What translation do you prefer?
By My1Savior
@My1Savior (125)
United States
8 responses
@latisharking (82)
• United States
18 May 07
I prefer King James 1611 because,(Typed from Book) "Blood on the Doorposts" By William and Sharon Schnoebelen.(Pg 204)Recall what we have established from the Bible-If anyone denies that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh,then that is the spirit anti-Christ.We have just shown that,at least in one place,The NIV denies that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh(1 Tim 3:16).It also denys the virgin birth,the Blood of Jesus,etc.etc.
So does every other major,popular "modern Bible" on the market. There is only one Bible in English today which does not deny those things-the Authorized Version-1611 King James Bible.
Here is the question: If you use the NWT of the Jehovah's Witness,what do you have A "Bible" which is perhaps 90% alright and 10% error. If you use the NAS(New American Standard),you have a "Bible" which is perhaps 94% ok and 6% error. If you use the NIV "Bible" you may have a book which is 95% alright and 5% error.
But the trouble is-if it even has .0001% error in it,it cannot BE the Word of God!God's Word,HE SAYS,is perfect(Psalm 19:7). God,as the saying goes,does not make-or write-junk! If it isn't 100% perfect,then it isn't the Word of God.
The Bible tells us that there is a spirit of truth and the spirit of error(1John 4:6).Obviously,the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. Who-or What-could be this"spirit of error?" Evidently,it is Satan,or one of his minions.
Hope this will help with your studies. ^j^ Latisha
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
18 May 07
I don't think NIV denies that Jesus came in the flesh. NIV used 'body' instead of 'flesh' and there is no error in translating that way. I also don't see how NIV denies the virgin birth. I would be glad if you can point out how NIV compromised in that regard.
By the way, there is no translation which is 100% accurate. Language always changes, and even if it remains static the translation cannot be 100% accurate because there are many Greek and Hebrew words which are not in English. At the same time translation is not always word for word, sometimes it has to be thought for thought, and so if you want to translate word for word all the time some of the lines will not be meaningful to us.
I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate as originally given, but the translated ones are not 100% accurate.
1 person likes this
@My1Savior (125)
• United States
20 May 07
Very interesting on both counts of this discussion. I'm glad I broached the topic. Personally, I use a variety of translations in my study. I find that some translations footnote the original language (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) as needed to offer greater insight into the truer original meaning of certain points of Scripture.
Furthermore, since the Bible, no matter the translation, is the living Word of God is it worth considering that translation becomes relevant based on the Voice of God speaking to us individually and personally no matter the translation(s) of preference? Simply a thought that came to mind. I'm not sure that there is a right answer to that musing thought . . . wanted to throw it out there all the same . . .
@latisharking (82)
• United States
19 May 07
The response I gave is due to my reading up on the topic of Bibles to read.From what I have read,this is my personal opinion of preferring King James Version 1611,to try to explain all this to you I would have to type/copy almost a whole chapter,Chapter 16 "Putting Teeth Back into Your Church". From book..."Blood on the Doorposts" By William and Sharon Schnoebelen. If you would like to ask that question from the persons (our friend and brother/ and Sister in Jesus Christ) who actually wrote the book "William Schnoebelen" and "Sharon Schnoebelen" and or order the book from him...here is his website: http://www.withoneaccord.org/store/SpiritualWarfareandDeliverance.html and or his email: info@withoneaccord.org These writings from his book "Blood on the Doorposts" that are very scripture based, will help you to understand it alot better as you read it. This way you can form you own opinon w/o mine being what I explain to bring the belief. Bless You. ^j^ Latisha
1 person likes this
@headhunter525 (3548)
• India
17 May 07
I read that the best tranlation theory is the dynamic equivalence. The literal translation is helpful but more often as a second source. A free translation is also helpful in stimulating our thoughts. Yet dynamic equivalence which is not too literal nor too free to must be preferred. And so I prefer NIV over many other translation. But there are equally good translation like NEB, NAB etc.
1 person likes this
@elshaddai123 (3981)
• Kottayam, India
2 Oct 07
If you can study it in original languages is better for understanding its original form.
@elshaddai123 (3981)
• Kottayam, India
17 Jun 07
I have many translations with me but I prefer KIng James Version,it has aristocratic, classical style.
@helpmehelpyou (534)
• Canada
19 May 07
i think the only true translation of the bible is that which god has given us. while moses was on the mountain, he was given 10 commandments, how much clearer can it be. live by these standards, and in the eyes of our lord you will be recieved in heaven, with open hands
1 person likes this
@denise1821 (9)
• United States
16 Jun 07
I now use the Life Application Study Bible-NIV. It is very easy to understand.
