Which is the best Bible version?

[Erwin]

This is an official Christian Forums poll. Just click and vote to view the results. :)

King James Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
New International Version
New American Standard Bible
New Living Translation
Revised Standard Version
Good News Bible
Jerusalem Bible
Amplified Version

[BWSmith]

I voted for NIV, but only because the NRSV wasn't a choice...
;-)

[man in the box]

I voted NIV because I think it translates with the original audience in mind. Another good modern translation is the Contemporary English Version.
When reading different Bible versions it is a matter of preference in what you like. I do think you should be able to read the Bible without a Bible commentary next to you to explain English words that are out dated.
The KJV is beautiful and poetic but I feel the translaters put a very sexist and political slant on it. I used to be a KJV only person until I took Greek in college and noticed some glaring differances. If love the KJV please don't take offence at my words I am not trying to offend you.
Take care.

[imagineer]

Just out of interest, why do you have so many different versions of the bible? Are they just differently translated?

[man in the box]

The reason we have different translation vary. King James was translated to bring the Bible to common man in English. This translation is very poetic and flows nicely but has a male dominated tone that the original Greek does not contain. The New American Standard uses a different Greek text than the KJV and they wanted to be a more literal word for word translation. The New International version wanted to be more dynamic and tried to translate how they thought the original writers intended. Translators have difficulty translating Greek into English. English is a very vague language were Greek is very precise. There are not huge differences but reading the Bible in English is like watching black and white TV were reading Greek is like watching high resolution color TV.
Take care.

[Liam Slater]

Surely then you can't take the Bible by it's word. A lot of the Bible is said to be metaphorical, metaphores' meanings can easily be changed by altering one word. And the languages in the bible have been dead for so long that there are bound to be errors in translation. The evolution of the English language alone means that words have changed meanings. These small differences can mean that different Bibles give different meanings so surely you can't say the Bible is perfect, else they would all be the same.

[messenjah]

The truth is that you can't judge an ancient historical book except by ancient historical book standards. If you take it by that standard then the Bible is the most reliable book by far. In ancient times, important books were allowed to be changed to some degree depending on the person writing. The new Testament for example has the gosple in many different translations. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The message is the same but they all chose different things to elaborate on. This does not make one right and the others wrong. Some people also have translations so that they can understand what is being said. The Message is a great example. It is a great way for the lay person to understand the word of God better. Who is going to understand the Bible that well with all these weird words. For some people it works, others need a different voice. The message is still the same but the wording different.

[Liam Slater]

Originally posted by messenjah
The truth is that you can't judge an ancient historical book except by ancient historical book standards. If you take it by that standard then the Bible is the most reliable book by far. In ancient times, important books were allowed to be changed to some degree depending on the person writing. The new Testament for example has the gosple in many different translations. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The message is the same but they all chose different things to elaborate on. This does not make one right and the others wrong. Some people also have translations so that they can understand what is being said. The Message is a great example. It is a great way for the lay person to understand the word of God better. Who is going to understand the Bible that well with all these weird words. For some people it works, others need a different voice. The message is still the same but the wording different.

Not true, there are many metaphores in the bible and as such, a small change in wording can radically affect the meaning. As well as this there are known problems in translating documents, words and meanings can easily be mistranslated so how sentances could say the completely wrong thing, the fact that there are different versions shows that god isn't keeping the bible perfect.

[man in the box]

Hi Liam, how are you!
If I didn't take the Bible at its word than I don't have much faith. If I don't believe that God is big enough to get around all that then I don't have much faith. I never said that the English Bible is perfect. I believe the original manuscripts were perfect in their original languages. This is difficult saying for many but I believe is true. It takes nothing away from faith or truth. I believe that if we did have a perfect English Bible we would worship that over God. God wants Himself to be worshipped not His word.
I realize that this probably will not change your mind about the Bible but that is your choice to make and I respect that.
Take care.

[BWSmith]

man wrote:
> reading the Bible in English is like watching black and white TV were reading Greek is like watching high resolution color TV.

That's Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, to be more complete...
;-)

[BWSmith]

Liam wrote:
> Surely then you can't take the Bible by it's word.

What do you mean by that? Give an example.

> A lot of the Bible is said to be metaphorical, metaphores' meanings can easily be changed by altering one word. And the languages in the bible have been dead for so long that there are bound to be errors in translation.

There are errors in translation.

> The evolution of the English language alone means that words have changed meanings.

That's true, although the same texts have been in continuous possession during that time, so traditional interpretations of individual words are generally preserved.

> These small differences can mean that different Bibles give different meanings so surely you can't say the Bible is perfect, else they would all be the same.

I'm not saying the Bible is perfect. I am saying that the Bible is sufficient.

[BWSmith]

Liam wrote:
> Not true, there are many metaphores in the bible and as such, a small change in wording can radically affect the meaning. As well as this there are known problems in translating documents, words and meanings can easily be mistranslated so how sentances could say the completely wrong thing, the fact that there are different versions shows that god isn't keeping the bible perfect.

Again, the Bible is not perfect, and it doesn't need to be. We don't rely on any other literary work to be "perfect". Why should the Bible meet that requirement?

[BWSmith]

man wrote:
> If I didn't take the Bible at its word than I don't have much faith. If I don't believe that God is big enough to get around all that then I don't have much faith.

I don't think faith is an issue with regard to the textual composition and transmission of the Bible. Certainly, it is inspired, but that doesn't mean that it's error-free.

> I never said that the English Bible is perfect. I believe the original manuscripts were perfect in their original languages. This is difficult saying for many but I believe is true. It takes nothing away from faith or truth. I believe that if we did have a perfect English Bible we would worship that over God. God wants Himself to be worshipped not His word.

This last statement signifies why it doesn't matter whether or not the "original manuscripts" were "perfect". The perfection of the Word of God transcends the perfection of the words in a book.

[Debbie]

I didn't vote because I like using 2 translations. I have a Greek & HEbrew dictionary. With these 3 I can get the original meaning if there happens to be a discrepancy, or misunderstanding on my part. Besides that, I always pray first for understanding. Therefore I see the Bible as perfect, with no errors, since I have the Greek & HEbrew dictionaries for translation.

[BWSmith]

There aren't any errors in your Greek & Hebrew Bibles?

[Liam Slater]

Originally posted by BWSmith
Liam wrote:
> Surely then you can't take the Bible by it's word.

What do you mean by that? Give an example.

See below.

> A lot of the Bible is said to be metaphorical, metaphores' meanings can easily be changed by altering one word. And the languages in the bible have been dead for so long that there are bound to be errors in translation.

There are errors in translation.

See above.

If you admit there are errors then you admit it can't be taken by it's word. To do that it must be word perfect.

> The evolution of the English language alone means that words have changed meanings.

That's true, although the same texts have been in continuous possession during that time, so traditional interpretations of individual words are generally preserved.

Yes but it still introduces more error as the meaning is not quite what is meant, and ambiguous phrases might be interpreted in the wrong way.

> These small differences can mean that different Bibles give different meanings so surely you can't say the Bible is perfect, else they would all be the same.

I'm not saying the Bible is perfect. I am saying that the Bible is sufficient.

It isn't suficient if you believe in everything in it ebcause you ahve admitted errors

[BWSmith]

Liam wrote:
>>> Surely then you can't take the Bible by it's word.

>>What do you mean by that? Give an example.

BWS: There are errors in translation.

> See above. If you admit there are errors then you admit it can't be taken by it's word. To do that it must be word perfect.

I take the newspaper at its word and it's not word perfect.

> Yes but it still introduces more error as the meaning is not quite what is meant, and ambiguous phrases might be interpreted in the wrong way.

Which is why we have Biblical scholarship.

>> I'm not saying the Bible is perfect. I am saying that the Bible is sufficient.

> It isn't suficient if you believe in everything in it ebcause you ahve admitted errors

It's sufficient for salvation. It's not sufficient as a science or history book.

[angelhug]

couldn't just pick one ... i'm happy we have several to spread His message of Love, Mercy. and Salvation ...
Peace Be With You...Always

[Hishandmaiden]

I voted for NIV, but changed my mind, now. I wanted to vote for KJV, now after I had looked into both, and realised that NIV ommited some words.

[BWSmith]

NIV didn't omit anything, they just put in the footnotes verses that were not in the oldest and most reliable texts.

[man in the box]

I chose NIV though I like the NASV also and The NKJV is good.
The biggest problem I have with the KJV is that the chose to translate passages with a male dominance even though the Greek did not support it.
Take John 1.12 for instance. KJV translates this sons of God. The Greek word is teknon which means children. The Greek word for son is huios. Because their society treated women poorly they chose sons over children in spite of the Greek. Their are other examples but they escape me at the moment.

[Caedmon]

BWSmith.... why did you choose the NIV over the NASB?

[BWSmith]

NASB is a good Bible for getting close to the literal wording of the text. It is always my choice when I have my Bible critic hat on.

However, that literal rendering also makes it difficult to read in English for devotional study. I prefer the NIV when I have the cross around my neck.

Comments?

[Caedmon]

BWSmith....

I agree that the NIV offers higher readability. However, I'm an English major, and it works better for me if I know the exact meaning of what's going on in the text, no matter whether I'm critically analyzing or drawing near to God through devotional, which, actually, ends up in some sort of combination of the two. I can't help it! Don't mind me, I'm a nerd. :D

As far as devotionals go, I would like to think that the recently published English Standard Version or the NKJV would give readability while maximizing accuracy for what they're worth. But the New Living Translation and the NIV still rank leaps and bounds above paraphrases like the Living Bible or The Word, which absolutely irritate me to no end! :mad:

BTW, I have an NIV too, but I prefer my Thompson Chain Reference NASB! :cool:

[solo66 man]

Exactly.
The NIV is the easiest to read and easiest to quote. But, not know any greek except any derivations in english, I have heard from very knowledgeable people, without question is the
NASB - my favorite, and next the NKJV.

[Sparkette23]

I actually prefer the Amplified version, because it expands on the real meaning of the verse and makes it better to understand, IMHO

[AngelAmidala]

I voted NIV, because I find it to be very easy to comprehend...but it's not too easy to understand. But a close second for me would be KJV...because the language is so nice.

[Josephus]

i havent decided yet. :)

[Hishandmaiden]

Below are a few examples of the King James Version(AV) versus New International Version of which there are many troubling changes.


Everyone knows that the head of the underworld is the devil and his name is Lucifer right! In fact we know that because it's in the Bible right!
Everyone knows that one of Jesus' names is Morning Star right! In fact we know that because it's in the Bible right!
King James Authorized Version

Isa:14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Re:22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
New International Version

Isa:14:12: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Re:22:16:"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Strongs Concordance This Concordance is also wrong calling Lucifer morning star.

01966 heylel hay-lale’
from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT-499a; n m
AV-Lucifer 1; 1
Lucifer =" light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) ‘Helel’ describing the king of Babylon
Some times the verse in Job is misinterpreted



Job:38:7: When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Some believe the morning stars refer to angels when it actually is God talking to Job about the creation of the stars (suns in the heavens, suns to other planets) and the angels rejoicing in seeing the wondrous work God has done in creating them. Otherwise it would be like saying: When the angels of God sang together and all the angels of God shouted for joy. This doesn't make sense. God is talking about His creating. See Psalms 19.
Morning Star is the Name of Lord Jesus and no one else has that Name!


Well the NIV has taken the name Lucifer out of the Book of Isaiah and substituted morning star which is one of the names of JESUS our LORD! There is no possible way that anyone in Heaven or Earth would be given the title morning star from GOD other than the Son of GOD who clearly calls himself morning star in Rev:22:16.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King James Authorized Version

Mat:1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
New International Version

Mat:1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


Firstborn is not implied in the NIV text , it only implies that Mary had not had sexual intercourse (no union) with Joseph until after Jesus was born. Also you would not know whether Jesus was the Firstborn of Mary if that was the only scripture given to you as done quite often in conversation. You know how the world thinks, the world could say anything after reading this. They could say it wasn't a virgin birth! That possibly she had a child before Jesus! This problem is evident when you or I leave out a word in conversation or text in our daily lives whether it be work related or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Satan tried to pervert the Word of God all through Jesus's walk here on earth. The importance of 1 word can certainly change the meaning.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the NIV version below the reader would be unclear to what the writer is saying and it leaves out some important Christian doctrine. In verse 5:7 who are the three? Are they the Spirit, water and blood only?
New International Version

1Jo:5:7: For there are three that testify:
1Jo:5:8: the [1] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement


The AV 1Jo:5:7: clearly says that in Heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost bear record while 1Joh:5:8 has the very important additional truths that in earth the Spirit, the water and the blood agree in one.
1Jo:5:8: refers to the Holy Spirit decending upon Jesus at his water baptism. The water has a threefold witness. Water baptism symbolizing his own death, burial, and resurrection. Water of the Word bearing witness to the incarnation. Water and blood at the crucifixion testifying of His humanity. The blood, testifying not only his humanity and sonship of Jesus Christ, but guaranteeing redemption from sin.
King James Authorized Version

1Jo:5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jo:5:8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This example is obvious, taking out the Baptism of Jesus spoken by Jesus..
King James Authorized Version

Mat:20:22:But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat:20:23:And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
New International Version

Mat:20:22:"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" "We can," they answered.
Mat:20:23:Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
New American Standard

Mat:20:22:But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They *said to Him, "We are able."
Mat:20:23:He *said to them, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on [My] left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These 2 examples remove the declaration of believers that Jesus is the Christ and also Peters' confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God.
King James Authorized Version

Joh:4:42: And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
New International Version

Joh:4:42: They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
King James Authorized Version

Joh:6:69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
New International Version

Joh:6:69: We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fulfilment of the prophet's words in Isaiah 53:12 removed in the Book of Mark.
Isa:53:12: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
King James Authorized Version

M'r:15:28: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
New International Version

M'r:15:28: [omitted]


I understand why Bible Publishers have to sell their Bibles to recover the costs of the paper, bindings, packaging and to keep a full time staff but if your going to sell a book with the name Holy Bible on it then make sure you place the Word of God between the covers and not some unbelievers mistranslations. Otherwise you are a peddler of garbage!


The big argument I hear is that you can't understand the KJV. Well you don't understand the so called modern translations either because they are wrong. If your having trouble with a word then get a dictionary.


The problem is that not many care about what they have and are doing by selling these new perverted translations. The King James Translators - TRANSLATED text.
Wescott and HORT - INTERPRETED scripture changing scripture to conform to their understanding. That's the difference. What was their motive I don't know but I know Satan tried to play with the WORD of GOD as shown in the Temptation of Jesus M't:4:1:-M't:4:11:


Quoted from:http://www.bibkjv.com/bible.html

[Caedmon]

The Bible is not an allegory.

Satan is a "roaring lion". Jesus is the "lion of Judah".

Both of them being called a lion does not make Satan equal to Jesus.

[RNwannabe]

I voted for the KJV. Why? Because I like the way it reads. I have also used the NIV, but pretty much stick with the KJV.


God's word is always perfect....and the Bible is God's word...so to me yes, the Bible is perfect.

Just tossing my 2 cents in. :p

[Caedmon]

RNwannabe, I have to agree on one point; the KJV has beautiful language, esp. in Psalms. :)

[BWSmith]

"The Bible is not an allegory. Satan is a "roaring lion". Jesus is the "lion of Judah". Both of them being called a lion does not make Satan equal to Jesus."

You're kidding, right?
:confused:

[Caedmon]

BWSmith, please elaborate on your confusion.... :confused:

I may not have conveyed what I wanted to say in the correct manner. Then again, I may be just wrong.... :p

Thanks buddy.... ;)

[BWSmith]

Surely you aren't suggesting that everything that can be compared to a lion must then be compared to each other?

Lions have good and bad symbolisms associated with them. Satan is compared to the bad part and Jesus the good part. Agree?

[Caedmon]

BWSmith, I was referring to the "morning star" translation issue raised by rpggal on page 3. What I was attempting to convey was that just because Satan and Jesus are termed "star of the morning" and "bright morning star", respectively, does not mean that Satan is endowed with Jesus' attributes or that Jesus is endowed with Satan's attributes; in other words, these examples of text do not make Satan and Jesus either identical or even similar. Does that make any sense? :confused:

[BWSmith]

I think we agreed and didn't know it...
;-)

[Ric]

I voted for the NASB, because it is the best "word for word" translation we have today in Modern English. And It's also translated with the most known autographs we have found.

[BWSmith]

Actually, we don't have any autographs of any Biblical book.

[nyj]

Since the Douay-Rheims and New American Bible weren't listed, I voted for the Jerusalem.

[nyj]

Of course (unless this has already been said by someone else)...

The best type of Bible version for a person, is the one that is read.

Does it really really matter in the end?

[Ric]

Originally posted by nyj
Of course (unless this has already been said by someone else)...

The best type of Bible version for a person, is the one that is read.

Does it really really matter in the end?

I had a 1/2 hour long talk with a Jehovah's Witness yesterday whom walked up to me at work. She was using the New World Translation to try to prove to me what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches as the "truth of the gospel". As we all know that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society changed the Bible to go alone with their teachings, bot the best Bible version for a person, is not always the one that is read. :(

[berol06]

After researching many alleged bible errors/contradictions, I can say with certainty that using the KJV, I have yet to come across 1 contradiction/error that cannot be explained.

One of the main problems with most versions is the origin of the translation string. The Alexandria text line has problems that I personally cannot accept - from the perspective of bible errors.

[WannaBeLikeHim]

I prefer the NKJ although at this time in my journey I am using The Life Recovery Bible which I find to be so helpful! Learning to play with these tags :)

[SenseiPiccolo]

:D
you can guess...
ead my signature...
:P

[HITR]

I voted for the KJV simply because that is the one I prefer to read on a daily basis. By the 'best' I mean that it is my favorite version for everyday reading...There are a few others that I have that I really enjoy as well, but KJV is my primary one. :D

[dinkime]

NIV is best for me. it is easiest for me to understand, and the footnotes add a lot.

[edjones]

Originally posted by berol06
After researching many alleged bible errors/contradictions, I can say with certainty that using the KJV, I have yet to come across 1 contradiction/error that cannot be explained.

One of the main problems with most versions is the origin of the translation string. The Alexandria text line has problems that I personally cannot accept - from the perspective of bible errors.

Amen!

[CoramDeo]

I use the NLV because it is easy to understand when talking to non believers. for those of you who use hebrew and greek dictonaries...aren't you forgeting about the dictionary's perfection, if the dictionary or your understanding of it is incorrect you will still err. Peace.

CoramDeo

[Dave Ulchers]

Originally posted by nyj
Since the Douay-Rheims and New American Bible weren't listed, I voted for the Jerusalem.

I'd vote for the NAB (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/) too, if it were listed. I guess then it is none-of-the-above for me.

[PrinceJeff]

KJV-Onlyists are idolaters. I vote for NIV :)

[edjones]

Are you calling me an idolater?

[PrinceJeff]

The thought that the 1611 Authorized KJV is this thing that parachuted down from Heaven IS idolatry. The KJV-Only position is terribly flawed. Not to mention that King James himself was a known heathen. Go here:
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvonly.htm and here
http://www.mindspring.com/~brucec/kjv.htm for more. :)

[Terri12345]

I voted for NIV, but that's just my personal preference, I don't think one is better than the other.

[AndiLynn]

I voted NLT, because that's what I usually have in front of me, but I also have an NIV that I use quite a bit...I don't think either is particularly better.

[Mr.Cheese]

I was using a KJV to do a study on 1 Tim 4:12. It was on my computer and was the version that had all the goodies you can use like strong's numbers.
It says "...in spirit..." Why is that in there? There is no "...in spirit..." in that verse. Why did they put that in there and since this was the very first time I tried to use the KJV, how many other times did they just throw something in there? The Greek New Testament does not say "...in spirit..." anywhere in 1 Tim 4:12.
I prefer the NAS and the RSV. They are the most literal translations. The NRSV and NIV are a little easier reading though. I think it's good to work with three good translations when you read the bible. When you move away from these four, things begin to get a little weird. Nothing beats learning Greek though.

[hollygirl]

I prefer the NASB. It's so easy for me to read and understand. I also like the NIV. I grew up on NASB, NIV, and KJV. NAS and NIV seem to be the most accurate.

[kern]

My favorite overall version is NRSV, which wasn't a choice on the poll.

However, I really like the KJV too because I like older English and I think the style it's written in is exquisite.

-Chris

[renee67]

I am not an exclusivist when it comes to which version of the Bible I use. I think it is a blessing that there are so many choices for people to choose from. I don't think it's worth arguing which version is the correct one. Can you imagine how many people might be turned away if they only had one choice? :confused: YSIC...Lisa Renee

[Mr.Cheese]

Unless you know Greek, and I'm working on it, you need a few different translations because there is no one incontrovertible way to translate to English. Some places require interpretation on the part of the translator. The change is subtle, but the difference does make a...difference. One particular word could really touch home with someone whereas a similar meaning with a different word or phrase won't connect with them. So having different English translations helps you see these subtleties.
Participles suck.

[Caedmon]

The New American Standard Bible is the most accurate English translation of the Bible, in my opinion.

[ANITA]

KING JAMES VERSION IS THE BEST

[ANITA]

THE BIBLE IS THE INHERANT, INSPRIRED WORD OF THE LIVING GOD! I believe every word in it. The Bible is literally our handbook for life on this earth. I thank God for it.

[Jonathan]

:clap: Hello all,

I have to say that for me it has to be the Good News Bible. I like the way it is laid out and it feels right. Not a brilliant reason I agree but I just don't feel as comfortable with any other Bible.

God Bless you all,


Jonathan
XXXXXxxxx. :)

[EyeoftheTiger]

King James BIBLE

:D

[Stephen]

>The reason we have different translation vary. King James was translated to bring the Bible to common man in English.<

The common man in England already had at least one Bible, the Bible quoted by Shakespeare, the best selling book of the age, the Geneva Bible. It did not suit the political purposes of King James, hence the version now named after him.

Stephen

[SCJ]

I go with NKJV only because I can't speak Hebrew and Greek well enough. :)

For me, the original Hebrew and Greek would be the best though. :)

[6littleblessings]

KJV all the way! I'm so very pleased to see it's in the lead here. :)

[Alex]

I think the version that you understand the best helps you the most. I like KJV or NIV but it's different for different people at different age levels

[Chili]

Originally posted by nyj
Since the Douay-Rheims and New American Bible weren't listed, I voted for the Jerusalem.

I like the NAB because it is the most poetic.

[kiwimac]

Well, folks,

I like 'em all. I have 20 or 30 differing translations of the Bible which i use regularly. When I am doing a sermon or such, I generally use either the NEB or the Jerusalem.

Kiwimac

[The Theory]

Question...

Does anybody know if/which versions are translated from the books of the Bible found in the Dead Sea Scroll discovery? From what I understand, those are the oldest versions we know of, so translating from them would be the most accruate option...

peace.
::Mostly Harmless::

[kern]

The New Revised Standard Version uses the Qumran texts (in addition to others). Probably other versions do to, but the NRSV is the only modern version I really know anything about.

-Chris

[gasm]

I would have to say the Ancient Hebrew version written on scrolls would be the most accurate. But since i cant read Ancient Hebrew Lol :D i would have to say the next most accurate would be The King James Version... NIV is the least accurate version of all the Bibles and i have found that it is also the most used...

[kern]

Where is your data to back this up? Thousands of biblical scholars over the past 100 years or so disagree with you on the KJV.

-Chris

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by gasm
I would have to say the Ancient Hebrew version written on scrolls would be the most accurate. But since i cant read Ancient Hebrew Lol :D i would have to say the next most accurate would be The King James Version... NIV is the least accurate version of all the Bibles and i have found that it is also the most used...

The NASB is the most literal, most accurate translation from the old languages. Other good translations are ESV, NKJV, and the Jerusalem. The least accurate are those like the Living Bible and The Word; these paraphrases are translations of other English translations, which leaves them doubly lacking in accuracy.

[NRutman]

I voted for NASB, because I don't think audience should matter much. Let the audience learn before you comprimise the meaning of Scripture! :)

Nate

[NRutman]

Originally posted by humblejoe


The NASB is the most literal, most accurate translation from the old languages. Other good translations are ESV, NKJV, and the Jerusalem. The least accurate are those like the Living Bible and The Word; these paraphrases are translations of other English translations, which leaves them doubly lacking in accuracy.

Wow! A fellow fan of the ESV! Our church just recently switched from the NIV to the ESV, although for personal study I think I like the NASB best.

Nate

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by NRutman


Wow! A fellow fan of the ESV! Our church just recently switched from the NIV to the ESV, although for personal study I think I like the NASB best.

Nate

Sure buddy! The English Standard Version, just recently published, is more accurate than the NKJV, but more readable than the NASB. It's sort of "in-between" the two versions, a good compromise of accuracy and readability.

[NRutman]

That was our hope when our group of churches switched. I love reading it so much more than the NIV. Generally I will read Scriptures first in the ESV to get the main idea, then try to pick them apart out of the NASB. :)

Cheers,
Nate

[kiwimac]

Frankly,

I haven't met a Bible I don't like BUT the important thing to remember here is notthe book but who the book points you to.

Kiwimac

[Susan]

NKJV and NASB are both good.
For lyrical quality I must give the KJV its due.
However for reading, witnessing, and quoting I prefer NKJV as it is more readable.

[kern]

I agree -- the KJV is very well written. I like archaic English, I think it has a beauty to it that the modern language often lacks.

-Chris

[jimigold]

Errm i don't know what it's called but the one i've got is designed for youth and has been re-written in easy english. And oh yeah it has a silvery cover.

[favored_one]

The KJV is my primary bible because that is what my church has always used and what I am used to. Recently, I purchased a NKJV, Amplified and NASB. The NASB is my favorite of the three and I use it for clarification and study.

[mambutuu]

I voted NKJV.

I hate reading the Psalms in modern translations. It just doesn't sound like the psalms otherwise. The twenty third psalm doesn't sound right any other way.

I like to read the old Testament in KJV or NKJV. I like to read the new testament, especially the epistles, in a modern translation. Romans is difficult enough to grasp as it is without having to eade through 17th century english as well.

[Joyce]

I voted for NKJV, that's the one I use most, although, I think there is nothing like the "best Bible Version" as long as it points to Jesus, the son of God. I also like the Amplified.

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by AndiLynn
I voted NLT, because that's what I usually have in front of me, but I also have an NIV that I use quite a bit...I don't think either is particularly better.

I used to like the NLT, also, but now I don't read it. I believe it makes a mistake in an important translations:

In John 8:58, the New King James reads:

Jesus said to them "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM".

Most Biblical scholars agree that here&nbsp;Jesus is actually saying that he is God, referring to Exodus 3:14, in which God called himself "I AM".

However, the NLT butchers and neutralizes the power of the verse with this translation of John 8:55:

Jesus answered "The truth is, I existed even before Abraham was born!"

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
I used to like the NLT, also, but now I don't read it. I believe it makes a mistake in an important translations

That's very true. At first glance, I really liked the NLT, but as I began to compare it with the NASB, I saw some major problems. It's almost a paraphrase! :eek: :sick:

[closer]

I am a moderate by Webster's definition. I chose the NAS because of its accuracy in word translation. The fact is that without any captial letters, no punctuation, and little dividing done it should have been impossible to translate the Bible into anything.
The fact that the Bible can be translated at all is a provision of God. This leads me to believe that when man sets his heart to lead others to Christ through translation that God provides the means by which that is done. I favor the NAS. I have preached out of everything from the KJV to the Message ( before it was popular to be using The Message). The heart of the man is set to hear from God. God allows for the effective translation. This produces a Bible that is not only sufficient, but far and above more accurate than any piece of literature to be handed down throughout history.

[LightBearer]

Originally posted by man in the box
The reason we have different translation vary. King James was translated to bring the Bible to common man in English. This translation is very poetic and flows nicely but has a male dominated tone that the original Greek does not contain. The New American Standard uses a different Greek text than the KJV and they wanted to be a more literal word for word translation. The New International version wanted to be more dynamic and tried to translate how they thought the original writers intended. Translators have difficulty translating Greek into English. English is a very vague language were Greek is very precise. There are not huge differences but reading the Bible in English is like watching black and white TV were reading Greek is like watching high resolution color TV.
Take care.

&nbsp;

I see the KJ got most votes.

This translation on the last count had 100,000 errors due to it being translated from only a few then known manuscripts.&nbsp; We now have over 12,000 to translate from with greater accuracy.&nbsp; It may be poetic, but for study purposes leave it where it is.&nbsp; In the past.&nbsp;

[Divinus]

I voted for the RSV :)
Its my favourite Bible out of all the ones I have, though I do use others. It all depends on mood, really, sometimes I feel I want to read in the KJV, sometimes in something like the NLT or The Message (though I seem to have lost my copy). But I like the RSV the best as I think it preserves the beautiful language which the KJV has, without including archaic forms of expression and vocabulary which can get a little difficult at times. I like the KJV, though - especially the psalms, as someone said, Psalm 23 just doesn't seem so good in any other version! (Thats probably because that, and the Lord's Prayer, I learnt in the KJV form in primary school :) )

-Divinus

[Julie]

&nbsp;

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

&nbsp;

The first instance of an attack on the trustworthiness of God’s Word is recorded for us in the earliest chapters of the Bible itself. It all began in the Garden of Eden with the words of the serpent, "Yea, hath God said...?" (Genesis 3:1). Since that sad day when the seeds of doubt and denial were successfully sown in the human heart, men have sought to escape the voice of God, covering their sinful shame with the fig leaves of human ingenuity, hiding themselves in a futile attempt to escape His presence. God seeks still and calls, "Where art thou?". In a world torn and cursed by sin still can be heard the promise of salvation through cleansing in the Saviour’s blood, a promise found only in the written Word of God. Man cannot live without the Word of God, not before the fall, not after the fall, not ever. "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live" Deuteronomy 8:3.

We cannot live without it, we dare not die without it. Satan’s aim has ever been to separate man from the Word of God and so from God Himself and salvation. First he instills doubt, this is followed by denial, and then a defamation of God.

[jko]

KJV of course

[waterwizard]

I read the KJV, and the NKJV also. I understand the scripture better when comparing the two.

[Jephunneh]

Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

&nbsp;

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, _____ them that curse you, _____ to them that hate you, and pray for them that _____ and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
&nbsp;
According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
&nbsp;
In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
&nbsp;
In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to _____.

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
&nbsp;
According to Luke 7:28, what was John (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc)? What is his title or last name?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
&nbsp;
In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
&nbsp;
In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
&nbsp;
Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
&nbsp;
Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A_____ and O_____, the _____ and the _____:"
BONUS: According to Second Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan kill?


Conclusion: Although little space is provided for your answers, it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you failed the test.

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible?"

If you would like a perfect score, take this test using the Authorized King James Bible.

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Jephunneh
Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

&nbsp;

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, _____ them that curse you, _____ to them that hate you, and pray for them that _____ and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
&nbsp;
According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
&nbsp;
In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
&nbsp;
In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to _____.

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
&nbsp;
According to Luke 7:28, what was John (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc)? What is his title or last name?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
&nbsp;
In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
&nbsp;
In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
&nbsp;
Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
&nbsp;
Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A_____ and O_____, the _____ and the _____:"
BONUS: According to Second Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan kill?


Conclusion: Although little space is provided for your answers, it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you failed the test.

So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible?"

If you would like a perfect score, take this test using the Authorized King James Bible.

So since the NIV is the "only" correct version your point is that&nbsp;the King James Version has added all the above to the bible and is therefore corrupt. God is going to add all the plagues in Revelation (Rev 22:18) &nbsp;to the&nbsp;translators of the King James&nbsp;Version and to those who promote it. Right?

Now before you fly off the handle about my hypothetical conclusion, read the next paragraph.

This is a pointless and fundamentally flawed test. &nbsp;The premise is that the King James Version or the NIV&nbsp;is the standard and all others if not the same are wrong, will lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions such as the one Jephunneh made in the last paragraph or the one I made in the first paragraph of this response.&nbsp; These conclusion are&nbsp;begging the question by assuming the answer.

The King James is not the standard, the NIV or any other English version are not the standard, the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are. Your comparison must be done to them. You must show that the translation done by a particular version is wrong or right. You must show that the manuscripts used by a particular version are better or worse than another.

It is frustrating to see the same faulty logic applied over and over again by someone trying to say that this version or that version are the only correct versions.&nbsp; Use some valid arguments.

The only benefit of tests like the above are that people will read their bible.

[livingforJesus-Shaun]

Niv becaus the KJV has been proovin to be the least accurate version

[Lynn]

Originally posted by nyj
Of course (unless this has already been said by someone else)...

The best type of Bible version for a person, is the one that is read.

Does it really really matter in the end?

I have to agree. I may like a particular translation, someone else may not. The best one is the one that actually gets read, studied, and used as a path to God.

lynn

[two feathers]

new international readers version

keeping it simple.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Favorite "version" of the Tanakh (what we call what our Christian friends call the "OT")? Why the original Hebrew of course!

Please allow me to recycle an old post:

While the KJV may be a classic work of English literature and while it may have had a decisive role in shaping & influencing the evolution of modern English prose, it is NOT the word of God. Neither is any other version of the Tanakh in any language other than the original, i.e. Hebrew (and those parts of Ezra, Nehemiah & Daniel that are in Aramaic). God did not say, "Let there be light"; He said "Vayehi or." He did not speak to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Solomon, Isaiah, etc. in 17th century English, or 3rd century CE Greek but in Hebrew. A lot of my work is Hebrew-to-English translating. Gregory Rabassa, one of the masters of our craft (he's translated all of Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez's works from Spanish to English), has written extensively on the theory of translation. He says that there is no such thing as a translation per se. All languages have a unique ability to shape, impart and communicate thoughts and ideas that simply cannot be reproduced, copied or duplicated in any other language. Thus, Sr. Rabassa says that every "translation" is, necessarily, an interpretation (Whose? The translators'). I do not want to read an interpretation of God's words, I want to read God's words in the original. It is our belief that only the original Hebrew version of the scriptures can, in any way, be considered authoritative (to say nothing of authentic). We view "translations" of the Tanakh as, at best, study aids and, at worse, gross misrepresentations of God's words (which were, after all, originally recorded/spoken in Hebrew).

The 10th of the Hebrew month of Tevet (which falls just over one week after the last day of Hanukkah, on Sunday, Dec. 15 this year) is a dawn-to-nightfall fast day (one of four such days on our calendar). On it we mark the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. But it also marks the translation of the Torah into Greek under the auspices of Ptolemy II (the so-called Septuagint). That the Torah was translated into another language is considered a cause for sadness & a reason to mourn. Our Sages say that when the Torah was translated (into Greek), (spiritual) darkness descended on the world.

Be well!

ssv :wave:

[armwa]

To believe that the Bible is the Word of God is an act of faith. That same faith tells me God has preserved His truth in the most widely used and longest used version. I'm glad to see that about 50% voted for KJV or NKJV. Modern translations are helpful especially for archaic English words (eg conversation = conduct, etc)

[* kittie *]

i heard the KJV was the best translation...but i find NAS easier to read.

[aaron]

i didn't vote for any because I think that all can be helpful at times

[JohnR7]

I attend a very strict KJV ONLY church and Bible school. We are taught in Bible school that some of the other translations may have a limited use as a commentary on the Bible, but be VERY careful with them.

The origional 1611 version we are told was revised about 10 times up to the 1850's. What happened then was that some translators came along who thought it would be a good idea to make the Bible more understandable. So rather than a word for word translation, they decided they were going to translate what they thought the meaning was. The result was a lot got lost along the way. The Bible often has layers of meaning that the translators are not even aware of.

Something else that happened was that some older texts began to surface that could have been corrupted. There were a lot less of the minority texts, but some people thought that because they were older, they were more relyable.&nbsp;

The result was after all the controvery at the time, the new revisions were given a different name, and many people just kept right on using the 1850's version of the KJV Bible.&nbsp; The only true translation, all the others are commentarys on the Bible. Paraphrased Bibles. The NIV esp is not a translation, it is a paraphrased Bible.

Today selling Bibles is BIG - BIG - BIG business. It is the worlds best selling book and there is money to be made. So there is just a flood of translations coming out, so people can cash in on it.

The theology in many of them should put a high school student to shame, much less a supposed graduate of a accredited theology school. My wife use to use a Good News Bible before we got married. She said her beloved pastors wanted to help her understand the Bible, so they make it more understandable. What they did was put a lot of the opinions of men into something they call a translation.

One consideration is that the Greek does not really have the connecting words that we have now a days to keep the flow going. So for example:

Genesis 1:1
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the origional language it would be more like: Beginning God created Heaven Earth.&nbsp; So there are a lot of words added in the English just to help keep the flow smooth.&nbsp; Also, Greek was a military language used to conquer the world. The words are very exacting as you would expect if you were commanding a military. Often it takes more works in the English. For example the word "GO" in the English. There are over 30 words in the Greek: "go up", "go down", "go over", "go through" are all one word in the Greek with very exact meaning, but it takes two or more words in the English to translate.

Then you have a difference in the way people view things. In the Hebrew heart and mind were one. So Mark and Luke tell us that when Jesus translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, He added a word.

Deut. 6:5&nbsp; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by JohnR7
I attend a very strict KJV ONLY church and Bible school. We are taught in Bible school that some of the other translations may have a limited use as a commentary on the Bible, but be VERY careful with them.


The King James is a good TRANSLATION, but it is just a translation. No translation is word for word, no translation is perfect.&nbsp;The NASB, NIV translations are good translations as well.&nbsp;
Originally posted by JohnR7
The origional 1611 version we are told was revised about 10 times up to the 1850's. What happened then was that some translators came along who thought it would be a good idea to make the Bible more understandable.

Why were these 10 revisions made? There were hundreds of printing and typesetting errors, but hundreds of the revisions were due to changes in the English language over that period. Did the English language stop changing since then?&nbsp; Why were the changes in the English language that happened over the 200 years from the 1600's to the 1800's incorporated but changes to the English language in the 200 years since, wrong?

The original purpose of the King Jame version was to make the bible more understandable (read the translators notes), how is it OK for the KJV translators to do this, but for other translators, it is not? How does this make newer translations less accurate? How does this make the KJV the standard on which to judge all other English translations?

Originally posted by JohnR7
So rather than a word for word translation, they decided they were going to translate what they thought the meaning was. The result was a lot got lost along the way. The Bible often has layers of meaning that the translators are not even aware of.


This is the definition of a paraphrase. Since the King James version is less a word for word translation than the NASB. Using your logic, that makes it a paraphrase and hence should only be used as a commentary to the NASB. Right?

Originally posted by JohnR7
Something else that happened was that some older texts began to surface that could have been corrupted. There were a lot less of the minority texts, but some people thought that because they were older, they were more relyable.&nbsp;


So you are saying that copies of copies are more accurate than copies? That earlier manuscripts are more likely to be corrupted than newer manuscripts that have been copied more times? This is not logical and is in fact wrong. Every copy made by hand has a probability to introduce errors. To say that the later copies are more accuratel than the earlier copies is absurd.

One example: the final verses of Revelation were missing from the Greek manuscript Erasmus used, so he translated the Latin copy back to Greek and further, this Greek does not match ANY manuscript ever found. This corrupted Greek manuscript&nbsp;then&nbsp;was used by the Kings James translators to tranlsate into English. So you are saying that a translation of a translation of a translation (Greek - Latin - Greek - English) is more accurate than when a single translation is done (Greek - English)? Again, this is improbable.

The earliest Greek manuscript used in the KJV dates from around 1100. The modern translations use manuscripts dating to 400.&nbsp; How can 700 years of hand copying produce manuscripts that are less likely to be corrupted?
Originally posted by JohnR7
The result was after all the controvery at the time, the new revisions were given a different name, and many people just kept right on using the 1850's version of the KJV Bible.&nbsp; The only true translation, all the others are commentarys on the Bible. Paraphrased Bibles. The NIV esp is not a translation, it is a paraphrased Bible.
[/B]

The NIV is not a paraphrase. This is a false statement. It uses dynamic equivalence more than the KJV or NASB, but that does not make it a paraphrase.

The NASB is closer to the Greek/Hebrew in terms of word for word than the KJV, that makes the KJV a paraphrase by your logic.

Your quote that the King James is the only true translation is also false. If it is true, why are there areas in the KJV that are more accurately translated in the NIV. For example- Acts 12:4 in the KJV mentions Easter whereas the Greek manuscripts say passover as do the modern translations. Why does John 19:39 say 100 pounds of spices when this was actually 100 Roman pounds which is equivalent to 75 English pounds? If they are translating into English, why is the weight incorrect in English units?

Originally posted by JohnR7
Today selling Bibles is BIG - BIG - BIG business. It is the worlds best selling book and there is money to be made. So there is just a flood of translations coming out, so people can cash in on it.


This is true, but does not necessarily make the new translations which are not paraphrases wrong or less accurate.
Originally posted by JohnR7
The theology in many of them should put a high school student to shame, much less a supposed graduate of a accredited theology school. My wife use to use a Good News Bible before we got married. She said her beloved pastors wanted to help her understand the Bible, so they make it more understandable. What they did was put a lot of the opinions of men into something they call a translation.


No, the Good news bible is a paraphrase, they put the opinions of men into a paraphrase, and further they stated it was a paraphrase. Not all modern translations are paraphrases.&nbsp; You cannot just lump them together.

Originally posted by JohnR7
One consideration is that the Greek does not really have the connecting words that we have now a days to keep the flow going. So for example: ....


So you are saying the KJV translators paraphrased what was originally in the Greek. Your whole set of logic is falsified with this example. No English translation of the Greek or Hebrew can be a word for word translation and still be a usable translation.

[your_quagga]

the douay-rheims would have been my choice, but it wasn't available on the poll...

pax

[A Sheep]

NAS[B]; pellucid, legible, and accurate.

[shout2thelord]

I use NIV but that was just because every1 in my church seemed to use it after i started going last yr and as seen as i only had a good news bible i decicded i needed one. so i got it and its been really useful and i understand it still.

[l33tace]

Depends on what I'm doing really. Mostly I walk out the door with my small button up NKJV but I often studdy from various versions. I also like to translate from greek as much as is needed from my puter. NKJ, NIV, NASB are the best for memorization I think. Peeple look at ya funny when you talk pre 20th centery lingo.

Peace

[ketch65]

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">&nbsp;</SPAN>

[hotknikkels]

Seriously I think that the New Updated American Standard Version is the best - just cause it uses words which are more closely linked to the original text - i.e. beloved and stuff like that.

I think the the NKJV is also cool, as it tries to do the above, but for&nbsp;a newbie to the Bible best trying either NCV or NIV!!!

&nbsp;

[Wheatleybix]

2 b honest, i think da best version iz da nu century version youth bible, coz its e-z 2 unda stand

[Glenn316]

I chose NASB because I thought it was the most accurate translation to the original languages.

[healthwoman]

King James because you can use the Strong's concordance to find out the true meanings of the Greek &amp; Hebrew.

[ancientofdays33]

I Have only to vote for the KJV But I should not vote here where are the
Wycliffe, coverdale, tyndale, Geneva, Vulgate, Hebrew Old testament bibles.
I'll vote again when you include specific 1611 and earlier.

James
servant to all

[MetalBlade]

King James Version is pretty cool to read outloud! heh! :cool:

[357magnum]

I like the KJV the best because of its accuracy, ease of using some of the best study aids, and the poetic quality of the words and verses. I've tried many other versions, but I enjoy reading and studying the KJV.

[CeCe]

Right now I'm using a KJV Open Bible, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and the Amplified.

[hotknikkels]

good little selection!!!

[Miyu]

The NKJV is my favorite English translation...but I wouldn't say it is neccessarily the "best"

[conceived in fire]

nkjv

[Julie]

The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version(KJV)

[rssllue]

KJV!

[rssllue]

Or actually, the KJV withanother such as NIV or amplified in a parallel Bible together to get past the high speech at times for better understanding.

[SoccerAaron]

The Holy Bible, New American Standard.
Only because ESV wasn't up there.

[Konnie]

The New Living Translation

[SoccerAaron]

Maybe we should start posting why we think the version we think is the best, is the best?

[Kirisutokyoo-shinja]

Kjv

[Dawn Marie]

Good News Bible. It's the only one I've ever read anything from...

[MariaRegina]

To All:

Christ is Risen!

I prefer the Orthodox Study Bible which contains the NKJV. It has great study guides and footnotes to clarify the passages.

[Reader Nilus]

The New English Bible is the one I use. I love the English usage in it. I voted for the Jerusalem Bible because the New English Bible and the New English Translation were not listed.
Jeff the Finn

[ngkingchi]

NKJV because its easier to read and understand

[bop1997]

I choose NIV...my bible is the parallel with the KJV, so i can refernce to either one!

[LadyBird]

i like the NIV because its so much easier to understand i think.

[jesus_freak_for_life]

NLT.. prettier language, easier to understand, and it holds my attention. But the Message is great, too.. short and right to the point.

[TrinityHerself]

I prefer NRSV or NASV, since they are more accurate to the original text, and are not interpretations, but are translations. :)

[iqchicken]

All I can say is that a lot of you have used big words that I don't understand...and big paragraphs that make my eyes hurt.. hehehe..

So let's say I rewrite your paragraphs so that I can understand them better. I'll put a space here... change a word there. Pretty soon it won't be your paragraph at all.. but my own paragraph.

I believe a number of people can be reached if they are enticed by simplicity. (Much the same way as they can be enticed by an 'exciting' sermon). But the basics are still the most important part of our Christian walk.

[Baylor_SFL]

I like the NIV Bible the best. That's the one that we used all the time in school (I went to a Christian middle-school & high-school where we were required to take Bible class... :) )

I also have a CEV (Contemporary English Version). This one is nice because it makes things more simple... so if you quote a verse, (online, or wherever) more people who are not familiar with the Bible will be able to understand the message better.

I think the King James Version is a very eloquent translation. I don't think I own a KJV Bible, but I do have a lot of reference books that quote KJV style verses.

[TrinityHerself]

I think "best" is hard to determine:

Easiest to read: NIV or Living
Prettiest: KJV
Most Accurate: NRSV or NASV
etc. :)

[KJV_Cameron]

Not trying to flame anyone or anything, just a couple of points to consider.

You stydied some Greek and are able to find glaring differences in the KJV. You must assume that:
A: The Greek you are using is the same the translators had.
B: You are better than the Greek scholars that originally translated it.

Also, how do some of you determine which is the most accurate? To what do you compare?!

And finally, what is your FINAL authority? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that most translations contradict one another.

In case you ahven't realized, I'm a KJV man! :D

[MariaRegina]

.

You stydied some Greek and are able to find glaring differences in the KJV. You must assume that:
A: The Greek you are using is the same the translators had.
B: You are better than the Greek scholars that originally translated it.

:D

My dearest joy in Christ:

Are you Buck from the good old now-closed LB forum? I noticed that you recently joined the christianforum. Welcome!

I use the NKJV which is just an updated KJV with newer footnotes. It's all packaged together with NT and psalms and is called THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE. The Septuagint translation of the Greek OT will not be out until 2005. A lot of good biblical scholars are working together translating from the original Greek. It should be excellent. I'm really looking forward to reading it.

YSIC
Elizabeth

[retrogeek]

I prefer the KJV. I know it's not a perfect translation, but I haven't enjoyed reading most of the modern versions.

The 21st Century KJV does look interesting, though. This was the first I'd heard of it.

[JustinWilliams]

I personally use the NASB 95 edition most often, but recently I have purchased an ESV, which I like also.

[Reader Nilus]

Any of the modern translations that use Nestle-Alands 27th edition Greek Text and are ecclectic are better than the KJV/NKJV as far as I am concerned. They are starting off with better Greek witnesses.
Jeff the Finn

[MariaRegina]

Any of the modern translations that use Nestle-Alands 27th edition Greek Text and are ecclectic are better than the KJV/NKJV as far as I am concerned. They are starting off with better Greek witnesses.
Jeff the Finn

My dearest Jeff: Christ is Risen!

Who told you they are better? What about the original Greek?

I don't know much about the Greek texts, so I must depend on the church publications.

YSIC

Elizabeth

[Reader Nilus]

The Greek text behind the KJV is what is known as the received text, which is relatively recent as far as Greek manuscripts are concerned. The Great UNICIALS were not available to the KJV translators as they are today. The Codex Sinaiticus is as Orthodox of text as you can get, is the oldest complete Bible in existence today. The modern versions follow an eclectic text, meaning they use the best of the Greek witnesses. The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger is almost a must read IMHO and it tells of what textual criticism does, and how it restores to the text as close to the original as we can get.
Jeff the Finn

[MariaRegina]

The Great UNICIALS were not available to the KJV translators as they are today. The Codex Sinaiticus is as Orthodox of text as you can get, is the oldest complete Bible in existence today. The modern versions follow an eclectic text, meaning they use the best of the Greek witnesses. The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger is almost a must read IMHO and it tells of what textual criticism does, and how it restores to the text as close to the original as we can get.
Jeff the Finn

My Dearest Joy, Jeff:

Christ is glorified in His Saints!
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him forever!

Most of the modern versions are just too modernistic for my tastes and biased toward one interpretation with resulting errors. They use phrases like "Mary was pregnant" compared with the KJV "Mary was with child."

I grew up on the KJV and DouayRheims (which is similar) and the NKJV is very comforting, yet I know it has some errors. I am hoping that the Orthodox Study Bible project will very shortly translate the New Testament in a respectful manner using the best Greek texts available .

Any comments?

Your sister in Christ,

Elizabeth

[Reader Nilus]

My Dearest Joy, Jeff:

Christ is glorified in His Saints!
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him forever!

Most of the modern versions are just too modernistic for my tastes and biased toward one interpretation with resulting errors. They use phrases like "Mary was pregnant" compared with the KJV "Mary was with child."

I grew up on the KJV and DouayRheims (which is similar) and the NKJV is very comforting, yet I know it has some errors. I am hoping that the Orthodox Study Bible project will very shortly translate the New Testament in a respectful manner using the best Greek texts available .

Any comments?

Your sister in Christ,

Elizabeth
Koine Greek was not a liturgical language but the common speech of the times, so the translations should reflect that. I see nothing wrong with saying pregnant because that is what is meant. Elizabeth, check out the New English Translation (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) the textual notes are an education in themselves. The KJV was just as biased, and I do not think you can have an unbiased translation, the thing about committees on translations they can check the biases and keep them to a minimum. For a new translation that is very good it is the English Standard Version.
Jeff the Finn

[MariaRegina]

Koine Greek was not a liturgical language but the common speech of the times, so the translations should reflect that. I see nothing wrong with saying pregnant because that is what is meant. Elizabeth, check out the New English Translation (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) the textual notes are an education in themselves. The KJV was just as biased, and I do not think you can have an unbiased translation, the thing about committees on translations they can check the biases and keep them to a minimum. For a new translation that is very good it is the English Standard Version.
Jeff the Finn

My Dearest Jeff:

Christ is in our midst!

What is your opinion of the NIV translinear with Greek Text? One of my professors in college showed me his copy.

YSIC
Elizabeth

[Reader Nilus]

Those are good, because you have the Greek Text with almost a word for word translation under the Greek text and off to the side the NIV or whatever, so you can see how it fits. I am not a fan of the NIV as it was translated for Evangelicals so there is a slant, that is what you were referring to. But an interlinear is good.
Jeff the Finn

[hotknikkels]

I agree - I like tHe NASB and NKJV

[Lizquest]

I personally couldn't pick one. I like to have a few Bibles. That way, when I seem to get tied up on a translation in one Bible I can look into another one and compare and also get better meaning out of it.

[KJV_Cameron]

Without trying to sound judgemental or 'higher than thou':

The NKJV is not just a KJV with modern english. It is a hybrid, including translation from the (corrupt) Alexandrian texts.

Some claim the KJV has errors. It doesn't. You may claim to have some, but trust me, it has a solution. It is only an apparent contradiction.

The KJV is NOT hard to understand. Sure, there may be some unfamiliar words if you're new to it, but they are simply old english of modern words, and easily picked up. I know 8 year olds who can read and understand it!

Someone else mentioned they don't like the NIV becasue of its slant. Practically ALL modern 'bibles' have a slant. Makes it easier to prove what you want with scripture (which is backwards in the first place: You don't prove your doctrines with Scripture, you get your doctrines FROM Scripture!)

Please no-one try to claim they have read the Greek and know better renderings. I highly doubt you have a greater knowledge of Greek than the KJV translators. And I doubt you can prove the accuracy of your Greek texts, since you can't really go back any further can you?!

No, I am not anyone you know, I'm new here.

[Reader Nilus]

Without trying to sound judgemental or 'higher than thou':

The NKJV is not just a KJV with modern english. It is a hybrid, including translation from the (corrupt) Alexandrian texts.

Some claim the KJV has errors. It doesn't. You may claim to have some, but trust me, it has a solution. It is only an apparent contradiction.

The KJV is NOT hard to understand. Sure, there may be some unfamiliar words if you're new to it, but they are simply old english of modern words, and easily picked up. I know 8 year olds who can read and understand it!

Someone else mentioned they don't like the NIV becasue of its slant. Practically ALL modern 'bibles' have a slant. Makes it easier to prove what you want with scripture (which is backwards in the first place: You don't prove your doctrines with Scripture, you get your doctrines FROM Scripture!)

Please no-one try to claim they have read the Greek and know better renderings. I highly doubt you have a greater knowledge of Greek than the KJV translators. And I doubt you can prove the accuracy of your Greek texts, since you can't really go back any further can you?!

No, I am not anyone you know, I'm new here.
The King James Translators viewed their work as not perfect. And why do you say the Alexandrian Text type is corrupt? Let us see some proof of that statement.
Jeff the Finn

[KJV_Cameron]

The King James Translators viewed their work as not perfect. And why do you say the Alexandrian Text type is corrupt? Let us see some proof of that statement.
Jeff the Finn

What someone THINKS of their own work is not really relevant. The work itself the the point.
I could give you alot of links, but here's a couple that may help...

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson04.htm

http://www.geocities.com/romans16_25/mss.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

What is your FINAL authority?

[Reader Nilus]

What someone THINKS of their own work is not really relevant. The work itself the the point.
I could give you alot of links, but here's a couple that may help...

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson04.htm

http://www.geocities.com/romans16_25/mss.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

What is your FINAL authority?
Your links prove nothing, Codex Sinaititcus was not found on a trash heap as you second link claims. The link that talks about perfection because it was the 7th English Translation is beyond belief.
Jeff the Finn

[KJV_Cameron]

...beyond belief.
Jeff the Finn

Seems you have something AGAINST the KJV eh? OK, that's not unusual.

What is your Final Authority?

[Reader Nilus]

My final authority is Gospel as it has been passed down to us from the beginning and lived and witnessed to by countless Saints and Martyrs through the last 2000 years of Christian History. The Authority is the Scripture as lived and read in the Orthodox Church.
Jeff the Finn

[KJV_Cameron]

Which Scripture is that? (There's many of them today)

[Reader Nilus]

Which Scripture is that? (There's many of them today)
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. That comes from THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER: Preface to the King James Version 1611 (http://www.angelfire.com/folk/jeffthefinn/kjv.htm)
The text the Orthodox use is the Greek Text, in English the common version is the Revised Standard Version of 1973 and the New King James Bible. My personal Bible is the New English Bible.
Jeff the Finn

[KJV_Cameron]

Yikes that preface is harder to read than the text itself! ;)

Now I ask, non offence, how you determine which is correct when those bibles contradict.

[SUNSTONE]

I like NASB and Amp. I love my bible it has four versions in one book. Those 2 and KJV and NIV.

[Reader Nilus]

Yikes that preface is harder to read than the text itself! ;)

Now I ask, non offence, how you determine which is correct when those bibles contradict.
They do not contradict. The pericope of the woman caught in aldultry is bracketted but there, the long ending of Mark is bracketted as well.
Jeff the Finn

[KJV_Cameron]

Well, seeing as things different are not the same, there will be differences.

[Poiema]

NASB is the best translation out right now.

[Reader Nilus]

If someone wants as literal a translation as one can get, that is good the American Standard Bible of 1901 is the ticket. It is available on Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible) .
Jeff the Finn

[Poiema]

NASB is the best translation out right now.

[funkyd]

NASB is the best translation out right now.

I've heard a lot of people speaking well of NASB, and my current NIV bible is requiring more duct tape to hold it together every day. I've been considering getting an NASB (with good binding, hopefully) for some time now, but I'm not sure. Could you or other adamant supporters of NASB tell me what is good about this translation? Please provide specific verses as examples of why this translation stands out as a very good one to you.

[Reader Nilus]

If you ask me the New English Translation (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) in bonded leather sells for $30 and the textual notes themselves are worth that price alone, and it is the best translation since the New English Bible.
Jeff the Finn

[schmoiso]

Just keep in mind there is no such thing as a neutral translation -- every translator has to make choices about how to translate and what the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic words mean, and in many cases, the translations are highly contentious among scholars. In the Hebrew text, there are whole sections of text that are clearly missing because scribes skipped lines -- the subject jumps from one thing to another (it's called haplography). And about the "original" text -- which one do you want to call original? Fragmented bits are pieced together to form the Bible as we know it.

Forget literalism. It's much too difficult. By recognizing the Bible is messy -- like life -- God can be even more present to us in our fallen world. It just takes a little faith that God can speak to us -- even through our messy text.

[ladygirl1234]

I understand NIV better than any other version, That's why I chose it!!

[Globexgirl]

THE MESSAGE is the best for new teen or younger Christians!

[GodBoy809]

i dont really think there is a best version of the Bible, but i put my vote down on NASB cus its one i really like.

[Lone_Wolf]

I prefer to use th KJV its the original version of the interpretted Hebrew and greek text. That is why I like it it doesn't leave out verses or change them up.

[dalfrath]

I have voted for the King James Version because its translation is good and dependable. It does not alter the faith once delivered, as the newer versions do.

[kiwichristian]

I like the NIV. Its just easy to understand for me, and clear:)

[grinding_willi]

I went with NIV as its the version i'm currently reading. I like it cos its easy to read and understand but i find versions like the KJV are good if you really want to get into the bible in depth, they've got the really meaty translation.

[Filia Mariae]

None of the above I guess. Douay-Rheims (http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html) is my favorite and by far the most accurate. New American Bible would be my second choice.

[MariaRegina]

I've just ordered two new books from Amazon.com

The Orthodox New Testament (The Holy Gospels)
Holy Apostles Convent;Hardcover; @ $37.50 each

The Orthodox New Testament (Acts, Epistles, and Revelation)
Holy Apostles Convent;Hardcover; @ $37.50 each

Amazon has a special now - these books ordered singly or together have free shipment.

These are great because it is a direct translation from the Greek which has been compared with the KJV to make sure it flows. The footnotes are very extensive and compare the text with scripture commentaries from the Early Church Fathers. This is important because these early Christians had a better sense of what the evangelists and apostles were trying to convey. I am looking forward to receiving these new books. Will keep you posted when I receive them.

The Orthodox Old Testament will be published in May 2005 if everything goes as planned by Father Jack Sparks, PhD and other biblical scholars. This will also be a direct translation from the Greek, the Septuagint.

[Doreen]

I use a number of translations depending on which I want to use at the time and ussually compare verses a lot. I prefer the Amplified Bible as it explains more and I find it easier to understand because they put more words to help explain things.
The New Century Version is good too and easy to understand

[Garyapostle]

Dear All,
I voted for the NIV because the GOD'S WORD TRANSLATION was no there. Also the ESV, English Standard Version was not there. The NIV, ESV, and GWT ate the three best translations out there.
The ESV is a new literal translation ,easier to read than the NASB, and closer to the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek than the NIV.
I have few complaints against the NIV.
I used the old RSV from 1965 to 1983. Then I switched totally to the NIV with backup from interlinears and Nestles Greek NT.
When I taught in Bible College, I used both RSV and NIV in different semesters to teach the same courses. The NIV was less literal, but a superior translation, and it did not comtain the "liberal" theological bias inherent in the RSV. I still have great respect for the RSV, except with s few parts of it. The RSV was my first Bible after I was saved.
I never used the KJV, We had one at home, but I could not understand it. It was not my English.

Peace tp all in Jesus,

Garyapostle

[Garyapostle]

Dear All,

Lucifer never was the name of Satan.
That was a mistranslation from the Vulgate.
Calling Satan "morning star" was a taunt- "SO you think YOU are the morning star!"
THE NIV< NASB< and other newer translations do not omit anything from the best Hebrew Greek Texts. They are based on better manuscripts than the KJV translators had in their day.
The "Johannine Comma" in not in the newer translations because that was a very late addition. It was not even part of the Received Text/Textus Receptus. It got snuck in much much later.

I prefer a Bible based on the most ancient and reliable manuscripts without the inferior KJV additions to God's inerrant Word. I prefer a Bible written in the English language I speak today, not that of the 1600's. Also there have been several editions of the KJV to correct mistakes. The KJV we use now is NOT of 1611, but from the late 1700's I believe.

Peace to all,

Garyapostle

[Garyapostle]

Dear Friends,

I would not use the NIV, except that mosty newer commentaries use it as their base text.
I prefer using the ESV as my literal text and God's Word Translation as my more dynamic text. God's Word Trans. is closer to the original languages than the NIV, though the NIV is not a bad translation.
I also use an interlinear version of the Bible to get into the original languages more.

I I had to use only one translation and only one, I would go with God's Word Translation. They have a website, check it out sometime.

Peace,
Garyapostle

[Reader Nilus]

Dear All,
The "Johannine Comma" in not in the newer translations because that was a very late addition. It was not even part of the Received Text/Textus Receptus. It got snuck in much much later.
Garyapostle
It was a made to order text to force Erasmus to put it into his 3rd edition of the printed Greek Text. It was a marignal commentary that made its way into the Old Latin version in the 5th CT. The Greek Texts did not have it, and when Erasmus's first edition came out folks were scandalized that the Joannine Comma was not there, Erasmus said if there was a Greek Text with it, he would include it. A monk named Froy made a Greek text with it and Erasmus included it.
The New English Translation is worth using just for its textual notes.
Jeff the Finn

[Garyapostle]

Dear Jeff,
You are right about the history of the Johannine Comma. The third edition got it through a forged Greek text. Documentation for that is pretty good.

Alas, for the illusion that the Christ-centered scholars of the earlier centuries were better than than our Christ-centered scholars with superior manuscripts evidence and better means of analysis.

God's blessings to all.

Gary

[RoS]

When asked the question "Which is the best version of the Bible?" Billy Graham wisely remarked, "Why, the one you read, of course!"

RoS

[Reader Nilus]

Dear Jeff,
You are right about the history of the Johannine Comma. The third edition got it through a forged Greek text. Documentation for that is pretty good.

Alas, for the illusion that the Christ-centered scholars of the earlier centuries were better than than our Christ-centered scholars with superior manuscripts evidence and better means of analysis.

God's blessings to all.

Gary
It also shows that things really have not changed at all. Erasmus took all sorts of flak for his text. The same cries go out with each new translation, how dare they change the Word of God. Being a Biblical translator as St Jerome found out is not a pleasent occupation given the fact there are folks who are going to think you are one of the devil's main workers.
I am more concerned with the English that is used in a translation, is it English and that means grammer and all, so it reads well. That is why I prefer The New English Bible. The Bible that is currently available that is very good and cheap, is the New English Translation which has as some of its translators folks who worked on the New English Bible. I bought a hard copy of it in bonded leather and I love it, the textual notes in it was worth price themselves. Translating is tricky business, and more so when you span a couple of thousand years. All of the translations have their weaknesses, so the best advise is to use several, if you are studying a certain pericope.
Jeff the Finn

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

I am VERY anti NIV... Heres an example why:

NIV
1 Cor. 7:1
Due to the immorrallities of this world, it is good for a man not to marry a woman

KJV/NASB
1 Cor 7:1
Due to the immorralities of this world, it is good for a man not to TOUCH a woman.


Touch vs Marry????? Thats a really big difference, and just one that I am posting, theres hundreds more.

NIV is easier to read, but the translation from the original greek and hebrew is terribly in accurate and mis leading.

[Reader Nilus]

It is not that big of difference, when in Christianity the only time to have sexual relations with a woman is when one is married. TOUCH is a Greek euphemism for sexual relations. And it is assumed if one is married one will have sexual relations. The ESV and other new translations translate it as sexual relations which is more literal, the NIV is paraphased a bit at that verse.
Jeff the Finn

[Snowy]

I like the KJV :)

[mesue]

I believe the KJV Bible is God's true word. The NIV Bible takes away the Deity of Christ and make's Him a good guy in much the same way the Koran does.
The NAS Bible refers to Mary as a girl instead of a virgin. Both omit words and take complete verses out of the Bible. I only use these two because their are the first two Bibles that come to mind.
I think the Lord blessed the KJV. Did you know that if you placed your left index finger on the first word in Genesis and placed your right index finger on the last word in Revelation and proceeded word for word towards the middle of the KJV Bible the two fingers would meet in Psalms 118:8. The two middle words of the KJV Bible are "The Lord". Coincidence? I don't think so.