"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I use several English versions. I use the NKJV and NASB when preaching and study. I also find the New Living Translation as great help too to bring out a nuance of the text. The ESV is one I like. The NKJV, NASB, ESV are good ones to use. I am skeptical of the NIV as it often deletes words and often suggest in its notes that the NIV is the only version, however, a few places it does a good job in expressing the text. I use two Greek Text and the Septuagint along with a Hebrew Old Testament and a host of study book, etc...Lonewolf wrote:.. out there that you would recommend for the non-denominational Christian ???
I find the KJV hard to understand many a time.
Agreed, some also like the NET and I also like the Jerusalem Bible and the NRSV.B. W. wrote:I use several English versions. I use the NKJV and NASB when preaching and study. I also find the New Living Translation as great help too to bring out a nuance of the text. The ESV is one I like. The NKJV, NASB, ESV are good ones to use. I am skeptical of the NIV as it often deletes words and often suggest in its notes that the NIV is the only version, however, a few places it does a good job in expressing the text. I use two Greek Text and the Septuagint along with a Hebrew Old Testament and a host of study book, etc...Lonewolf wrote:.. out there that you would recommend for the non-denominational Christian ???
I find the KJV hard to understand many a time.
-
-
-
The Bible was taken from the Scrolls...whichever Bible matches the Scrolls is the best Bible. You can buy a copy of the scrolls in English for about $70 USD.Lonewolf wrote:.. out there that you would recommend for the non-denominational Christian ???
I find the KJV hard to understand many a time.
If what you say is true, than the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses is also not in danger?PaulSacramento wrote:Current translations take into account the Majority texts but also the minoroty texts (unlike the KJV that worked solely on the Textus Recpetus). After the finding of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codexs and the Dad Sea scrolls ( In regards to the OT), many of the older translations become "obsolete".
That said pretty much every translation has some bias on the part of the translators, even those that can read the original Aramiac or Hebrew or Koine Greek don't always agree on the meaning of the words and texts ( especially since some words have more than one meaning), that said NO MAJOR doctrine has ever been put in "danger" because of different translations.
The NWT is not a bad translation for the OT, except for their insistence in using Jehovah.Domenic wrote:If what you say is true, than the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses is also not in danger?PaulSacramento wrote:Current translations take into account the Majority texts but also the minoroty texts (unlike the KJV that worked solely on the Textus Recpetus). After the finding of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codexs and the Dad Sea scrolls ( In regards to the OT), many of the older translations become "obsolete".
That said pretty much every translation has some bias on the part of the translators, even those that can read the original Aramiac or Hebrew or Koine Greek don't always agree on the meaning of the words and texts ( especially since some words have more than one meaning), that said NO MAJOR doctrine has ever been put in "danger" because of different translations.
I agree. Jehovah is not Gods name. Gods name is YHWH, and that does not translate to Jehovah. There is no true know translation known to man.PaulSacramento wrote:The NWT is not a bad translation for the OT, except for their insistence in using Jehovah.Domenic wrote:If what you say is true, than the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses is also not in danger?PaulSacramento wrote:Current translations take into account the Majority texts but also the minoroty texts (unlike the KJV that worked solely on the Textus Recpetus). After the finding of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codexs and the Dad Sea scrolls ( In regards to the OT), many of the older translations become "obsolete".
That said pretty much every translation has some bias on the part of the translators, even those that can read the original Aramiac or Hebrew or Koine Greek don't always agree on the meaning of the words and texts ( especially since some words have more than one meaning), that said NO MAJOR doctrine has ever been put in "danger" because of different translations.
It is a very bad one for the NT.
Based on the root of the word and such most suggest/are comfortable with Yahweh/Yahveh/Jahveh variations.Domenic wrote:I agree. Jehovah is not Gods name. Gods name is YHWH, and that does not translate to Jehovah. There is no true know translation known to man.PaulSacramento wrote:The NWT is not a bad translation for the OT, except for their insistence in using Jehovah.Domenic wrote:If what you say is true, than the NWT of Jehovah's Witnesses is also not in danger?PaulSacramento wrote:Current translations take into account the Majority texts but also the minoroty texts (unlike the KJV that worked solely on the Textus Recpetus). After the finding of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codexs and the Dad Sea scrolls ( In regards to the OT), many of the older translations become "obsolete".
That said pretty much every translation has some bias on the part of the translators, even those that can read the original Aramiac or Hebrew or Koine Greek don't always agree on the meaning of the words and texts ( especially since some words have more than one meaning), that said NO MAJOR doctrine has ever been put in "danger" because of different translations.
It is a very bad one for the NT.
The KJV is a good translation. I enjoy it for its poetic beauty most of all, but isn't free of problems. The NIV is an excellent translation as well. I understand the emotional attachment folks have for the KJV. I myself am used to hearing God's voice in KJV English since it's the translation I grew up with. Some KJV Onlyists try to say that it is the only inspired translation, but I really don't think their logic is sound for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons they'll give is because we've used the KJV for so long, why should we change? Well, with that logic, then why don't we use the Latin Vulgate? As Paul already stated, the KJV is based solely on the textus receptus. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but other versions are based on the eclectic text and the KJV translators would have certainly taken those texts into account if they'd had them. (Read the introduction by the translators at the beginning) More of a consensus translation I guess you could say. You can get saved by reading the NIV just as well as you could from the KJV.abelcainsbrother wrote:I have always loved the KJV bible and I rely on it mostly because if it wasn't for Christians like William Tyndale who put their lives on the line like they did we may not have had a bible in English these men were burned at the stake so that we could have a bible in English,if they were willing to die then I trust them over these new translations where nobody died I just don't trust modern translations and can see how it is more watered down in newer translations even if people say they are easier to understand,when I read them it seems to be a weaker message especially the NIV but I have other translations too I just don't read them much,if I do its my NKJV.I prefer to use my NKJV when reading certain parts of the old testament though but I still rely on the KJV more but I stick with my KJV for the new testament as I don't think it is hard to understand and it is not watered down like in certain other translations.
