Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

What Bible should I use?

I always say its good to revise different versions. But the thing is I have friends who dont have a church, and with so many apostate churches I doubt there will be a good church near them. Specially in the places they live in. Now, many of them dont have a Bible either. So, we ve been reading the Bible through the chat and a website: www.biblegateway.com

I ve heard so many people recommend the KJV, not the New KJV, nor the KJ21st. I would use the KJV, but they really dont understand that language. Some people think that the way of language doesnt get in the way, but it does. They just dont understand. So, when I started checking other versions, I found two I consider to be at least good enough, like the Lexham English Bible. But I prefer the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

What do you think?

Report as

***** If you want to understand prophecy read KJV. If not, it doesn't matter I suppose. Words and phrases used in Revelation have changed in the other versions, explaining the meaning :(
When you have the Holy Spirit, it doesn't matter what bible you read, God will explain if you ask. :) *****

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
Yeah, but for love to those who dont have an equal capacity to comprehend the dialect. The Holy Spirit is in her, and even teaches her how to be a christian. But she doesnt understand thee thow thy ye etc. But the HCSB seems pretty accurate. What do you mean words and phrases have been changed in Revelation?
Report as
If anyone prays for understanding before reading, they will :)
Report as
What if they are mentally challenged?
Report as
What if they have dyslexia?
Report as
If anyone prays for understanding they will receive it.
Report as
You know? Some people who are King James only say that, and even thy dont have a well understanding of the Bible. One of them even said that if people commit sucid, they can still go to heaven. No, if one commits sucid, its a sin, no, its 3 sins. And one doesnt get the chance to repent for those sins. One dies too fast. If one has time to repent, then God allows that person to live and its not sucid, its attempt sucid.

Also said that the gifts are no longer given. Yes they are. And based himself on one verse, that was actually not well interpreted, and didnt read 1 Corinthians 14 which is basically the chapter about the gifts.

Now, say you pray to God for understanding, and God gives you a dictionary. Well, we have the HCSB.
Report as
Woe there bubba, do you know what happens in the last seconds of someones life? Problem is, you think you're the judge. God is.
Please, read what ever bible you want or your friend wants. I was just trying to help.
Peace :)
Report as
No, I dont think I m the judge, but I know what s in the Bible. And if God gives advantages, then why wont we take them? If God tells Jacob to put an olive rod in the drinking water, why wont he? If God tells Peter to eat unholy animals that God has cleansed, why wont he?
Report as
Add a comment...

any

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

esv

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
I checked that one... I think the HCSB is better.
Report as
k
Report as
thanks anyway :)
Report as
Add a comment...

Try the NIV study version .

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
The witch version?
Report as
The NIV is the worse thing to read. Meanings are changed so much.
Report as
wait, that s the NKJV
Report as
My niece reads the NIV all the time and she's a marvelous Christian. It's just easy to understand. I like the NASB a lot and use it every day. It has lots of helps in it too.
Report as
You know how many people talk about being marvelous christian? And what if people who made it easy to understand actually misunderstood?
Report as
That s why I always read the Bible with my friends with three Bibles. The HCSB, the KJV, and the Bible I use in spanish.
Report as
Add a comment...

I strongly recommend against using the KJV. It is indeed a superb translation, but of a spectacularly bad source. It is essentially a translation of the Erasmus Bible, which most scholars are unanimous that was based on a particularly bad witness. For the OT I recommend you use
mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/ which is based heavily on the MT,
and for the NT I suggest the Nestle-Aland 26-27 editions.

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (25)
Report as
I use the Nestle 26 directly (it gets daily use); most modern translations use a version of it. And almost all modern translations use the MT for the OT.
Report as
Most make a use of the MT, but with heavy LXX influence. I think the Mechon Mamre translation is superior. When I need a verse in English, I more often than not use it.
Report as
Heavy 70s influence... Now, to be about this of the translations and the sources, Its not that simple. Anyonje can say wrong translation and just put whatever they want. I m guessing the Mechon must be the equivalent of the Pechita in spanish. But what does in really change or makes a big difference?
Report as
The great benefit of the Mechon Mamre translation is that it actually translates what the original says, not what the religious doctrine says it ought to say. E.g., take Isaiah 7:14. The Mechon Mamre correctly translates "alma" as a young woman. Most Christian version inappropriately try to force the word virgin down your throat, which is what they want the word "alma" to mean, not what it actually means.
Report as
Um, Mary was a virgin, and she gave birth to a son named Immanuel. Which is Jesus. That s a prophecy that Isaiah gave.
Report as
Just there, you just proved to me that its wrong.
Report as
Let's see, "behold, a young woman will conceive..." That's an unremarkable prophecy.
Report as
LOL, that happens all the time. Its not remarkable in any way. But there s absolutely no way a virgin can possibly give birth without semen. But when Gabriel was telling Mary that she was gonna have a son, she asked how, because she hadnt been intimate with any man. And Gabriel said that the Holy Spirit would come over her, and He would put His seed in her. And actually, Jesus wasnt son until then. Before that, He wasnt the Sonof God, He was the Word of God. But comes Paul in Hebrews mentioning that God called Jesus His Son when He was conceived.
Report as
Shiny, you are misleading. The remarkable part is not the conception itself which granted is quite usual, but that the child she will bear will fulfill the prophecies in the following verses.
Report as
If that s the case, then why was Mary a virgin when she had Jesus?
Report as
First, Isaiah's prophecy was about his day and time, not seven centuries (!) in the future. It was already fulfilled in his day and age. Second, she wasn't a virginia, lol. Virgins cannot get pregnant.
Report as
No. The prophecy was for the time of Jesus, and if you read the New testament, it says it. And yes, Mary was a virgin. And she got pregnant by the Holy Spirit because nothing is impossible for God. You havent read the Gospels?
Report as
What interest would the people of Jerusalem in the eights century BCE have to listen to some prophecy about a virgin at a time their descendants would be under the occupation of a nation they never even heard about, at the time that they are attacked by the Assyrians and they have much more pressing troubles? The prophecy was about a King would will be born and will deliver them. That was Isaiah's intention, and that how all his listeners understood it. Yes, Christians tried to find "evidence" in the Tanach fir their dopey ideas. So they took verses out of context, mistranslated words, etc. that's one example. Alma dies not mean virgin. You are raping the text if you suggest otherwise.
Report as
In that case, why did God used Mary as a virgin and not as a mother or a woman who had been intimate with a man? Yes, the prophecy was about the Messiah, but the sign was that a virgin would conceive.

The Hebrew word occurs seven times in the Old Testament. It means a young woman of marriageable age, normally a virgin (Gen. 24:43). The Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 150 b.c. translated with a word more specifically meaning “virgin.” The New Testament understands Isaiah to be designating Mary having conceived as a virgin (Matt. 1:23). More detailed at Luke 1:27.
Report as
I suppose that's what Mary concluded and the basis of her objection.
Report as
That a virgin could not conceive.
Report as
As to the timing of the time of the messiah, it was covered in Daniel 9: 490 years after the going forth of the decree. That's why so many false messiahs were identified around that time: there was a common expectation of a messiah within a 20 year window of Jesus. See here for more info: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/457.html
Report as
Bryan, Isaiah 7 is not about the Messiah. The prophecy is about deliverance from the attack of two foreign armies. And the Greek, to the extent it it means virgin, is not from 150 years before Jesus, but from well after him. That's a common lie that Christians spread.
Report as
Shiny, I'm sure you know very well the traditional Jewish chronologies, that do not lead to Jesus' time. And the word Messiah in Daniel refers to Koresh.
Report as
You're absolutely right though about the argument about many false messiahs. My point exactly! Jesus was just another false messiah.
Report as
''Isaiah 7 is not about the Messiah.'' Yes it was. Matthew 1:23.

''the Greek, to the extent it it means virgin, is not from 150 years before Jesus'' Yes it was. 1. the main language in those times was Greek. 2. Its the Greek that Jesus quoted.

And well, I m sure that Koresh doesnt concur with Isaiah 53. But Jesus fits perfectly. Jesus was not a false Messiah. You re just like the Pharisees, dude.
Report as
Except for 1 thing, maybe, hopefully.
Report as
Bryan, Isaiah 7 is not about any messiah. Read it. The fact that Matthew made a claim that it was, still doesn't make it so. Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke to Jewish audiences in Israel, and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Not Greek. Saying that this Greek is from 150 years before Jesus is ludicrous. In the 2nd century NCE there was no known rendition of Isaiah in Greek. Stop making things up!
Report as
I m not making things up. Now, what makes you think that Jesus didnt speak Greek? And remember all these things happened in the times of the romans, which was after the time of the greeks. And there were greeks that joined Israel. Greeks that turned to Judaism.
Report as
Oh my, you're very confused. Yes, there were Greek speaking communities in Israel at the time, mostly of Gentiles, not of Jews. The prime examples are Caesarea and Sepphoris. However, Jesus never addressed these communities. Jesus spoke to the Jews, the fishermen of the Sea of Galilee, the farmers and artisans of the Galilee, the people if Jerusalem. Those did not speak Greek. The only Jews who spoke Greek at the time were a small strata of merchants, rich people, and the political and religious leadership of the Sadducees. There were Gentiles who converted to Judaism, but not really in Israel. They were mostly in Rome, Alexandria, and other gentile cities.
Report as
Add a comment...

Read the Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson, or what is known as Jefferson Bible.

Helpful (2) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (19)
Report as
Ha! Atheists always make such great suggestions about Bibles to read. Like me suggesting you read a book about Dawkins or Hitchins written by someone who is a Christian.
Report as
The problem, however, is that "who is a Christian" can never write a book like "Dawkins or Hitchins [sic]"!!

By the way, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins has neither been my favorite writers, nor has been the persons whom I revere much.

Thank you, though.
Report as
There s a problem with the Jefferson bible. Its the same as taking part of the regular Bible and not reading what one chooses to not read. In this case, its only choosing to not read what he chose to not read. Now, the Gospels were written for a reason. One cant just choose to not read part of it. Better to not read it at all.
Report as
Yes; you are right. The gospels were written for a reason. And the reason was to propagate a design -- a mean and profitable design. The outcasts of Jewish tribe established themselves by the gospels. Not a praiseworthy reason though!!
Report as
Mean and profitable, when it teaches that the true religion is to take care of widows and orphans (James 1) in other words, those in need (also, Acts 6). Read Matthew 5-7. Also, Matthew 15:18-20, Matthew 18:5, Matthew 22:36-40, Acts 10:34-35, Acts 20:35, Galatians 5 and Galatians 6. And tell me what is mean about it.
Report as
Read Psalm 109 and ask yourself if in the literature of all the worlds including those of the cannibals ever held a more perverse, more savage, more mean and more cruel "inspiration" than what its contents?

Read Psalms 137:9: "Happy is the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock" and refer me to anything worst than this?

Does this verse in Malachi 3:8-11: "Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me! "But you ask, 'What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?' "You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me...." sound as profit-scheme to you?

Does not this verse in Nahum 1:2-8: "The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great... He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm..." sound as the mother of all meanness to you?

How about "those who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and SLAY THEM BEFORE ME"; or "I (Jesus) am come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. I come not to send peace, but a sword"; "let the dead bury the dead", or "do not throw your pearls before the swain", or "stone to death your wife for disagreement upon faith", or "depart ye Satan from me into the darkness of everlasting fire", or "cut off your hands and feet, and pluck out your eyes to avoid going to hell", or "Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable"...............and I can go on and on....

Just ask, and you shall be given!!
Report as
If you see a giant centipede in your house, and it layed eggs. Will you kill the centipede and not its eggs?

God had a pact with Israel. Part of that pact was the tiths. How about this: You give me $100, 000. You tell me I can use of it as much as I want, but you will need back $10,000. If I use up all the money, am I not stealing from you? The money was after all yours in the first place.

The vengeance is of God. Because He is just. He sure is full of wrath and power, but more than that, love, mercy and forgiveness.

Anyone can go on and on using the Bible out of context. You should learn from Jesus and the Apostles instead of trying to make Him look bad. You try to make God look bad and with what purpose? But if you served God, then only good can come out of that.
Report as
Yes! The Christian history of last 2000 years prove quite well "how good was the come out of serving" such a monster that you were deceived into worshipping as god!!

Well already have too overcrowded with theological hypocrites in this world. I do not intend to add more!! Thanks for the offer though!!
Report as
Then dont be a theological hypocrite. In what those who call themselves christians you see hypocrisy, do the christianity, but simply not the hypocrisy. That s why people always say ''dont put your sight on the people, put your sight on God''.
Report as
I do not think that it is possible to "put someone's sight on to a nothing" even for those hypocrites!! It has long been a curious thing for me that seeing or seeking the "nothing" that you call "god", has always been claimed by those who has "nothing" better to do!!
Report as
I would have lots of things better to do than waste my time on nothing, but its not nothing, its God. And if you wanna be able to put your sight on Him, then instead of trying to look for a bad side of Him, try focusing on His good side. On the good things about Him. There will be many many things you wont understand, but eventually you will get the answers.
Report as
I know that time may never come. Because it has been well proved by now that Christian hope is the only bee that makes honey without any flower.

But, if time comes after all that you long for, there will be time enough for everyone to amend and make peace. Until then I will live free and aspire to love and live among men. Never will I sacrifice the substance of this known life for the shadow of a pseudo next. I cannot degrade myself to so low as to rely upon the unauthentic, impossible and fraudulent dogmas of Christianity established principally upon the doctrine of "Pious Fraud". I see "Pious Fraud" upon which rests entire foundation of Christianity, and which has been upheld and practiced by both Paul the Impostor and Martin Luther the Protester, just as any other dishonest fraud.

If that time comes after all, no honest man has anything to fear. And nothing, and no amount of Christian forgeries and impositions can make me believe that an honest man will be damned for not believing that an all good, wise and just god commanded polygamy or upheld slavery or inspired wars of extermination. If he can, I would rather go to hell and keep the company of those honest men, than to go to heaven and keep the company of such a devil that you dishonestly call god.
Report as
No, you dont live free. You re a slave of the world, and the one who rules over it. Only God can make you free. But that s something you probably wont understand for now. Sacrifice the substance of the known life? Only good comes from having a personal relationship with the Lord. You put your sight on religions. Dont do that. You gotta learn the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

A righteous man wont be condemned for not believing in God, but for rejecting God makes an unrighteous man. Who lives without knowing the Law will be judged in another way. Its in Romans 2. But to be saved that way is much harder. And you know, God did not commanded polygamy or slavery. He allowed it for the same reason He allowed divorce. For the hardness of their hearts. And for that reason He allowed many things, but now thin gs are different. Because the Law has been invalidated, now that we ve been taught the heart of the Law, which are the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. The wars of the OT had their reason of being. Dont think their enemies (or their sprout) wouldve had mercy of them. Lastly:
Report as
First of all, if you go to hell, its because you re guilty. And you will recognize it before you even see it. And so have everyone who s entered it, and when you did, you would know that there are no people in hell who were righteous before they died. Second, its so bad, that you would regret it before you even enter. You would beg for another chance. But you had so many chances here on Earth. But anyway. If you really wanna know, ask God to show you what its like, so you dont have to wait until there s no more hope to know.
Report as
"A righteous man wont be condemned for not believing in God, but for rejecting God makes an unrighteous man" - what does this suppose to mean? Is it like saying that "a man can be as rich as he wants to be, but for rejecting to be poor makes him poor"? Or did you mean that a righteous atheist would go to heaven even though he disbelieves in your particular God? Does the bible support that assertion of yours?

"Only God can make you free" - do you mean the same god who commanded that: "subjects be obedient to the powers that be"? It ought to be too hard for any sensible man to believe that!!

"Only good comes from having a personal relationship with the Lord" - remember the inquisition, the crusades, the Dark Age, the Jew cleansing, the Holocaust, the Christians cutting each other, the hating of unbelievers, the force conversion, the gay persecutions, the bombing of abortion clinics etc!! I find all these have been done by those "who has a personal relation with the Lord" and those "who love their enemies and preach universal love"! Strange!!

"And for that reason He allowed many things, but now thin gs are different. Because the Law has been invalidated, now that we have been taught the heart of the Law, which are the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles" - let us see what "the Lord" with whom you claim to "have a personal relation" has to say about your such interpolation? I find in "the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles" (Matthew 5:17-18 says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. I say to you very seriously that as long as heaven and earth exist, neither the smallest letter nor even the smallest stroke of a pen will be erased from the Law until everything there becomes a reality". Wow!! It is so entertaining to find that you know more than what your God himself knew!!
Report as
Now, let us come to your old and rotten excuse about your God "commanding polygamy or slavery for the same reason He allowed divorce. For the hardness of their hearts. And for that reason He allowed many things"!!

According to Christian apologists and petty theologians like you the Jews (and remember, they were the "chosen people" of the same God) were so hard in heart, so ignorant, so bad, that God was compelled to justify their crimes, in order to have any influence with them. You say that if your God had declared slavery and polygamy to be crimes, the Jews would have refused to receive the Law or the Ten Commandments. You tell us that your God did the best he could; that his real intention was to lead the Jews along slowly, so that in a few hundred years they would be civilized enough to admit that wars of extermination was simply murder, that polygamy and slavery were not virtues.

If I am to take your such deceptive jugglery seriously, I suppose if we now wished to break a cannibal Maori tribe of the inherited habit of devouring Christian Missionaries, we would first have to induce them to cook the missionaries in a certain way, saying: "To eat cooked missionary is one step in advance of eating raw missionary to soften your hearts. After a few years, a little mutton could be mixed with and cooked with missionary, and with each year the amount of mutton could be increased and the amount of missionary meat decreased, until in the fullness of time their main dish could be entirely mutton. This way the hearts of those cannibals would be completely softened, and cannibalism would "be invalidated". And only after then, probably after 2000/3000 years since the anti-cannibalism scheme wold have began, the Christian missionaries would be absolutely safe from being eaten.

You would not support such a scheme to protect your missionaries. And yet, your attempt to rationalize polygamy, slavery, wars of extermination commanded by your god is simply worse than the one I proposed above! Think!!
Report as
Yes, its in Romans 2. But what righteous man rejects God, Lord of righteousness? As for being free, its in Romans 6:15-18. The Dark Age was the first seal of the book mentioned in Revelations 6. Jesus teachings are against all those things you mentioned in the 3rd paragraph. In order to be a christian, you must follow Jesus s teachings. In other words, those who were in favor of those things you mentioned do not have a personal relationship with God. Idk what makes you think they do or did. 4th paragraph, its explained in Romans 6 as well.

Its not that the Jews wouldve refused it, its that they wouldnt have been able to keep it. Sure, to change a whole culture, it wouldnt be done in a day, or even a few years. Even like that, God gave them over 600 commandments to change the culture. That is known as the Law/Torah, and its pretty drastic. And you gotta remember that things and people were different back then. And He didnt commanded it, He allwoed it. And even like that, there were many things He did not allow.
Report as
Well, as I see it, I may not have anything new to learn from this discussion. I do not consider repetition as a valid argument, and I do not accept the oldest word-crafts, even when clothed in new linens, to be worth anything at all.

But I thank you for your decency and patience. Gook luck.

Report as
No problem.
Report as
Add a comment...

NIV bibles are easier to comprehend. I use it. But if you want to be more accurate try ESV.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
NIV has a witch symbol. The devil also has anointment. Of course, the anointment of the Holy Spirit is something else. But the anointment of the devil is the reason Mita thought she was God.
Report as
Wait, its not the NIV, its the NKJV
Report as
Add a comment...

The easier to understand versions are the NIV, NET, NASB, The Message, ESV, Good News Bible, God's Word, LB, NLT, Amplified, and there are others. Just check and see which ones they like.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
I m not just looking for easy to understand, I m looking for faithfullness to the teachings. PS: the NIV has a witch symbol.
Report as
Oh, wait, its not the NIV, its the NKJV
Report as
Add a comment...

Read multiple versions. Every translation is an interpretation. You can only benefit from taking in multiple perspectives on what's in the scriptures. If you're nit-picking about a word here or a phrase there, you're missing the point, imo.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Actually, its not like that. Its not about the different messages different Bibles show, its about the same message different Bibles show. But that s not gonna work, cause when I m reading the Bible with a friend in English, we would have to read the same verse over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. and over again. That wont do. But, back to the same message that all the Bibles reflect in common, I find so far that the best Bible that interprets that message that the Bibles share in common, even the KJV, in the language she can understand is the HCSB.
Report as
Why is it be a problem to read the same passage two or three times?
It's not an impossible book, and you have your whole life to read it.
Report as
No, we dont have the whole life to read it. We gotta read it as soon as possible, but yet understanding it. The more we learn, the better we talk to people about God. And we have a limited time to do that. Jesus Christ could come any minute now. Besides, reading multiple times is exhausting and makes it harder on people. And if it were necesary, then ok, but its not necesary if one has a good Bible. Besides, reading the same thing two or three times instead of reading continuously makes it harder for people to keep track of the point of the lecture instead of individually. The Bible is read as a whole. Not as many individual pieces. Besides, all that makes it harder for people to keep interest. Not because they dont want to learn about God. But its like Jesus said ''the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak''.
Report as
Add a comment...

The revised standard is easier to read... the good news bible too

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Get 3 different ones. Read - compare

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
I only get two different ones when I m reading with her. The HCSB, and the Reina Valera.
Report as
Now I got the KJV too. Well, I guess there arent any better Bibles than the ones I already know...
Report as
Add a comment...

I have 5 that I read from but my main 2 are ESV and NKJV. When checking the full meaning I check all 5 ESV, NKJV, KJV, ASV, and lastly MSG. Message might as well be known as the dumbed down version... I use it mainly for verses. Like yesterday I read 1 in first Corinthians and we had 9 people unable to understand what the verse meant in singular form. It made more sense not being there but we got some idea what it meant when I MSG checked it. It was weird too cause ASV ESV NKJV and KJV Al's said the same thing word for word. I was surprised to find a verse in KJV that didn't have and of thy funky language... I really don't trust NIV though. It seem to be alittle off most of the time.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Wowowowowow, 9 people unable to understand that it was singular? Which was the verse? Now, the NKJV has a witch symbol. It could have demonic influence. I ve checked the ASV, and the ESV. I find the HCSB to be better.
Report as
It was like 4:21 or something I'll check later.
Report as
lemme know when you do
Report as
It was 3:21
Report as
It is in plural. When it says everything is yours. Further it says ''everything is yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ of God''.
Report as
And belong to Christ.
Report as
Add a comment...

I prefer HCSB. It's a fine choice.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Agree. Atar
Report as
I think so too. Tho, I made this question to see if I find a better one, but so far, no.
Report as
Yeah. It's my personal fave. I've read KJV, NKJV, NLT, and NIV aswell.

I find the HCS to be top shelf.
Report as
Add a comment...

Any mainstream translation is fine. Specific words used arent important as long as the content is the same and that is true for all mainstream, widely accepted versions. Using 'thee' and 'thou' instead of you and 'thine' instead of 'your' doesnt make it a better trans that any that have cone before or after it. The KJV is just one of many translations and no different than any other as far as content. Nothing makes it 'better' oe more true than any other. Its not even the first English trans. Traditionalists are stuck on it because its old and its been used longer than most and is therefore part of their human religious tradition. I dont recommend the KJV for a newby because the language is too out of date and hard to understand. Try one of the following.
The Message version is easiest to understand. As is the Good News Bible version. New International Version, and New English Standard (what we use at my church) are good translations as well. The only ones to stay away from are those specific to a single denomination like The Book of Mormon and the New World Translation (Jehovahs Witness) because they have actually changed and added and removed content, significantly altering Gods word. Also be careful of the Catholic Bibles because they include the unaccepted false appocryphal books written by loyal catholics from the fifth century on either for or at the command of a pope.
Biblegateway is an awesome app by the way.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
No. Because, you see, you read the different translations and you get one message that reflects in the different versions, specially the KJV. But one translation can only be interpreted one way. Another translation can be interpreted the same way, but also a different way and is meant so that if someone reads it by themselves, they will fall in error. That s how the JW made the NWT. And many people use that to teach different things that what God teaches.
Report as
Ive read several versions. As far as i can tell they all carry exactly the same message.
Report as
Well, I ve read different versions. And some versions are used to teach a different message from the message of God. That s what I was telling you the JW do. But in the NWT, I ve found more than 20 verses that dont support their teachings. And many verses in that Bible can be understood as the same message that the other Bibles project, but because its written in a certain way, it can also be interpreted differently and teach another message that isnt the one God gives. But reading the other versions, one can understand what it really meant. What it was intended by God to mean in the first place. Like the HCSB, the KJV, the LEB, and many others.

And at first, the JW were the only ones that did that. Not even the catholics added, removed or changed verses to make virgins and saints look as deities. But lately, since apostasy has grown, its also being used by the sects that teach lies about Jesus s coming, about sin, about other things. So they teach people to do what they want. They re also using Bibles altered to be able to be interpreted so much the message of God as the message of you can do whatever you want.
Report as
Thats why i specifically mentioned staying away from false versions like the Book of Mormon, the New Life Bible and the catholic bibles. Most other translations are widely accepted by all protestant christian denominations as equal versions of Gods Truth.
Report as
Well, you gotta remember that most protestant christian churches of this time are in apostasy.
Report as
Add a comment...

I don't think it matters. A Bible is a Bible; if there are contradictions in one, then there will be contradictions in the others.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
Which contradiction did you have in mind?
Report as
None in mind really. I'm sure there are plenty; I've discovered some that others didn't discover. On the other hand, it's also the question of whether the believer will keep their head and understand the contradiction, rather than saying that I'm not understanding it.

But, no, there are none I have in mind at the moment.
Report as
So, you re one of the people to stick to one Bible and not check different versions of the texts? People recommend the KJV. I ve checked it, compared it to Bibles in spanish. Compared other Bibles, I see the message reflected in all the Bibles, but in some its harder to understand. So far, the one that I ve found that makes it easier to understand is the HCSB.
Report as
Not really. It's just that I don't see the point in doing that. After all, one version might say something different than the other. Which one do you choose to go by? Perhaps the one you go by has the different wording and is incorrect in the wording? It's bias, really. You choose the one that favors your opinion.
Report as
That s the whole point, PassageOne. One version might say something different than the other, but when you read the different versions, the more the better, and you see that even tho the words are different, they can all support the same interpretation, from the most faithful, like the KJV or HCSB, to the les faithful, you start seeing the message of God.
Report as
Not really Bryan. Hardly at all.
Report as
Yes, and if you wont do it, I reccomend the HCSB.
Report as
It s more clear reflecting the message of the interpretation supported by the different versions.
Report as
well, first there really is no message from any god. It's just what people want to read. So saying that it reflects the message despite the interpretations is just basically saying that you can find a way to make it say what you WANT it to say.
Report as
No. That s not what I said. What I said is there is one message, and different versions, but all the versions can interpret that message. Not that any Bible can interpret any message, its the message the different Bibles interpret in common.
Report as
Add a comment...

The HCSB is a good Bible. The New KJV is excellent and based on recent scholarship so you will find the language updated and the text similar to some of the newer translations. The most close-to-original I can find is the ASV, and the NASB is an update of that. But I find the NIV to be an excellent choice and I use it for reading and devotions. All are excellent versions and the best Bible is the one you read.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
The witch bible is excellent? Anyone can say scholarship and change texts. Why are Bibles like that accepted? Because even tho the text is meant to be understood differently, it can also be understood the way that is faithful to God s word. That s why its accepted, aside of the corruption of today s days, but the texts are intended to be understood differently. And it works and is bringing lots of people out of the word of God. As for the ASV and NASV, I ve checked and compared. The HCSB is better.
Report as
Did I not agree that the H CSB is an excellent Bible? But in seminary, we did a comparison of an average of 100 words of text. Every deviation of word order, meaning, syntax, grammar, could get a deviation count (all translations will have such due to differences in language, not text).
.
The ASV had an deviation of 17; The King James, 21. The NASB, 19. HCSB about 30, Douhay-Rheims 28. But Bibles such as good news for modern man, could go over 100; at some arbitrary number, you stop being a translation and start becoming a commentary. If you say that any account approximating 17-30 deviations is a good translation, you would be fine.
Report as
Yeah, but the NKJV has a witch symbol... might have demonic influence.
Report as
That's interesting, but irrelevant. I doubt that the Bible publishers of any kind are promoting witches. Seeing how the Gideons place NKJV Bibles everywhere, 15 million a year, its one of the most popular versions. I think they are safe.
Report as
I dont doubt it. Its one of the most popular versions. Most of the churches today are in apostasy. As sad as it is, its true...
Report as
Add a comment...

In their investigations regarding the accuracy of various Bible translations, many have found the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah's Witnesses to be very accurate in addition to being very easy to read and understand.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (16)
Report as
I've also found in my personal research that it provides a clearer understanding of texts such as Psalm 110:1. In most Bibles that verse says: "And the LORD said unto my Lord, sit thy at my right and until I place thine enemies as thy footstool."

Many have asked the legitimate question, "who is talking to who in this verse?" Well, a key is revealed in the two different renderings of the title Lord. One is in all Caps while the other has only the L capitalized. It must be noted that in some of the older versions of the King James Bible it was stated in the preface, and in some cases the appendix, that where ever a person saw the title LORD in all capital letters, that is where the Tetragrammaton appears in the original text. Often translated as Yahweh or Jehovah, with Jehovah being the most familiar and widely used rendering. Thus in the New Word Translation the name has been restored which allows persons to now understand who is talking to who. Thus Psalm 110:1 reads: "And Jehovah said to my Lord (Jesus), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"
Report as
What does "the number of his name" mean?
Report as
@Summer_Breeze, From my research and from what many legitimate Bible scholars have found is that there is no meaning in the number of this name. But that the name itself has a literal meaning which is rendered, "He causes to become", or "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be". In some Bible versions the expession "I Am that I Am" is used at Exodus 6:3 and 6:4.

Thus scholars agree that this name that God gives himself revealed to the Israelites that he could become whatever he needed to be in taking care of his people and ensuring that his divine purpose would be carried out to completion.
Report as
Forget what biblical scholars say Lol. The OT in the KJV explains what the phrase means very well. That has been changed in the new versions. Many things have been changed.
Report as
Very accurate and very easy to understand? Not at all. Its like I ve been telling people here. There are many different translations, and as far as I understand, the same message can be understood in all of them from the most faithful, like the KJV and the HCSB, to the less faithful, like the NWT. Why do I say most faithful to the less faithful? The same message can be understood in all of them, even the KJV and the HCSB. And even in the NWT. However, the same message that is understood in all the versions is better interpreted in the KJV and HCSB. But in the NWT, its harder to understand that message that is understood in all the Bibles. Why? Because the NWT is meant to support a message that ''makes sense'', but is not the message of God. The message of God can be understood in that bible, but its much harder, specially for someone who has less knowledge. So that if a person reads it by themselves, they will understand the message that the JW want them to understand instead of the message of God. I have a NWT. And I ve found many verses that support the message of God and not the message of the JW. Like John 20:28.
Report as
You say the number of his name has no meaning, and begin talking about the name of God, that a more faithful translation for YHVH is Yahweh. But about the number of his name, you say it has no meaning and talk about it with the name of God. But what does the Bible say?

BIBLE TIME!!!

Revelation chapter 13 verses 17-18:

And so that nobody will be able to buy or sell, except the ones who have the mark, the name of the Beast or the number of his name on their right hand or forehead. 18 here is where wisdom is introduced. Anyone with intelligence, calculate the number of the Beast, for it is number of man; and his number is six hundred sixty six.

Now, Revelation 14 verses 9-11 (interesting numbers)

And another third angel after them, saying with a strong voice: ''if anyone worships the Beast and its image, and recieves his mark in the hand or forehead, 10 will also drink the wine of the anger of God that will be poured non deluded in the cup of his anger, and will be tormented with fire and brimstone in sight of the ange;ls and the Lamb 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever more, and day and night they have no rest, the ones who worship the Beast and his image, and anyone who recieves the mark of his name.
Report as
Now, why would you wanna cover that up and talk about the name of God? And why would those who taught you wanna cover it up? And if it has npo meaning, then why is it in the Bible?
Report as
Everything in the Bible has meaning. God made sure to put the important stuff. That s why the Bible doesnt talk about many things that happened. Because its not really important.
Report as
Leave the JW and accept Christ before its too late...
Report as
@ByranIvanMercedPacheco, True you can find basically the same message in most versions you read. But the clarity of thought and expression is found lacking in the KJV. Note for example, the text at 1 Corinthians 10:25 in the King James which says: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake"

Tell me, what the apostle talking about?
Report as
If you read 10:13, you'd know :)
Report as
It means if an atheist invites you for a medium rare steak that has been dedicated to Moloch, dont ask if its medium rare, or if its dedicated to Moloch. But if he says its medium rare, or its dedicated to Moloch, then dont eat it. If you read 1 Corinthians 10:27, you wouldve understood.
Report as
And same when you go buy, dont ask. Just buy.
Report as
Its also pretty clear in the HCSB.
Report as
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The word shambles as used by the apostle paul translates as meat market. But because the King James used out of date terminology you got the completely wrong understanding and directed me to a text that has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Well, I've enjoyed this conversation. Take care.
Report as
Well, tell me what John 20:28 means
Report as
Add a comment...

I agree the KJV is almost impossible to understand sometimes, but it is held in high regard by many. Nothing wrong with that of course, but like the other answerer said, the New World Translation is considered to be the most true to the original Bible text so I would check it out. It's available to read online for free. There's a free app that's also great, it is called JW Library (available in the major app stores). It has the New World Translation in addition to the Byington, American Standard Version, and the King James Version. I love it because you can compare verses all in one click from each translation. The NWT is in modern English and was actually just revised this year to make it even more understandable while still not compromising Bible truth. Both are published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Hope that helps!

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Actually, as I was telling our fellow previous to you, the NWT is meant to understand a message that is not the message of God, its the message of the JW. But if you wanna know the nessage of God, you gotta read more versions, I reccomend the HCSB.
Report as
Add a comment...

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures on jw.org

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
I ve answered this in other answers. What reasons do you have to believe in your religion?
Report as
I really examined the scriptures and asked alot of questions. The book What Does The Bible Really Teach on the JW.org really answers questions we all have asked. It answered questons like,On what are its teachings based? Are they from God, or are they largely from men? (2 Tim. 3:16; Mark 7:7)
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and instead of adhering to a creed based on human tradition, they hold to the Bible as the standard for all their beliefs.
They worship Jehovah as the only true God and freely speak to others about him and his loving purposes toward mankind. Anyone who publicly witnesses about Jehovah is usually identified as belonging to the one group—“Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
They believe, not that Jesus Christ is part of a Trinity, but that, as the Bible says, he is the Son of God, the first of God’s creations; that he had a prehuman existence and that his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a virgin, Mary; that his perfect human life laid down in sacrifice makes possible salvation to eternal life for those who exercise faith; that Christ is actively ruling as King, with God-given authority over all the earth since 1914.
God’s Kingdom: They believe that God’s Kingdom is the only hope for mankind; that it is a real government; that it will soon destroy the present wicked system of things,including all human governments, and that it will produce a new system in which righteousness will prevail.
Report as
I have that book. But check this out: Chapter 3,section ''Origin of an enemy'', Ezekiel 28:12, Luke 10:18, Isaiah 14:12. Section ''A new world is coming'', John 14:6, 18:36, Revelation 21:1.

Chapter 4, section ''Where did Jesus come from'', Matthew 10:24, John 5:20, John 10:30, John 20:28. Btw, Jesus wasnt the Son of God until He was conceived. Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5. Also, Jesus was never created. He just always existed from the infinity past till the infinity future. Even in your Bible, no verse expresses clearly that Jesus was created, but does say He always existed (John 1:1). Section ''What person was Jesus'', 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Chapter 6, section ''What Jesus said about death'', Luke 16:19, 1 Peter 3:19-20. Section ''Why do we die''. Did you know Adam was still the son of God. Now Cain did became a rebel to God, which is why he wasnt son of God (Genesis 6, Luke 3:38). But Adam and Eve still loved God, its why they taught Abel and Seth to worship God. Section ''How is it beneful to know the truth about death'', Revelation 1:18, 2:11 and 20:6.

Chapter 7, section What do we learn from the tales of resurrection'', Matthew 22:31, section ''They all are in conmemorative tombs'', Revelation 20:15,

Chapter 8, 2 Peter 3:7. This Earth is gonna burn. Section ''What is the Kingdom of God gonna do'', Revelation 12:8, and Luke 10:18.

Chapter 10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, now, there s no reason to believe angels arent sent by God to us anymore. Though, be careful with the angels, as careful as with the preachers.

That s as far as I went. If you want to understand the word of God better, go to www.biblegateway.com and check the Amplified Bible.

I ll tell you what the JW are about, and you can look it up anywhere. Its simply a religion with the intention, not to seek the truth, but to rebel against the catholic church. The founder of this religion had problems with the law in many occasions, and gave false testimony. So, why is Jesus ruling since 1914 if He ascended to Heaven almost 2000 years ago?
Report as
Simple. Because more than 100 years ago, they were saying that the end of the world was gonna be in 1914. When that didnt happen, they said it was a misunderstanding and hanged it to 1915. They did it again multiple times until 1987. And now they re saying it was a misunderstanding and that Jesus has been ruling since 1914 (the first date of the end of the world) to cover themselves, even though there s no biblical nor theological support for it.

If they fed you so many lies, they will feed you many more. Those lies are gonna cost you your salvation, and there is a hell, and worse, a lake of fire. Get out of that apostate religion that is the JW (that btw wasnt what they ve always ben called, they changed the name few times), and follow Christ. God bless you.
Report as
Add a comment...

kjv and then research also for the original text in hebrew or in greek to prevent misleading details and context.


because mistranslations greatly affects the context of the verse. but it is no longer a problem because we have available technologies to find out the real text and word.

but i suggest King james version because its translation has MINIMAL ERROR. DO NOT READ PARAPhrase version of the bible it will lead YOU to error.

paraphrasing most of the times change the real essence and meaning and context of the original statement, so do not read paraphrase version of the bible.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Perfect answer. I wish the rest of the people who ve answered this question thought this way. But what I m asking is which would be a good translation to this language, but that teaches the same as the KJV?

So far, best I ve found is HCSB. And I still always read it with the spanish equivalent of the King James, the Reina Valera.
Report as
Reina Valera 1960
Report as
Add a comment...

The King James is king james version of the word. And hard to read for the average person. The New International was researched and took into account the different languages that the Bible was originally written in and subsequent translations for the most accurate written account possible. It all comes down to personal choice. No sense in having one if you are not going to read it. Go to a Bible store and read a few and make a choice.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
I prefer to stay with the HCSB.
Report as
Add a comment...

KJV is the one I prefer. I. Was raised on that one.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I use the New World Translation. It's very accurate and easy to understand.

hope I helped!

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Read above...
Report as
Add a comment...

you should use the satanic bible

Helpful Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Nope. You should use the KJV
Report as
Add a comment...
Stark844

For the New Testament, the two most reliable versions are the UBS4 and the NA28. For the OT--I don't know :P.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
For the OT, if you cannot read the MT, read the Mechon Mamre translation.
Report as
Stark844
But isn't there a critical apparatus of the HOT like there is of the GNT? After all, the MT is only one family of manuscripts, right? Never studied the OT much...
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches