The Bible

[Shine]

If you are in anyway religious and read the Bible, which version do you read? I know that different religions have different Bibles, and even within the Catholic faith we have several different versions of the Bible. I read the King James version. When I took Bible study in 1999 the minister who taught the class would only use the King James version. I actually had a different version, so he gave me a copy of the King James and I've stuck with that one.

[70s show watcher]

i read the king james version

[sara]

It's the NIV for me.

[Zoneboy]

King James, You couldn't pay me to read the NIV or any other version.

[Schmoopie]

Well I read the more "modern" version without all of the "Thou" sentences, just because the others are easier for me to understand. Although it takes away from the meaning of the words, since the other version is so much more widely used, I would imagine.
I guess it doesn't matter which one is used as long as the message ends up the same!

Andrea

[catlover79]

I like both the NIV and KJV. The KJV especially is so poetic, like music.

[Shine]

The KJV especially is so poetic, like music.


That's a beautiful post, Monika. I also agree with you. :)

[catlover79]

I know James Earl Jones has narrated an audio version of the KJV. I'd also love to hear Morgan Freeman narrate the Bible. He DID play "God" in Bruce Almighty & Evan Almighty, after all...:cool:

[Shine]

I know James Earl Jones has narrated an audio version of the KJV. I'd also love to hear Morgan Freeman narrate the Bible. He DID play "God" in Bruce Almighty & Evan Almighty, after all...:cool:

How about a Gregory Sierra narrated version of The Bible? I'm sure you would love that. :lol: ;)

[Brad]

I use the NIV, but I also like to use the NASB or The Message as cross-references when I'm having trouble understanding a verse.

That's why I'm thankful for sites like Bible Gateway.

[ZeldaGilroy]

My "main" Bible is the KJV. I do have a Women's Devotional Bible and the NIV as well that I read when I am really studying a certain topic.

[Tweety]

It depends.

For just reading, I like both the King James and the NIV.

For study, I like the NIV, the Living Bible, the Message Bible, and I really like the Amplified as well.

There are also tons of study Bibles centered around different themes.

I like the Maxwell Leadership Bible. And the NIV that I have is actually the NIV Study Bible...

I also have a Men's Devotional Bible...there are Devotional Bibles for Men, Women, Teens, and Kids, Husbands, Wives, etc...


Anyway, the moral of all this is, you can never have enough Bibles in the house!

[catlover79]

How about a Gregory Sierra narrated version of The Bible? I'm sure you would love that. :lol: ;)
That would be very interesting. :lol:

[LuLu Rogers]

I use NIV and NKJV most of the time. Our church always uses NKJV, gotta love us Southern Baptists. ;)

[Hollow]

no idea, just says holy bible on the cover, got it from my mom after she died. i only refer to it to confirm debated bible verses and make my own interpretations. fred phelps was right, god is evil-LOL

[Shine]

I use NIV and NKJV most of the time. Our church always uses NKJV, gotta love us Southern Baptists. ;)

The NIV was the version of the Bible that I bought in 1999 for my Bible class. However, as I mentioned in my first post, the minsiter teaching the class perferred the King James version and gave me one of his personal copies. I still have the NIV edition, but I really only read the King James version. As Monika pointed out, it is very lyrical and poetic.

[Shine]

My "main" Bible is the KJV. I do have a Women's Devotional Bible and the NIV as well that I read when I am really studying a certain topic.

Hi :wave:

[Lee]

My family prefers the New King James version, but some people in the
Church Of Christ say King James is the only proper version.

[Brad]

...Some people in the Church Of Christ say King James is the only proper version.
Yeah, I've never understood that. It was written nearly 1,600 years after the texts were written, after all, so how could it be the only "proper version?" I think the "King James Only" movement negates Martin Luther's philosophy that the Bible should be translated into every language.

And it's almost 400 years old! The King James Version, while definitely poetic, uses long-since outdated words and prose styles. Why not update it, from the original texts, every few generations? Christ is as relevant today as he was when he walked the Earth, so why not keep the Bible relevant and available in a language everyone can understand?

Me? I'm glad that there are so many English translations to choose from, including the King James Version.

[catlover79]

Yeah, I've never understood that. It was written nearly 1,600 years after the texts were written, and almost 400 years ago! I think the "King James Only" movement negates Martin Luther's philosophy that the Bible should be translated into every language.

The King James Version, while definitely poetic, uses long-since outdated words and prose styles. Why not update it, from the original texts, every few generations? Christ is as relevant today as he was when he walked the Earth, so why not keep the Bible relevant and available in a language everyone can understand?
Well said!!! Brad, you always hit the nail right on the head.

[Shine]

The King James Version, while definitely poetic, uses long-since outdated words and prose styles. Why not update it, from the original texts, every few generations? Christ is as relevant today as he was when he walked the Earth, so why not keep the Bible relevant and available in a language everyone can understand?

That's an interesting point. However, I really think that the KJV should be presented as it was originally written. I know that it makes it a little more difficult to read, but I think reading it as it was originally written would be far more rewarding too.

[Brad]

That's an interesting point. However, I really think that the KJV should be presented as it was originally written. I know that it makes it a little more difficult to read, but I think reading it as it was originally written would be far more rewarding too.

Yeah, I'm all for keeping the King James Version of the Bible available, as it was originally published in 1611. It definitely still has many who prefer it over other translations, and has a lot of historical significance, There's no need to replace it or anything like that; I just don't think that in 2008, it has any more relevance or superiority than any of the other translations (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/).

I just think man gives the King James a lot more "sway" than they need to, only because it was the first major English translation.

[rusyd]

I have read the King James version. I am reading for the 2nd time the everyday bible. I am not sure of what version it is.

[ABlairican Pie]

Either the New King James Version, or New American Standard Version, or Revised Standard Version. As I recall , the New Oxford Bible and the Jerusalem Bible are also very good. I am NOT a fan of the New International Version. It's very awkward reading.

[JoPol_wannabe]

There are a few bibles I like

The King James Spirit Filled Bible- I like this one because it has a section Spiritual Answers to Hard Questions Questions like what is hell or why is abortion wrong, what is free will and why is Baptism important

The Reformation Bible- I like this one because it is a bible by one of my favorite Christian Authors RC Sprouls. The greatest feature is the study notes because when they address a controversial subject, the authors provide the differing viewpoints but then point out which is most consistent with Reformed theology.

The New Geneva Study Bible- I like this bible because it is grounded in Reformed biblical doctorin ( I attand a reformed chruch) I feel that the books in this bible are opened with a good discussion of background and context.

Those are my 3 favorite bibles

[catlover79]

Check out this story:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19636_1.html

[Chocoholic]

I use the New King James version.

[*Pleasant Tomorrow*]

lol I I didn't even know there were different versions, I thought the Bible was the Bible. Either way, I don't really read it anyway. I think I must have had the New Oxford Bible for my religious studies course because that sounds familiar. I'm sure my family must have one around somewhere but we never look at it if we do.

[PlayOn]

while i'm in Church, i use the KJV.
when i'm reading it at home, i use the Life Application Bible. it's wonderful! it's in today's language, but doesn't change the way Jesus speaks (i think it doesn't change anyway) and it has notes to read at the bottom on the page in case you didn't understand something. included is some additional info, btw. it even has people's backgrounds (strengths, weaknesses, family, ect) i love it!

[ABlairican Pie]

Check out this story:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19636_1.html

I dunno, I remember reading on one Christian site there was a link for "Christian Goths". It had all the pertinent Scripture verses to appeal to salvation and better living through Christianity, but there was nothing at all "Goth-y" in their approach to the Bible or Christianity. Like, what exactly does Christianity have to do with Goth, and vice versa? They never answered that on their site. It was like they were all about the straight-on standard Christian message, but "hey, you can wear dark Goth clothing, jewelry, and hair, too!" Just a fashion statement rather than a lifestyle. (Oh, yeah, Goths are all about that "death" thing. ohno: )

I guess how this article applies is that, how is Christianity served by adopting a "hip" lingo which may or may not have anything to do with either Christian belief or the urban subculture the language it came from? Isn't this about evangelicalism co-opting what's currently popular with young people?
"Yo, we be so widdit fo' da big J.C.!! True dat!" I actually heard over fifteen years ago some
Christian rap song on the radio some rapper actually say, "Angels are our posse!" Greeeeeaaaaat.
:rolleyes:

I've seen it for years, even with Christian metal, Christian punk rockers, the whole thing. Christians trying to be hip and appeal to certain pop culture demographics. I might need to look a little closely to this article, maybe it's not some sort of contrived attempt at trendiness, maybe these guys are the real deal, but it's been my experience that some Christians try to look sophisticated (while at the same time condemning the "secular" culture they're trying to emulate).

[catlover79]

^ My take is if it gets the hip hop crowd's attention and interest by speaking their language, as it were, why not? As long as they are sincere and respectful, I say go for it!

[InspectorExstead]

i've got both the kjv & niv version. but the one i read out of the most is niv just because it's so much easier to read.

[Tweety]

^ My take is if it gets the hip hop crowd's attention and interest by speaking their language, as it were, why not? As long as they are sincere and respectful, I say go for it!


That's exactly right. For those groups to do that is not much different than it was to actually translate the Bible into basically every language out there. To get the message of the Gospel to everyone.

There's great Christian music out there in all genres. I like Michael W. Smith, DC Talk, Phillips Craig & Dean, Chris Tomlin to name a few..

And Acappella is without question the absolute greatest "a cappella" group ever!

http://www.acappella.org/Acappella/discography.asp

[catlover79]

^ My church's contemporary Praise Band has done terrific versions of practically the entire Chris Tomlin songbook..."Let God Arise", "How Can I Keep From Singing", "How Great Is Our God", "Awesome Is the Lord Most High", "Everlasting God" - I can go on and on. :cool: