Which Translation of the Bible do you read?
February 8, 2010 by Mike Hernandez
Filed under Articles, Scriptures
Come on, don't be shy, share with us your comments...
Which version of the Bible do you read and why?
With all the variations modern Bible translations in society today, we here at The Chronicle Watch are curious as to which version of the Bible each of you read and why?
This question stems from a new project we here at The Chronicle Watch have started to undertake in order to get a deeper understanding of God’s word (hence the lack of posting from the guys at TCW) and some of our findings have been astonishing to say the least, especially with the different translations of the modern day Bibles.
Bibles we are using in our comparisons
- New American Standard Updated ( NASBU )
- New American Standard 77 ( NAS77 )
- New International Version ( NIV )
- English Standard Version ( ESV )
- New King James Version ( NKJV )
- King James Version ( KJV )
In the comment box below we would like to hear from each and every one of you, especially in regards to the different version(s) of the Bible you have chosen to study the word of God with and why.
We are not looking to start a debate. We are looking to hear honest, insightful and sincere feedback.
Sharing my Thoughts
To get the thread started, I will go first and share my thoughts.
I personally study from the NASB, but recently, due to the project, I have added the KJV to my tool set.
The reason why I first choose the NASB over all the other translations is that I believed it to be the most accurate Bible translation I could find based on the original manuscripts.
But, as I mentioned above, we have found some issues with the different translation that have been startling to say the least.
For example:
Galatians 4:7 NASB Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
(ESV) So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
(NIrV) So you aren’t slaves any longer. You are God’s children. Because you are his children, he gives you what he promised to give his people.
(NIV) So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
At first I never really thought anything odd with this verse until I compared it to the translation of the King James.
Galatians 4:7 KJV Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
And there lies the issue.
As I remember reading in John 14:6, it states that no one comes to the Father but through Christ.
John 14:6 NASB Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Yet in most of the modern translations of Galatians 4:7 they remove the need of Christ in order to be an heir of God, Why?
Remember, we cannot be in the presence of God without Christ. Only through faith can we be justified, and that faith is Christ Jesus. Without Christ we cannot be heirs of God.
Galatians 3:24-26 NASB Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Now if we go back and read verse 4:7 one more time after reading 3:26, I ask then, how can you be an heir of God without Christ?
Again, the modern translations state in Galatians 4:7 , “and if a son, then an heir though God”. Yet Galatians 3:26 states that, “you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”.
So then, which one is correct? According to the gospels it would be the KJV version. Why? Because without Christ you would be subject to an eternity in hell, and according to Galatians 3:26 you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And as a son is an heir, then through Christ you become an heir of God.
Another issue that we found alarming was with the modern translation of Luke 4:4.
Luke 4:4
- (ESV) And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
- (NASB) And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’”
- (NIV) Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’”
Yet, the KJV states that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Without the word of God what do you have? You have chaos and lawlessness. Without Gods word you have modern day secular society that is starting to resemble the days of Noah.
With that said, man does not live by bread alone, but indeed by every word of God, because the word of God is life and the only truth we have.
In Closing
These are just two of many issues we have came across with the modern translations. It seems to me that two Bibles are going to be needed well after this project is over in order to study the word of God. One of them I can assure you will be the KJV ( not the NKJV as we also found disheartening issues with this translation ) to test modern versions against.
With our pens in hand and journals on the table we are just starting to scratch the surface. As we continue to dive deeper into God’s word we will share all the discrepancies we encounter.
As each of you read your bibles I want to leave you with this.
Luke 20:46 NASB “Beware of the scribes…“
We look forward to your comments.
Sincerely,
Mike Hernandez aka Mr. H
Related Reading:
- The Bible Quiz, you ready with your modern version?
- Do you profess Christ?
- New Testament Manuscripts; Which one?
- Is Ignorance an excuse in your Modern Bible?
- How to Improve Your Personal Bible Study
- Know Jesus, no rules, right?
- Christianity Without Prayer is Dead
I have probably near 25 translations right here on the desk – I compare passages all the time… when I am teaching it to people at my blog I like to use this
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/index.htm
because you can drill down into all the word translations with the attached dictionary – and get to the root meanings. I use the Artscroll Tanakh alot personally when reading what you would call “old testament”
http://www.artscroll.com/
I find that using NIV when quoting to people who are not familiar with the bible is good, they understand the language in it pretty easily –
But I never use just one version. The “amplified” is good for expanded word meanings
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=love&qs_version=AMP
David Stern’s JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT is interesting
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-New-Testament-David-Stern/dp/9653590065/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_2
Robert Alter’s 5 BOOKS OF MOSES is beautiful
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393333930/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265632160&sr=1-1
Anyway there is no one translation that I use – I compare many – and always drill deep into the Greek and Hebrew meanings where there may be “confusion” about a translation
Dear Bro. Mike,
That was a very good post that made me think! Thank you! Personally, I have always thought the NASB to be accurate, and I use it primarily, but my wife likes the KJV, and I read that too. I am of the same mindset as you are. I have my own opinions about the reason some folks prefer other versions… because Americans, for the most part, are woefully ignorant and English illiterate, so that they can’t understand ‘modern English’ properly [mainly the school's fault, IMHO], so how can they understand “Old English” from 1610–Shakespeare’s time?? IMHO, I think that versions like the ESV are dumb-ed down, but many people perhaps need such a rendering to start with… As Christians, I think we ought to become familiar with the KJV as we ‘mature’ and hunger for the most accurate truth of God’s Word. I have been a serious student of the Bible for the past 30 some years, and am still learning “new” things — and I share them with my Blog readers– as so do you, dear friend.
I will post your article in my own: TOM’S JOURNAL, because I think it is that important, with your kind permission.
Warm Regards,
Tom Schuckman
tschuckman@aol.com
Proverbs 27:17, “Iron sharpens iron.” “Eisen scharfts Eisen” [German translation].
King James for the reason Tom gave above;”for the most accurate truth of God’s Word”
The more we dig into all these translation, the more we see that the KJV is the truth.
I use the NKJV for reading and study, although we keep several versions in the house for clarification. My husband prefers the KJV. We alternate for our personal study, occasionally picking up an NIV or NASB. We have received copies of the simpler, everyday English versions, but find them too far off for real study. Thank you for your commentary. I came here from my dear friend Tom’s blog. In Christ, Penny
Hello Penny,
Thank you for your comments and thank you for visiting!
I read the New Restoration Scriptures which is an English version of the Hebrew
OT and NT. Many of the words are in the Hebrew but this Scriptures has an excellent dictionary. The Hebrew names of the Creator are used. Words like
God are not names but titles. This copy of Scripture has opened up to me a
great window of knowledge.
I always rely on the KJV if I question what a translation is saying.
Recently I have started studying with Kay Arthur and bought her Bible because it has a lot of time tables and maps in it. but I think I will use my KJV along with it to compare scriptures to.
When I first became a Christian all the different versions confused me and I asked Jesus about them and Jesus said it is the KJV that is the truth.
I don’t know why we have so many translations. I think, the more you copy something or change the wording it will change it meaning too.
In Jesus
jeanette.starangel.hammock
Ever since I was a child and before I ever went to church, the only Bible I had was the New Testament with Psalm and Proverbs in the back, yes it was a Gideon bible that was handed out in school.
My mother finally took the the steps to leave the Catholic church and in 1957 I was sprinkled, Methodist.
My father bought me my first Bible the KJB I use nothing else for I have always felt the KJB was the only translation and I was taught that is was.
For general reading I use the Third Millennium Bible for its readability and it failfullness to the Authorized Version (KJV). For study, again I use the TMB as well as the KJV and the Challoner Douay Rheims. I prefer the KJV because it based on the Textus Receptus family of Greek texts which contain the traditional wording of the New Testament, whereas other modern translation utilize the Wescott and Hort and the modern critical family of texts which are scholarly constructs that do not agree with a single manuscript and in some cases choose readings that occur in only a single manuscript.
While the DR is a translation of a translation, the Latin Vulgate from which it was translated was a very early translation (4th Century) and likely utilized manuscripts that are not available today. As well, it was translated within the confines of the church in the period when the canon of scripture was finalized – the canon of scripture is traditionally taken form the words of Athanasius of Alexandria, who was in communion with Rome at the time. Therefore, the DR offers a very relevant insight regarding the understanding of the early church.