What bible do you use, and why?

I’ve been doing a study on biblical translations going back to the first English Bible, which we commonly know as the King James Version. In 1611 A.D. King James I of England authorized this translation through a select committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. Some had ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America.

Textual criticism is an academic discipline which scholars studied existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Prior to 1455 (the advent of the printing press) all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes. Original manuscripts were copied then burned. Today, there are virtually no copies of the earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

What was found in the latter half of the 19th century were two ancient manuscripts one at the foot of Mt. Sinai now known as Manuscript Aleph (Codex Sinaticus) and later one found in the library of the Vatican, now known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Many scholars are perplexed that Manuscript Codex Vaticanus was found in the Vatican. Moreover Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect who held heretical views similar to today’s Jehovah Witnesses.

Dr. B.F. Westcott and Dr. F.J.A. Hort representatives of a branch of the Church of England and friends of the Roman Catholic Church championed these two manuscripts. These two fundamentalists edited the Aleph and B manuscripts into one Greek text of the New Testament. In the last century it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland, Metzger and others and now is referred to as the critical or eclectic text. Today virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible has its roots in this critical text. Dr. Frank Logsdon the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible has since renounced any connection to this fact. Dr. Logsdon now claims that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely 100% correct.

While I personally use more than one translation of the Bible. The King James Version itself has a list of 500 archaic an obsolete words and phrases that were changed to help the average reader to more readily understand the KJV. So is this hypocritical, and is the KJV the closest to the real thing?

What do YOU think?

comments

Comments

  1. JehovahisKing says:

    When i am studying the Word i tend to use, KJV, NKJV & NLT.
    Ive brought nearly all the different translations inc the amplified version.
    I think it is better to use different versions of the bibles (or compare) the text when it comes to studying.
    For back up and just to confirm that the bibles are saying the same thing.
    I would advice everyone serious about getting deeper understanding about the Word of God to buy various different translations and compare the text. If something seems out of line Go back to KJV which i see as the main original.
    But as a basic KJV.

    God Bless u Guys

  2. After all My research i have realized one thing,God isnt man that he needs TOO Many versions of the bible in the same language WHICH SAYS DIFFERENT THING! Nay! For we read in 1cor 14:33″For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints”.Theses Modern Versions have got an attack on FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH.They attack DEITY OF CHRIST,REMOVE BLOOD OF JESUS,MADE JESUS AND LUCIFER THE SAME…..They are contrary to above verse,for If all would have came from same source,they would have same scripture saying exactly the same meaning.So I have made My mind Never to read these perverted versions for if they have denied the deity of Christ,they aren’t from him.I WILL NEVER USE THEM!

    More points::
    I don’t use them for they use corrupt manuscript[codex vaticanus,codex sinaiticus and Alexandrian that omits some verses. you can use them as other fallible books but not as the Bible ]

    By his stripes we were healed

  3. In studying the Word of GOD, I rely on my Students Bible NIV then also the New Living Translation for modern translation. I also consult the commentaries, dictionaries, and most of all meditation on the Word with the help of the Holy Spirit.

  4. evstevemd says:

    Thanks Br. Michael for your good research.I use e-sword with strong number from http://www.e-sword.net.
    I have found no other accurate Bible that fits KJV. I use Dictionaries to see original meaning of the word.Modern Versions are perveted.I cant believe them.They try to hide Deity of Christ. Its Just I cant Believe them.Im going on with my research.I found shocking news to users of bible spread by the gideons.You use their bible?read this
    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/gideons-modernvers.html

    Jesus is Love
    Jesus is God
    By his stripes we were healed

  5. Bigdaddy1211 says:

    The New King James version is very close to the KJV,it changes a couple of words but is fairly close. I basically use both when studying God’s Word and when I am at an point where I am confused about a word, I use a lexicon. The most important thing is that we are studying. But my greatest resource is the Holy Spirit, who gives knowledge and wisdom to all who ask.
    In Jesus Name

  6. I pesonally use many different translations. I don’t typically use the KJV, although I may refer to it if I wish to have another translation. I use the Amplified version alot because it directly translates Greek/Hebrew to explanatory English words. What I mean by that is it will give many English words to explain what the Greek/Hebrew word means. I don’t use the NIV much because I have found their have been some words and meanings left out of it. I also use the Stong’s Greek/Hebrew Concordance to help me know what was actually originally meant in Greek/Hebrew. But, most importantly, I ask the Holy Spirit who Jesus sent to guide us in the truth. Without Him the words mean nothing. The Bible was spiritually written, and therefore, must be spiritually discerned.

  7. You know the first English Bible was not the KJV. Before that was the Geneva Bible and also the Bishop’s Bible. These were built on the work of John Wycliffe, who in 1380 translated the Scripture into English at great personal cost to himself. From what I have learned, King James and the bishops were not too happy with the Geneva Bible because it threatened to expose some of the errors in the Anglican church, and the incompleteness of the Reformation, so King James commissioned scholars to make the KJV, the authorized version. There were some strict guidelines in place, one of which was not to change the names of any of the New Testament ecclesiastical offices such as “bishops” and “deacons”.

    I don’t think there is any perfect Bible translation into the English language. We can still know what God is saying through it, its just that sometimes we have to dig a little deeper into the original languages. Only the original texts in Hebrew/Greek as first written are perfect, and even then, you still need the help of the Holy Spirit and some understanding of the background to know what the true meaning is.

    While the KJV at least avoids the Wescott/Hort text based on the Alexandrian and Vaticanus manuscripts, we have to remember that the King James version was commissioned by King James and overseen by Bishop Bancroft of the Church of England. These men had strong vested interests in hiding the meanings of certain words, the true plain understanding of which might have challenged the status quo as far as ecclesiastical organization and practice was concerned.

    The typical approach was to transliterate words from the Greek rather than translate them. Thus ‘episkopos’ (literally overseer) became ‘bishop’, ‘diaconai’ (lit. servants) became deacons, ‘baptizo’, (to dip/immerse) became ‘to baptize’. Perhaps the most damaging was to translate ‘daimonizomai’ as ‘to be possessed with devils’. By just transliterating the words, the old traditional meanings of the words would be assumed, leaving the status quo intact of the ecclesiastical power base of the day.

    The consequence of these mistranslations has been severe. It has resulted in unbiblical hierarchical church leadership models where leaders lord it over underlings and seek to be served by them, sprinkling of infants and total ignorance concerning the ministry of deliverance for Christians.

    Sorry to have to say this, but even the KJV has its weaknesses as a translation.

  8. Me i use only KJV,I have been client to NIV but i found it erronous,after all all new version have got changes to fit Modern language.So for serious error free studies i reccomend KJV

    you can have a look at my thread “ARE MODERN BIBLES CORRUPT?”

    Jesus is Love
    Jesus is God
    By his stripes we were healed

  9. Wogboy222 says:

    Personally i would use the KJV, as it provides more detail then the NIV. The NIV bible misses a lot of critical details. I also prefere the KJV becauee it is easy to understand.. so…

  10. Wogboy222 says:

    Personally i would use the KJV, as it provides more detail then the NIV. The NIV bible misses a lot of critical details. I also prefere the KJV becauee it is easy to understand.. so…

    • Angel-in-hiding says:

      KJV only for me! I would never use any other. The KJV was good enough in Bible days, and it is good enough today. It is the true and ONLY inspired Word of God. I could keep going, but I don’t want to start any arguements with all those who read and use the wrong versions.

      • Lately I’ve been enjoying Young’s Literal Translation, as a companion to my KJV. I have both the original 1611 and the 1769 revision of the KJV.

Speak Your Mind

*

close
Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube Icon