MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What’s the best bible version?

What’s the best bible version?

posted 3 years ago by beavis (3249)
16 replies | jump to latest

I have 'a living bible' tyndale version (edit, misspelled tyndale first time) translation and was told the King James Version is better. Sorry for sounding like a jack ass but I went to catholic school till like grade 5 then went to public school to accommodate my fathers step children and I thought jehova witnesses like the King James Version and that’s why I don’t like the King James Version. LoL but I do not know what version Roman Catholic are supposed to have, I was a pretty bad student lol but I wasn’t molested or anything. One time a doctor asked me to spread my Butt-cheeks open at an urgent care as a child, but he didn’t touch me.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

I like the ESV and NASB. KJV might be more "accurate" but I am not a fan of reading 400 year old English.

[–] beavis (3249) 3 years ago

mine is american standard but not new american standard I guess, if there is even a difference.

[–] beavis (3249) 3 years ago

what version would the pope have or a roman catholic church?

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

I am not a Catholic, but in any case I would take with a grain of salt, the version the Pope uses, since he believes in a different gospel while also believing in universalism, which is contrary to what scripture says.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

I was going to come in here and recommend the NIV bible (New International Version) but the King James version is a good translation and even still does a few things better than the NIV. But the NIV is overall the best that I'm aware of.

Any time you make a translation of an old book, you are often faced with multiple choices of meaning. The NIV does a better job of steering those choices because of attention to culture and historic norms of the time.

... but I read your last sentence and decided not to write any of the above.

[–] beavis (3249) 3 years ago

What’s so bad about 'a living bible tyndale' version? It’s generic but the book was priced at 40 bucks or so

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

I have never heard of it.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

I think NIV is good for novice readers since the language is very simple and easy to understand but some translation issues arise because of "paraphrasing".

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

Aye. Its weakness.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

Aiming for anything above "novice" readers defeats the purpose of the bible itself.

[–] spacecomedy (2062) 3 years ago

^This. It should be understandable to even below average readers.

[–] BillySlater (4285) 3 years ago

"Aiming for anything above ´novice´ readers defeats the purpose of the bible itself."

Not exactly true. The Bible has various purposes but I would say the least of which is to be "easily understood" when born again believers can only understand it anyway. Matthew 13:10-11,16-17.

The readability of the Bible should not come at the expense of intended meaning. I am not anti - NIV by any stretch but more readable does not necessarily equate to "better".

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13205) 3 years ago

If you want to understand the Bible as used in Western Civilization as literature read the King James or a revised version if you must. All the others have been dumbed down and the language altered or changed so high school students can understand it.

Tackle the King James, it's the official English language version and many say that William Shakespeare himself was commissioned by the Crown to write much of it.

[–] beavis (3249) 3 years ago

thanks for the input

[–] bellington83 (3293) 3 years ago

The Silmarillion

[–] TheMan18 (13192) 3 years ago

Aren't they all the same?