POLL: what version of the Bible do you read most frequently?

[mwduke]

I don't want this thread to get turned into another KJV only bashing thread, so please let's not go there.. there are enough of those threads already. I'm just curious what the other fundamentalists here read.

Feel free to post the version that you use though. I'll start. I use NRSV most often, but also use NIV sometimes.

[Logos1560]

I have read the KJV more than any other English translation. After that, I usually read one of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles especially the Geneva Bible and in addition I also read the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and the NKJV.

[desmalia]

Mainly the NASB, but also sometimes the KJV and NKJV.

[mothcorrupteth]

Taken in total, I've read and studied with KJV the most, but lately, since I'm learning German and Spanish, I've been working more with the Gute Nachricht Bibel (1997), Reina-Valera Biblia (1909), and Lutherbibel (1545), the last two of which are regarded with the same esteem as KJV in their respective languages. (I hasten to point out that I'm aware of some pivotal translational errors in both and it is not for their accuracy that I opt for them.) Anyway, I voted "Other."

[twistedsketch]

No love for The Living Bible and The Message? :P

[VCViking]

I have started reading the NASB. Also KJV, NKJV. I'm also looking into the MKJV and KJ3 VERSIONS

[arunma]

I read the ESV (English Standard Version) most often. NIV and KJV come in second and third, but I'm not sure in what order.

[jlujan69]

KJV. I've briefly checked out the TNIV and found it not nearly as offensive as I'd initially supposed. However, I've not read through it and done comparisons with KJV yet.

[AnthonytheBaptist]

read 1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." if a bible doesn't have this verse in it, I don't trust them!!!Veritas....most english versions remove this verse completely except KJV- the Word of God!!!!

[mwduke]

read 1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." if a bible doesn't have this verse in it, I don't trust them!!!Veritas....most english versions remove this verse completely except KJV- the Word of God!!!!
what translation is it you use ?

I found it interesting to see NIV's 1John 5:7, "7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

it includes the footnote,

1John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

[VCViking]

read 1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." if a bible doesn't have this verse in it, I don't trust them!!!Veritas....most english versions remove this verse completely except KJV- the Word of God!!!!


I found this to be interesting so I googled the verse.


From John Ankerberg's website

Q. I am a firm believer in the Trinity. One verse I looked upon to prove the Trinity is 1 John 5:7. I hear that there is some controversy over the genuineness of this verse, that it was added in the 1500’s. Can you help me with this? Was this verse penned by John, or an editor of the sixteenth century?
A. The verse in question is: "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth." (NASB)
According to The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12, page 293, a number of translations will reject this verse as it appears in no ancient Greek manuscript nor is it cited by any Greek fathers. Of all the versions, only the Latin contained it, and even this is in none of the most ancient sources. The earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate do not have it. It is probably a gloss that has crept into the text. The explanation from The Interpreter’s Bible is also supported by a number of other commentaries.
This should not in any way negate your and my strong belief in the Trinity. For an excellent one page article on the Trinity entitled "One and Three: The Trinity," look at the New Geneva Study Bible, printed by Nelson, page 1102.

Also,

Bullinger's Companion Bible (footnotes) on [1John 5:7]
"The text reads "the Spirit, and the water", and c., omitting all the words from "in heaven' to "in earth" inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text."


Unger's Bible Hand Book [1John 5:7]
"Verse 7 is not in the oldest and best manuscripts and should be omitted."

Peake's Commentary on the Bible p.1038 [1John 5:7]
"The famous interpolation after "three witness" is not printed even in RSV and rightly..No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the N.T. of Erasmus."

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [1John 5:7]
"The text of this verse should read. 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the 14th century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the trinity in the first 450 years of the church era."





There are others that pretty much say the same thing. I'm not saying I agree with them but it does add a different perspective on the matter.

[LinDAvid5862]

I usually read KJV.

Linda

[Godiswithus]

i once remember reading about what billy graham said about the bible. He said that one of the things he learned after a lifetime of serving God is to not look at the bible and say every letter, even the dots,commas etc are perfect.

i think he is right. i still think keeping the oldest edition of the bible is the best way. but the english gets very tough so as long as the interpreters are respected and God-fearing church leaders, it is all okay for me.

[arunma]

All right, an old thread!

i once remember reading about what billy graham said about the bible. He said that one of the things he learned after a lifetime of serving God is to not look at the bible and say every letter, even the dots,commas etc are perfect.

This is certainly true, as can be seen by comparing different manuscripts of the Bible. The differences between various Biblical manuscripts is almost always spelling, the omission of a word, or something of that nature. What really speaks to the supernatural origin of the Bible is how elegantly the message is preserved. Of all the spelling inconsistencies, not one point of theology differs from the original Bibles to our modern Bibles.

i think he is right. i still think keeping the oldest edition of the bible is the best way. but the english gets very tough so as long as the interpreters are respected and God-fearing church leaders, it is all okay for me.

May I ask which "oldest edition" of the English Bible you're talking about? There are several old editions, such as the Tyndale Version, the Geneva Bible, etc. The King James was actually one of the later versions. When the first colonists came to America, it was the Geneva Bible that they brought with them. And then of course there is Luther's German Bible, and many of the other translations that came out around the Reformation. If you really went by the very first English Bible ever produced, then chances are that you wouldn't be able to read it. English has evolved so much that old English is practically a foreign language to us. So which oldest Bible would we use?

[PaladinGirl]

Other - I read the NAB the most frequently. The RSV-CE would probably be the second most frequently used Bible for me.

[BereanTodd]

I use the NASB and the NKJV about equally, but I voted the NASB.

[Kenpo]

Kjv

[diamondjoust]

It has got the power and it's the glory of all translations of the Bible in English. The mystery of inspiration of God in translation continues to baffle those who rely on what are ostensibly copies of the original texts of scripture as their final authority, which is really no final authority at all.

[IronWill]

I found this to be interesting so I googled the verse.


From John Ankerberg's website

Q. I am a firm believer in the Trinity. One verse I looked upon to prove the Trinity is 1 John 5:7. I hear that there is some controversy over the genuineness of this verse, that it was added in the 1500’s. Can you help me with this? Was this verse penned by John, or an editor of the sixteenth century?
A. The verse in question is: "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth." (NASB)
According to The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12, page 293, a number of translations will reject this verse as it appears in no ancient Greek manuscript nor is it cited by any Greek fathers. Of all the versions, only the Latin contained it, and even this is in none of the most ancient sources. The earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate do not have it. It is probably a gloss that has crept into the text. The explanation from The Interpreter’s Bible is also supported by a number of other commentaries.
This should not in any way negate your and my strong belief in the Trinity. For an excellent one page article on the Trinity entitled "One and Three: The Trinity," look at the New Geneva Study Bible, printed by Nelson, page 1102.

Also,

Bullinger's Companion Bible (footnotes) on [1John 5:7]
"The text reads "the Spirit, and the water", and c., omitting all the words from "in heaven' to "in earth" inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text."


Unger's Bible Hand Book [1John 5:7]
"Verse 7 is not in the oldest and best manuscripts and should be omitted."

Peake's Commentary on the Bible p.1038 [1John 5:7]
"The famous interpolation after "three witness" is not printed even in RSV and rightly..No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the N.T. of Erasmus."

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [1John 5:7]
"The text of this verse should read. 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the 14th century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the trinity in the first 450 years of the church era."





There are others that pretty much say the same thing. I'm not saying I agree with them but it does add a different perspective on the matter.
Ankenberg is dead wrong. Cyprian quoted the Johanine Comma(1 John 5:7) in his writings.

[IronWill]

I use the NKJV, KJV, and Geneva. I have all three in hardcopy form, and two of those on my computer.