what bible to buy?

[bhome83]

interested in reading the bible but not sure which version to buy. i have heard of the king james version and the international version. sounds like the international version is translated from the king james version. correct me if im wrong. is one better than the other or one harder to understand than the other. thanks.

[natevines]

King James' version is really THE classic version, and it's always the one quoted. So I'd say go with that. Specifically, I like the Oxford World's Classics version of it for great commentary and introduction.

[DGibFen]

Actually, the New International Version (NIV) isn't translated from the King James Version (KJV), but from newer Greek/Hebrew texts.

Personally, I recommend the English Standard Version (ESV). It's one of the most modern readable Bibles you can purchase, and most bookstores carry it.

If you want to do a little comparison of most of the versions that are out there, Zondervan (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm) has a decent little guide. You can also read the entire texts of several different english translations at Bible Gateway (www.Biblegateway.com). That might give you the chance to make a decision.

I'd say that the NIV or the ESV would be your best choices. KJV is the classic english translation, but it's phrasing and grammar is so dated that it can obscure some of the meaning of the text. If you've never read the Bible before, I think the KJV might be more of a hinderance than a pleasure.

[natevines]

While we're on the topic, can anyone recommend some good biblical commentary/interpretation books?

[Seeker]

King James Version - first major english version "approved" in 1611. The classic English version, but definitely reads as almost 400 years old.

American Standard Version - ASV - put together in the late 1800s - probably still the most "accurate" translation, but sometimes ponderous.

New International Version - NIV - strives to be a combination of the ASV (accuracy) and the KJV (poetic and awesome) - fails at both, but probably still one of the best to read for newcomers.

There are TONS of translations - I'd recommend the NIV for someone just getting into it. Also, if you want to compare versions try the software program "e-sword" - a free bible software program that has TONS of translations (many in foreign languages) to compare to each other.

[Cameron]

Free Bibles in Motel rooms..........

No really, go Niv....or get one of the duel Text Bibles where it has 2 columns side by side with both versions

[bhome83]

i don't get it though. aren't all bible versions the same? there is only one bible right so i don't get these diff. bibles w/ different translations. king james bible looks like a hard read, and the international version looks easier to read. do they edit stuff out though in different versions or just make things easier to understand? i want the version that is easier to understand but doesn't leave anything out.

[benedict]

i don't get it though. aren't all bible versions the same? there is only one bible right so i don't get these diff. bibles w/ different translations.The key is in that word "translation".

Different scholars have varying degrees of linguistic aptitude and this'll show up when they are working on putting a bunch of old scrolls into English (or whatever language).

[Josh-da-man]

i don't get it though. aren't all bible versions the same? there is only one bible right so i don't get these diff. bibles w/ different translations. king james bible looks like a hard read, and the international version looks easier to read. do they edit stuff out though in different versions or just make things easier to understand? i want the version that is easier to understand but doesn't leave anything out.

No translation necessarily "leaves anything out."

It's not possible to translate one language into another directly... each has its own nuances and quirks that don't necessarily adapt to other languages easily.

The differnece between KJV Bibles and other, more modern translations, lies more in the english than anything else. The KJV tends to be written in more... say Shakesperean language... than modern translations which use more common vernacular.

[silentbob007]

A lot of time was taken when writing the KJ version to make it stylistic, and as others have said, it is the "classic" version. It really comes down to what you prefer to read.

[Baron Of Hell]

I ask this question awhile back. Most said the NIV was the one to go with. I went with the KJV just because someone gave it to me for free. I have a list of reasons they gave for the NIV but not with me. I'll post them if I find them.

Probably doesn't matter much for you, if it did you would already have the correct version to read.

[benedict]

This earlier thread may be of some interest: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=187308

[Geofferson]

I have both the King James and English Standard Version. The ESV is much easier to read, however the King James is the definitive Bible and is a must-own for anyone wishing to read/follow/live by the Bible.

[Cameron]

I have both the King James and English Standard Version. The ESV is much easier to read, however the King James is the definitive Bible and is a must-own for anyone wishing to read/follow/live by the Bible.

the definitive version can only be read if you read Greek and Hebrew.....


its the diffrence between Thou and you. For God So Because God....

Its all in there, KJV bibles can be had for a buck at any dollar store....buy the NIV and a cheap KJV you'll see the diffrence soon.

On another note James Earl Jones reads the bible is a good listen....

and the Matthew film is word for word text from the NIV no additions or subtracting....worth a watch.

[kvrdave]

I have both the King James and English Standard Version. The ESV is much easier to read, however the King James is the definitive Bible and is a must-own for anyone wishing to read/follow/live by the Bible.

:lol: The KJ is a must own for anyone more concerned with tradition and poetic sounding scripture, than a true translation. Personally, I don't own one because I think they are pretty worthless. Our language has changed to much to read the KJV and get as much value out of it. Catholics generally stick to it, but again, that probably has more to do with tradition.

Here is a graphic that shows you the different versions and how they compare to being literal vs. more readable. I generally read an NIV for most day to day stuff, but prefer the NASB for study.

<img src=http://graphics.christianbook.com/g/cms/1/73521/transarrow.gif>

[milo bloom]

Your graph there shows a "Message" on the far right. I seem to recall seeing a fairly recent translation in a store recently that was very modern styled. And it seems that it was called "The Message". Any experience with that? I've never been very religious, but I want to get into the Bible but the KJV justs grinds my interest to a halt.

[natevines]

Grrr, it's so frustrating with all these damned versions, that I'd be somewhat inclined to learn Greek/Hebrew just to circumvent the translations :)

Anyhow, like I asked before, does anyone know any good 'guides' to reading/interpreting the bible?

[Venusian]

I have the NIV Study Bible from Zondervan. It's not exactly a guide, but it is pretty good

[Venusian]

Your graph there shows a "Message" on the far right. I seem to recall seeing a fairly recent translation in a store recently that was very modern styled. And it seems that it was called "The Message". Any experience with that? I've never been very religious, but I want to get into the Bible but the KJV justs grinds my interest to a halt.
I think that is the same thing. Almost all people I've talked to think The Message sucks. It takes way too much liberty in changing the words to try to get a modern message out there.

[nightmaster]

I have the NIV Study Bible from Zondervan. It's not exactly a guide, but it is pretty good

I tend to agree that using either the NIV or the Living Bible for personal reading, studying, insight is the way to go, but as far as taking a bible with you to study groups or to follow along during a given church sermon, you should have a KJV.....most pastors quote from KJV text so it's easier to follow along. I'm sure there are scads of exceptions to this rule of thumb; this is only a conclusion I've come to after years of listening to different ministers on the pulpit.

As inexpensive as bibles are, I'd pick up a paperback NIV or Living Bible for home use and see how you like the way it reads.

[Venusian]

I think the translation used depends a lot on the Church. I went to a Church that only did KJV. The Church I go to now predominantly uses NIV, but sometimes New American Standard

[Venusian]

btw, here is a free KJV: http://www.mormon.org/holybible

[Geofferson]

the definitive version can only be read if you read Greek and Hebrew.....

Yes, I agree. A couple years back, I listened to some audio tapes that were translated from the original Hebrew text. It was very interesting...

[Groucho]

btw, here is a free KJV: http://www.mormon.org/holybibleBear in mind that this is delivered by missionaries.

[Geofferson]

:lol: The KJ is a must own for anyone more concerned with tradition and poetic sounding scripture, than a true translation. Personally, I don't own one because I think they are pretty worthless. Our language has changed to much to read the KJV and get as much value out of it. Catholics generally stick to it, but again, that probably has more to do with tradition.

Here is a graphic that shows you the different versions and how they compare to being literal vs. more readable. I generally read an NIV for most day to day stuff, but prefer the NASB for study.

<img src=http://graphics.christianbook.com/g/cms/1/73521/transarrow.gif>
I said what I did because the KJV (and the NASB) are the most common literal version available today (your graph pretty much tells the same story). Is it the most readable? Heck no. But I like poetry. :lol:

[DGibFen]

Grrr, it's so frustrating with all these damned versions, that I'd be somewhat inclined to learn Greek/Hebrew just to circumvent the translations :)

Anyhow, like I asked before, does anyone know any good 'guides' to reading/interpreting the bible?

There's Reading the Bible for All Its Worth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310246040/dvdtalk/qid=1104764953/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-2428670-6376742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), which is great if you are just starting to read the Bible. They also wrote How to Read the Bible Book by Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310211182/dvdtalk/qid=1104764953/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/104-2428670-6376742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), which would be another good reference.

And yeah, it's frustrating how many translations we now have in English. A century ago, there were only 3 or 4, and most people still used the KJV translation. Now there are around 15-25 English translations, each with a different translation team.

Someone else mentioned E-Sword (www.e-sword.net) earlier; I've been using that to plan out worship services. It's a good program (the only hard part is that you have to install every component one-by-one) and you can compare different versions. They have the ESV, The Message, and the HCSB translations; each approaches the Bible with a different means of translation. You can compare those to the KJV on that program.

Just remember: there are numerous translations of other literary works, for example, Beowulf.

[DGibFen]

:lol: The KJ is a must own for anyone more concerned with tradition and poetic sounding scripture, than a true translation. Personally, I don't own one because I think they are pretty worthless. Our language has changed to much to read the KJV and get as much value out of it. Catholics generally stick to it, but again, that probably has more to do with tradition.

Here is a graphic that shows you the different versions and how they compare to being literal vs. more readable. I generally read an NIV for most day to day stuff, but prefer the NASB for study.

<img src=http://graphics.christianbook.com/g/cms/1/73521/transarrow.gif>

I like the one that's on Zondervan's, as it has more translations listed.
http://www.zondervanbibles.com/images/transchart.gif

[Venusian]

Bear in mind that this is delivered by missionaries.
it's mailed. i ordered it and haven't heard anything else from them since

[Groucho]

it's mailed. i ordered it and haven't heard anything else from them sinceI stand corrected. I was in the Temple here in town and inquired about their free Book of Mormon. I was told that it was delivered via missionary, so I declined. I just assumed the Bible they offer had the same catch.

[Black&Gold4ever]

interested in reading the bible but not sure which version to buy. i have heard of the king james version and the international version. sounds like the international version is translated from the king james version. correct me if im wrong. is one better than the other or one harder to understand than the other. thanks.

I haven't read all the responses, so some of this may be repeat advice. Here's my two cents on it this:

The Old King James Version use to be very popular. While it's still highly quoted, I don't think it's quoted any more than the NIV or ESV. That, and I believe there are a few errors in its translation. I don't recall what exactly those errors are, and I doubt they're anything major, but it may keep it from being the most accurate translation out there.

The NIV is obviously very popular as well. I know that this is not the best translation out there though.

From what I keep hearing the ESV is the most accurate and also the easiest to read. The differences between it and the NIV are subtle, but those subtle differences do alot in helping the text keep its original meaning.
So I would highly recommend the ESV.

[Black&Gold4ever]

Grrr, it's so frustrating with all these damned versions, that I'd be somewhat inclined to learn Greek/Hebrew just to circumvent the translations :)

Anyhow, like I asked before, does anyone know any good 'guides' to reading/interpreting the bible?

Chances are you're not going to find any one guide to help you with the whole Bible. Your best bet is to get study guides by book, for whatever book your wanting to study. For Isaiah, Mark, Luke, Revelation...whatever.

I don't know what denomination you are, so it's tough to say where to get the guides from. But being Lutheran myself (LCMS), I'd recommend getting the study guides through Concordia Publising House (CPH). They have a site you can go to and order from. They have an excellent guide to Revelation that I'd highly recommend if that's a book you wanted to study.

[Nick Danger]

Originally Posted by kvrdave
The KJ is a must own for anyone more concerned with tradition and poetic sounding scripture, than a true translation. Personally, I don't own one because I think they are pretty worthless. Our language has changed to much to read the KJV and get as much value out of it. Catholics generally stick to it, but again, that probably has more to do with tradition.

Really? It seems odd that Catholics would like a bible that doesn't include all the books that are in the Catholic Bible. Although I do remember the KJV of Genesis 1 being read to us.

[Groucho]

In all my years as a Catholic, including Catholic school and the like, the KJV was always "poo-pooed."

[Joe Molotov]

I haven't seen anyone mention the New King James yet, but that's the one I use the most. It seems to be pretty close in wording to the KJV, but without all the "thous" and "thees" and "spakeths" to throw you off.

[mndtrp]

Have you thought about a Parallel version? This Bible is larger and more expensive, but it can have up to 4 translations. I have one, and like it a lot. It's helpful when trying to figure out what meaning is trying to be conveyed.

Something along the lines of
Amazon Parallel Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310918391/dvdtalk/qid=1104931237/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-2459824-3846314?v=glance&s=books)

[natevines]

I haven't seen anyone mention the New King James yet, but that's the one I use the most. It seems to be pretty close in wording to the KJV, but without all the "thous" and "thees" and "spakeths" to throw you off.

That's not the problem. Anyone will know that thou = you, spaketh = spoke, etc. It's really the odd grammar that seems to make no sense that throws people off.

[kvrdave]

Really? It seems odd that Catholics would like a bible that doesn't include all the books that are in the Catholic Bible. Although I do remember the KJV of Genesis 1 being read to us.

Are you talking about the Apocrapha?

Anyway, there are those who believe that the KJV is inspired (see http://www.patriotist.com/kjv.htm for an example) which is pure crap. It is because of the King James Version that we have the work "Baptize" for example. It is a transliteration of the Greek word Baptismo, which literally means "to immerse". The problem came about because Baptisms were no longer done by the immersion by the Catholic church. The translators couldn't very well translate it "correctly" because it was against what they were doing, so they made a new word (not that I disagree that sprinkling, pouring, etc. isn't just fine). Here is the official Catholic take on it, as it is considered "The Authorized Version" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm You also get into other things like in 2 Kings 2:23 when Elisha was jeered by "youths" (according to the NIV) or "little children" (according to the KJV). The New King James does clear that up, however. But basically, it was a street gang. There are lots of examples. If you read the history of it, it is fascinating. Though it is the Catholic authorized version, many leaders in the Catholic Church were very much against it being translated at all. Many Masses are still done in Latin. My own belief is that during that time (1611) and for many centuries prior, the leaders of the church were not about God, but were about power, and it was not to their benefit to have the layman read the Bible on his own. He might just discover something. Similarly today, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe (according to their literature) that one should read the Bible without the guidance of The Watchtower.

Anyway, very interesting stuff, and the only history I have ever found worth studying.

[djtoell]

Oxford's World's Classics (http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Bibles/ParallelTextBibles/KingJamesVersion/?view=usa&ci=0192835254) edition of the KJV is very nice.

DJ

[Joe Molotov]

Similarly today, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe (according to their literature) that one should read the Bible without the guidance of The Watchtower.

I had a high school teacher that was catholic, and one time when some kind of biblical reference or something came up he said he really didn't know about it, and that the catholic church discouraged their members from reading the Bible. That reading it on your own would only confuse you, and it was better to let the priest tell you what you needed to know. That was the first time I'd heard anything like that, and it kinda suprised me.

[Jackskeleton]

You should buy the one signed by jesus (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4517475230&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

[milo bloom]

You should buy the one signed by jesus (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4517475230&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

Oh that's definitely fake.


I mean, wouldn't Jesus have signed it in Aramic or Hewbrew?

[shoppingbear]

I have both the King James and English Standard Version. The ESV is much easier to read, however the King James is the definitive Bible and is a must-own for anyone wishing to read/follow/live by the Bible.
the definitive version can only be read if you read Greek and Hebrew....
I completely agree, if you want the "definitive" version, learn Greek and Hebrew (my church, and others I know of, teach it for free). :) Most of us won't go that far, though, and it doesn't seem realistic to ask that of new Bible readers! :lol:

I have several versions, the one I take to church and Bible studies is a NIV study Bible, I have extra of those that I've picked up over the years (makes it easier to have a study in your house, if you have extra Bibles for people who might not bring one), and also a couple of KJV (given by family), a couple of NKJV, and I think a NASB but I don't use it much...

Consider multiple versions for serious studies, but almost all of the commentaries, study guides, Bible study books, etc, that I've read in the past five years, all use the NIV. It's just quite simply easy to read, and yet faithful to the original translations. Is it the "best"? I don't know. But it won't leave you as confused as the KJV, nor as liberally-interpreted as the Message (both of which I respect, but I'm just saying...). :)

Have you thought about a Parallel version? ...Something along the lines of
Amazon Parallel Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310918391/dvdtalk/dvdtalk/qid=1104931237/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-2459824-3846314?v=glance&s=books)
Thanks for posting this, it looks awesome, I might save up for that one. :)

[tommyp007]

You should buy the one signed by jesus (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4517475230&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

:lol:

[wlmowery]

I would recommend the ESV or NIV for a new reader. Both provide clear language which tends to make sense for today's readers. It is quite facinating to use parallel studies and bibles. I even have a parallel Concordance for simple study uses. Also, for those following the discussion, the Message Bible and those near to it on the graphs posted are not translations but paraphrases put into common language for today. They can sometimes provide insight into difficult passages but one must always understand that the author of a paraphrase uses more flexibility in creating his version than a more literal translation....

[foofighters7]

If you get a KJV, get an old one, many new ones have been altered and are now incorrect.

[Seeker]

If you get a KJV, get an old one, many new ones have been altered and are now incorrect.

Do you simply mean that some newer bibles have different translations, or are the "new King James Version" (which is a different translation) or do you mean that little gremlins have gone in and altered the text???

[Seeker]

The latest would now be the "TNIV" i.e. Today's New International Version".

It's supposed to be for 18-34 year olds who want a bible translation that meets their needs. As with ALL new translations, there is some controversy around it, especially on gender-neutral translations.

You can get the entire new testament now - it's at www.tniv.info - in pdf form. also check out www.tniv.com - if you want the flash and glitter that accompanies a new release (even of the bible).

the old testament should be available via pdf in February, and of course, then you should buy a copy, right?

http://www.zondervanbibles.com/images/transchart.gif

You can find both NIV and TNIV above about in the middle.

[Seeker]

You can now get a complete TNIV bible in pdf form at http://www.tniv.info/bible/index.php

Cheap way to get a bible! (of course, just stay at a hotel and grab a gideon's, if you prefer print.... ;) )

[Numanoid]

You've not experienced The Bible until you've read it in the original Klingon.

http://klv.mrklingon.org

[tasha99]

I had a high school teacher that was catholic, and one time when some kind of biblical reference or something came up he said he really didn't know about it, and that the catholic church discouraged their members from reading the Bible. That reading it on your own would only confuse you, and it was better to let the priest tell you what you needed to know. That was the first time I'd heard anything like that, and it kinda suprised me.

That was certainly true of the church in 1350 but I thought things had changed since then.

[foofighters7]

dont think so, ive had MANY catholics say basically the same thing.
If you read it for yourself and seen the lies they were tossing, they would lose so many members that the Pope would be broke, and everyone knows, The Catholic church likes da money. certaintly just my opinion. I love asking Catholics bible questions, because they usually A, get mad. or B, are honest and say i dont know.
Sure there are Catholics who actually read the Bible, but there few and far between. At least on what Ive seen, and Ive talked to hundreds of Catholics about it.

[natevines]

Hmph. Would've thought this was one of the many reforms of the Council of Trent, or at least one of the many subsequent reforms.

"If you read it for yourself and seen the lies they were tossing"

I find it very, very difficult to believe that this exists in the 21st century. But anyway, I prefer Protestantism :)

[darkside]

If you get a KJV, get an old one, many new ones have been altered and are now incorrect.


How the heck would you know what is correct in the bible anyway. Even people that can understand the Greek and Hebrew texts disagree on the translation. :lol:

I read the KJV cover to cover when I was 14 (I was probably 15 when I finished it). I enjoyed it quite a bit overall (some parts are flat out sleep inducing) but a few years ago I decided to read it again to see what I remembered and the inpact it would have on me 15 years later and tried one of the newer modern translations. I gave up a few books in. The Bible just isn't fun to read without the Old English for me.

Granted I include the Bible in the same vein as the Iliad and the Odyssey. Fiction based on history. I know it means a lot more to people that are religious, but I personally find the KJV the more powerful and interesting read.

[foofighters7]

well darkside there are many places where they have altered words from the original text. I dont feel like going into it, Theres a difference of a basic meaning,as to what the word may or may not exactly mean, its another thing to completly change the word, or to remove words.
Many new bibles even have completly removed the name of God, that alone should make some wonder about the rest of the wording contained within.
wether it be Jehovah, or Yahweh.
This is NOT a simple matter of translation.
YHWH IS the Hebrew Tetragrammaton for the name of God, these were the consonants, and in Hebrew there were no vowels, so the exact pronunciation isnt exactly known, but many Bible Scolars say its pronounced Jehovah, or Yahweh.
In Old King James Versions Jehovah or Yahweh is included,in a few places,but now even new KJVs have taken the name out.
If you wonder if yours does, go to Psalms 83 verse 18, and see if its there. That will give you some help on how well translated your bible is. Not completly but some.

[darkside]

I'm pretty sure the version I read years ago was the original KJV of the bible. I remember it having the other names for God in it. Had no idea the KJV was still being changed as well.

How very Orwellian.

[foofighters7]

Yeah God or Jehovah-YHWH is a very specific name, just like Barry or Jimbo, hehe
but there are many other names that he is called, IE- The Almighty, Eternal Father, Soverign Lord, Alpha and Omega(begining and End), ect.
These are not personal names, and in Hebrew they were not signfied by YHWH. AND Simply replacing Jehovah or Yahwey with God, is incorrect too. For instance

'Someone told me Jack said I had no legs.' This shows the name Jack, when they replace God for Jehovah or Yahwey this is what they are doing,

'Someone told me Man said I had no legs.' See its not very specific now.

Some may say its not important, but by reading even one scripture, the one i mentioned earlier, PS 83, 18, it is clear that to God at least it would be. hehe

[kvrdave]

While I am not a big fan of the KJV, I don't see how the Ineffable Tetragramatron being translated differently or even left out in parts affects the Bible. In the instances that I have seen the KJV change verbage it generally had to do with the fact that words have changed meaning since it's writing. Originally it often talked about the "Awful deeds" of God, but the word "Awful" simply doesn't have the same meaning today as it did in the 1600s.

When you have a language that has many different meanings for the same word (and both ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek have an incredibly small number of words compared to English) you inevitably get translators trying to get the right "flavor" of the words used.

It is exactly that which gives the Young Earth Creationists their blinders insisting that "day" in Genesis must be a 24 hour day, despite the fact that the Hebrew word "yom" is used to show a 12 hour time period, a 24 hour time period, and a long period of time throughout the Old Testament.

Seeing how the accuracy can be verified (at least with the OT) quite well with the Dead Sea Scrolls, I find it amazing how well the documents have been preserved for their integrity over the millenia.

[JP5683]

Free Audio Bibles (http://www.audiotreasure.com)

[Ahab]

My own belief is that during that time (1611) and for many centuries prior, the leaders of the church were not about God, but were about power, and it was not to their benefit to have the layman read the Bible on his own. He might just discover something. Similarly today, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe (according to their literature) that one should read the Bible without the guidance of The Watchtower.

Same could be said of almost every denomination or church. They all have their particular take on how to interpret the bible. And they all pretty much insist on their members adhereing to the party line.

As far as which bible to read - from a literary perspective the KJV is the clear winner.
If one is reading it solely for religious reasons, they might as well stick to whatever version their church uses.