[shuttertalk]

I tend to prefer NKJV as I like the wording and some of the familar "phrases" you usually hear. I also use NIV regularly and that's good as well in terms of readability. I'm not sure about versions such as the message and other contemporary versions... sometimes I think they're a bit too liberal or open to interpretation.

I'm reading the CEV (Contemporary English Version) at the moment as a devotional -- going through the entire NT in one year. Hm... stil undecided yet whether it's my cup of tea...

[Rufus]

Ah, an interesting question!

I was using the KJV, but was laughed out of town, and told to use the NIV. However, the NIV is problematic, see here:

THE NIV STORY, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines "eclectic" as: "to select, to pick out, to choose -- 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems." According to Goddard, the members of the committee chose not to confine themselves to one printed text of ancient or modern writings, but to privately determine, based on their evidence, what readings are true or genuine. In addition to its primary selections, the NIV committee decided to include alternative readings in footnote form to acquaint the reader with other interpretations. And in some extended portions of Scripture, liberty was taken to introduce verses not well-attested by manuscript evidence. (40)

Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts. (41) In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as "Bibles." However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, "They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ." (42)

It seems that the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is "the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity." (43) Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort’s design. (44) This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text. Few Christians realize that the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION of the Jehovah’s Witness Cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. (45)

Other findings provide convincing evidence that the hidden agenda of the NIV is to alter Bible doctrine. The NIV has 64,098 or 10% fewer words than the King James Version. (46) Careful comparison of Scripture verses, such as those found in the Tables, reveals that these omissions are not random, but selective. Most incredible was the appointment of a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, as Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, (47) and the retainer as a consultant of a lesbian and feminist, Dr. Virginia Mollenkott.

[teddyfingers]

My favorite is the NASB most literal translation. I find it the easiest to read too.(most people don't) I had never heard such a thing about the NIV I would like a better reference than a name so I can look into it. My pastor uses NKJV and most of the time I have NIV (I keep Loosing my NASB and have to buy new ones) the only difference I have noticed is the wording. If there were errors to the extent that you (Rufus) are alluding to I think I would have herd a lot abut it by now. I like the message as a reference of sorts a study tool. I like the way Peterson translates some of the text, but hate other parts. It is a liberal translation. If find that it does open my eyes to a verse at times because of what it means to him. I always go back to the NIV or NASB and check it. I never encourage anyone to read it for their devotions thou. I want people reading a solid translation for that.

Teddy

[slejhamer]

I use this for general passage lookup: http://bible.gospelcom.net/

You can specify the version you want to use. The available versions are:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/versions/

My default is set to ESV, the "essentially literal" translation.

I find the commentaries very good for study purposes:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/resources/commentaries/

However, it does not contain the books of the Apocrypha.

[Rufus]

Hey ho!

Here's another, and contrary item.

http://www.layhands.com/WhyDoYouUseTheBloodlessNIV.htm

[teddyfingers]

Thanks for the link Rufus. I knew a guy that would say about the KJV "if it was good enough for peter and Paul then it’s good enough for me".

That is the thing about translations. It is hard to get it perfect if not impossible. I can't have the assumption that the KJV is perfect. I want to see that the translators went back to the original text if possible. With the OT this should not be too hard. The Hebrew were good about keeping scriptures. The NT is much more difficult. Almost everything was a copy, so you have to go back as far as you can. It is kind of like the game of telephone. It looses something the farther away from the original it gets. Most of the Modern translations do that. Some are not as literal or accurate as others. Look in the preface it will tell you what type of translation it is.

Teddy

[de_axeman]

I use NKJV most of the time, but as a new believer, I started with the NIV. I think the NIV is an easily understandable version for new believers. I also occasionally refer to the Amplified Bible, which helps bring out the sometimes obscure meanings of some verses. The American versions like NASB are not widely distributed here in Australia (if at all).

I think its horses for courses with bible versions. I suppose if one is genuinely concerned about the accuracy of transalation etc, they should perhaps go study Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc and go and read from whatever 'original' texts they can find.

Bear in mind that many Christians around the world (eg. China, India) continue steadfastly in their faith without any Bibles, or perhaps one (or part of one) to share amongst many. We're truly blessed here with multiple (too many?) versions, concordances, commentaries, etc...

[teddyfingers]

Hey a good bible site is http://www.crosswalk.com. It has a lot of translations and bible study tools like dictionaries concordances and lexicons. Vary useful for those of use that want to dig deeper into a scripture. I like to look at the original Greek or Hebrew and see what certain word mean. It helps me understand things better.

Teddy

[Cailean]

I think that the existence of multiple translations alone should be enough to discredit claims that bible passages are infallible. Note that I said 'passages.' The word of God may not be infallible, but human interpretation surely is. Think about how many human filters the Word has to pass through before it gets to your heart. Even if you allow that the original texts are the literal Word of God, the message must pass through, at minmum, to human minds - the translator and the reader. Add to that the various interpretations we learn in Sunday School and Bible studies, and books, and photography forums ()...

[Rufus]

Arfarfarf!!!

Nice.

[adam]

What if one word has a few meanings? Which meaning do you translate to?
Well, usually, the meanings would be related... right?

[shuttertalk]

That's when you get the Amplified version

[Cailean]

That's when you get the Amplified version

So.... it's louder???

[slejhamer]

That's when you get the Amplified version

So.... it's louder???

:ROFL: !

Hey, does that come with overdrive?

[shuttertalk]

Hahaha... yes overdrive, but no distortion.

http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/amplified/ampcomp.php

[Cailean]

I bet it goes up to 11....

[de_axeman]

Haha!

You guys are too funny....