What version of The Holy Bible ( print only ) do you use the most ? Why ?

[MORTARDUDE]

( which ones ?..print only, not on the internet )

I thought this would be interesting....I have 8 versions..the one I use the most is "The Answer" : to Happiness, Health, and Fullfillment in Life; The Holy Bible : A translation for our time with selected writings by leading inspirational authors ( Copywright 1993, by Word Publishing. ."... ( New Century Version )

I like it because of the juxtaposition of the easily readable comtemporary translation with a full page on each concept / selected writings ( i.e. ambition, conflict, abuse, love, lonliness, grief, peace, materialism, debt, with over 100 of them ...it drives home in no uncertain terms, how relevant, universal, and important ALL the words in the Bible are to us today.

Secondly, is the King James ( 1611 ) "Red Letter Edition" given to me on Christmas Day 1960, by my parents, right after I had turned 12 years old. It is in tatters, but I still use it...something about the bright red type and the thees and thous, and verilys that get to me..

Thirdly, is a super complex Concordance that I gave my mother for Christmas a few years ago. Don't remember which one, she has it. It makes "my hair hurt" sometimes...but does the job...LOL

It amazes me, everday of the world, to no end, how the simple words of the Bible have been distorted, used to kill and torture folks, been perverted, had the meanings lost thru multiple levels of language, but still remain just simple and elegant and seamless and timeless...

Larry

DEO VINDICE

[SuperScout]

Many years ago, my parents befriended a man whom I later learned had translated the entire Bible, in the words on the frontispiece, "... From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Containing the Old and New Testaments translated from the Peshitta, the Authorized Bible of the Church of the East." George Lamsa, an Assyrian, translated the Bible from the Aramaic, the primary language of Jesus and his followers.

There are many inconsistencies in other translations that are made very clear by the Aramaic translation; for example, in the familiar Lord's Prayer, we were traditionally taught, "... and lead us not into temptation ..." I 've always had a problem with a God that sits around (pardon the anthropomorphism) tempting his children. The Aramaic version is "... and do not let us enter into temptation..." My God has an extraordinary sense of humor, but He is not a practical joker. I could cite other differences, but hopefully you get the picture.

[Andy]

Till age 52 I never read anything but King James. The language is beautiful. However since then we've been using the NIV as a study guide. Modern language, just a bit more clear.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[SuperScout]

IMHO, the King James version has some of the most unlikely and illogical translations, in comparison to the version I read. For example, the KJV cites in Psalm 144: 7, "Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children..."

From the Peshitta, we read, "Stretch forth thy hand from above; deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of the ungodly..."

From the contextual thought path, what would the Psalmist more likely be calling for, help with dealing with strange children, or the ungodly?

It seems that the Aramaic word 'awaley', meaning ungodly, is confused with a simlar word, 'eweley', meaning babies; in the Aramaic script, they look very similar, with two punctuation marks the only clue that separates the obtuse from the obvious.

[MORTARDUDE]

Thanks for the heads-up about the Peshitta...will definetely have to find one..

Larry

[reeb]

Mort

Down Here we call that version " The Roads".

Look it up and you will see what I mean.

enough.......

[MORTARDUDE]

Thanks.

Larry

[Keith_Hixson]

I use New International Version, New American Standard Bible, King James, and Nestle's Novum Testamenium Graece. I didn't take Hebrew in Seminary. I also have at least ten (probably closer to 15) different translations of the Bible in my library.

The Three Translations are very scholarly translations.

Superscout, I would have some difficulty with believing a translation of a translation would be more accurate than a translation from the original language. Aramaic was the language of the average Jew but the language of the New Testament original manuscripts were Greek. However, Aramaic is a semetic language very closely aligned with Hebrew. The translation may have some valuable insights when dealing with the Old Testament.

The three translations I use, King James, NIV, and NASB are scholarly works done by the best English (American) Scholars of the day in which there written. In each case they were done by committee so as to protect from individual translation (putting in ones own personal bias into the translation). The difficulty with the King James IS: 1. Arcaic Language 2. New and Better Manuscripts (especially in the Greek) are now available to use for greater accuracy. The plus to King James is: It was written in beautiful poetic language. The NIV and NASB were translated by using different translation principles. NIV used contextual principles for translation purposes, NASB and King James tried as much as possible to do a literal word for word translation. So . . . . I use the Greek in the New Testament to make sure the text was properly translated.

I also realize that the greatest help in understanding the Bible is to have a good understanding of the customs and history of Bible Times especially Ancient Hebrew Customs and History and The Customs of the Palestine and the Roman World at the time of Christ. The average layman will miss a lot in Bible reading because he lacks the Historical Knowlege, and a good understanding of the ancient cultures.

There are a lot of TV preachers that don't have a clue to the principles of Biblical interpretation. I don't even like to watch most religious TV because of the gross errors in interpretation. I must preface that with - there are some okay preachers on religious TV. However, if you watch toooo much Religious TV you'll be as confused as a termite in a Yo-Yo.

Keith

[MORTARDUDE]

Keith :

Very well stated...most all of the TV preachers are charlatans, fakes, poor-entertainers, hypocrites ( in the worst sense ), evil, money-grubbing w*ores, frauds, criminals, or worse ( Just my opinion folks..please do not unload flaming emails on me... I have good reasons to believe that, and I would rather not disclose why )...John Ankerberg is the best in my opinion...but that is "just my opinion"....

Larry

[Keith_Hixson]

I agree with most of what you say! I believe a large per centage of TV preachers do more harm than good and not only that they preach one sided confusing doctrine and their sole motive is to pull money out of the local churches that really could use the money.

In other Words Larry, DITTO.

However among all that filth there are a few I really enjoy, they usually are those who are senior pastors of a church.

Keith