations on the market (including the RSV and NIV), the NWT is printed in paragraphs, or "thought units," rather than in individual verses. Many feel this makes for clearer reading and better understanding. The NWT also abandons the archaic language of some of the older versions (like the KJV). "You" is used throughout the text, instead of "Thou," even in prayers or when referring directly to God.
The NWT also follows a practice (fairly common in newer translations) of indicating passages where there may be textual problems. It is also "one of the rare translations into any language which has rendered the Hebrew word 'Almah' consistently in all of its seven occurrences in the Old Testament" (Dr. Jack P. Lewis). The NWT translates this Hebrew word as "maiden" rather than "virgin."
The NWT also uses the words "Gehenna," "Hades," and "Tartarus" (instead of translating all three as "hell," as the KJV does), thus preserving the distinction between these three concepts in the original text of the Scriptures. In Luke 23:43 the NWT is punctuated to read, "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." By placing the comma after the word "today," instead of before it (as in most translations), the NWT has helped clear up a misunderstanding concerning the so-called "intermediate state" of the dead.
2007-11-30 12:01:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The King James version is the only version one i really trust. The language of the KJV may be somewhat old, but it coveys more of the authority that it should, and the few archaic words are usually understood in the light of their context, which consideration is part of understanding Scripture.
Though the manuscripts (mss) behind it were"newer" than those of the ones used for modern translations, such does not mean that they are less accurate, as they easily could be copies of even older mss that wore out, and the most notable discrepancies and greatest amount are found among the so-called "better" mss the modern versions use.
And which versions almost always are NOT word for word type translations, but thought for thought, so you are reading what they think the text means, and that itself is watered down to appeal to modern listeners who would rather hear God "direct" people than command them.
The Dead Sea scrolls contained portions of almost very book of of the Old Testament, and almost the entire book of Isaiah. When the latter was compared with the text from which the King James Bible was translated (the 11th century A.D. Masoretic text) found a nearly 95% word for word agreement, with the remaining 5% being mostly minor copyist errors or spelling changes.
The Bible was not discerned as fully inspired (and which is the only class of revelation the Bible itself called fully inspired: 2Tim. 3:16) and withstand over 2,000 years of attacks to become the world's best seller by autocratic decree or deception, but because it's books manifests their God - breathed inspiration to whosoever receives it's Author and His message, while it's historicity is supported by more archaeological and manuscript evidence than any literature of comparable antiquity.
And effectual empirical evidence*
The most important thing though it that we "received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Th 2:13).
To God be the glory.
PS. Definitely not the JW NWT: http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/20021013.htm
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/nwt.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
2007-11-30 12:00:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by www.peacebyjesus 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Definitely either the King James Version or the New King James Version. The KJV is pretty much the most accurate version out there, and the NKJV is easier to read.
2007-11-30 12:02:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by laughingeyes927 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Original 1611 King James Version of the Bible which is the one we have today.
2007-11-30 11:59:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by StefanL 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
As to accuracy from the original texts, I would have to say that the New American Standard Bible is the best. It is, however, a little difficult to read. For right now, I would say that the English Standard Version is both readable and accurate.
2007-11-30 11:58:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Miguel 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oxford Annotated Revised Standard
2007-11-30 12:25:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by nouryture 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
The King James Bible with an Amplified Bible to "Explain" the Words in the King James Bible.
Dit================to!
Yep, The Word of GOD will Get You To Heaven!
:)
2007-11-30 11:55:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by maguyver727 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I own KJV, Amplified, NKJV, and NIV.
I most often reach for the NKJV (Nelson's study Bible) in conjunction with the Amplified. Usually, when I just want to read to soak in the Word I grab the NKJV--I like the flow.
Blessings.
2007-11-30 11:58:38
·
answer #11
·
answered by child of God 6
·
0⤊
1⤋