|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:37 pm
Good News Translation. It has picture. I knoe it sound chilish, but the way its worded overpower the pictureness.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:13 pm
I like the KJV if i'm i'm studing the Bible, but i generally stick to the NLT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:46 am
I almost always use NKJV, It is the version that I am used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:40 pm
Well it depends, I like to use niv but new king james is ok as well, but i don't ike to use king james virson because i can barley understand the english language, so i got understand his word. Right? So i stick to the easy transalation and if thats wrong then ok i'll change, but not right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:44 pm
i prefer the new king james version. it has an enriched vocabulary, and i enjoy being slightly challenged in my reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:29 pm
well in the Bible doesnt it say something along the lines of: dont add or take away from the word of God?? so basically its saying not to translate it into todays "language". after all if it was meant to be in modern english then it would be in modern english. So personally i think it is wrong to read or even make a translated version of the bible. no offense to people who prefer the new english version. I am just speaking my mind and saying that i prefer the King James Version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:56 pm
I like the Complete Jewish Bible. This is why - I didn't write it, I copied it off their webpage, because I'm too lazy to type it when the exact reasons I like it are outlined in detail here.
"Because it is the only English version of the Bible fully Jewish in style and presentation that includes both the Tanakh ("Old Testament") and the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant, "New Testament"). Even its title, the Complete Jewish Bible, challenges both Jews and Christians to see that the whole Bible is Jewish, the B'rit Hadashah as well as the Tanakh. Jews are challenged by the implication that without it the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged with the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) -- so that because Christianity can be rightly understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, the Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible. Also for the first time the information needed for the synagogue readings from the Torah and the Prophets is completely integrated with similar use of the B'rit Hadashah."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:24 pm
personally, i love the King James version as well. The words flow together and the poetry in Psalms is more beautiful. So yes, Kimg James.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:21 am
I'm much a fan of NKJV. I've been using that since i could read smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:28 pm
punkestbumm well in the Bible doesnt it say something along the lines of: dont add or take away from the word of God?? so basically its saying not to translate it into todays "language". after all if it was meant to be in modern english then it would be in modern english. So personally i think it is wrong to read or even make a translated version of the bible. no offense to people who prefer the new english version. I am just speaking my mind and saying that i prefer the King James Version. Technically, if what you are saying is true, it would be wrong to translate it from it's original languages (Hebrew and Greek), so the kjv would be wrong too. But there's nothing wrong with making it easier to understand, because if it just goes over you head, then you don't learn anything, and it's completely pointless to read it. My favorite is the kjv, though, because it's beautiful and I can understand it. I would like to learn Latin, though, so I could read the Latin version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Venibeth Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:04 pm
I like the NIV, since that's what I was given in high school and thats what my church uses.
But if I am curious about a particular verse, looking it up in the Amplified Bible is helpful, I like the multiple translations. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:56 pm
Lady Vetalia punkestbumm well in the Bible doesnt it say something along the lines of: dont add or take away from the word of God?? so basically its saying not to translate it into todays "language". after all if it was meant to be in modern english then it would be in modern english. So personally i think it is wrong to read or even make a translated version of the bible. no offense to people who prefer the new english version. I am just speaking my mind and saying that i prefer the King James Version. Technically, if what you are saying is true, it would be wrong to translate it from it's original languages (Hebrew and Greek), so the kjv would be wrong too. But there's nothing wrong with making it easier to understand, because if it just goes over you head, then you don't learn anything, and it's completely pointless to read it. My favorite is the kjv, though, because it's beautiful and I can understand it. I would like to learn Latin, though, so I could read the Latin version. Even the Latin Vulgate is a translation from Jerome fro the original texts. So far the only translation of a text which has ever been approved was the Septuagint, approved by the Temple Priests for the Hellenist Jews who would come to Jerusalem for the Passover. I prefer the Orthodox Study Bible as it is pieced together very well and contains the Septuagint texts along with the complete texts of Esther and Daniel. it also contains the missing Psalm for which many people were unaware of existed outside of the Septuagint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:11 pm
Silver Wingling I like the Complete Jewish Bible. This is why - I didn't write it, I copied it off their webpage, because I'm too lazy to type it when the exact reasons I like it are outlined in detail here. "Because it is the only English version of the Bible fully Jewish in style and presentation that includes both the Tanakh ("Old Testament") and the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant, "New Testament"). Even its title, the Complete Jewish Bible, challenges both Jews and Christians to see that the whole Bible is Jewish, the B'rit Hadashah as well as the Tanakh. Jews are challenged by the implication that without it the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged with the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) -- so that because Christianity can be rightly understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-Semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, the Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible. Also for the first time the information needed for the synagogue readings from the Torah and the Prophets is completely integrated with similar use of the B'rit Hadashah." Is Messianic Judaism restoring the old faith of Judaism with Christianity or is it bringing about Rabbinical Judaism, which is not the Jewish practice of Temple Judaism practiced by Yeshua Ha'Moshiach, which was founded some 300 years after Yeshua ascended? If one looks into the founding of the Church itself one can visually see the links of Temple Judaism fulfilled in the Mysteries of Christ in the Church. One needs not sek it in Rabbinical Judaism which even shortened the texts itself due to mass usage of the Septuagint texts of the " apocrypha" for conversions from Judaism to Christianity, hence why the Council of Jamnia omitted some texts out of the canon, which we call the B'rit Hadashah. oddly some of the texts omitted are still regarded and highly praised for their expression of the heritage and faith of the people of Torah. Sadly their Tanak'h is limited. Another note, the text of the Complete Jewish Bible is translated by one person. Many helped along the way but the final outcome was one autheor. Two other faiths had the same thing happen, one was Joseph Smith who wrote and entirely new text and the other was Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses who wrote his own translation of the Bible from the Masorets and a Strongs Concordance. David Stern used a copy of the Jerusalem Bible, A Strong's Concordance and a copy of the Textus Receptus. None of this is meant to slam, but just to ponder... Shalom L'hit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
