Bible versions / translations

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2008
Bible versions / translations
12
Sun, 06-19-2011 - 3:11pm

Okay, I might be sparking some controversy here, though maybe not!

DH and I have been NIV users our entire Christian "lives" (for me, that's as long as we've been married and I've been in a Bible-preaching church).

Photobucket

Pages

Avatar for zions_daughter
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2001
Sun, 06-19-2011 - 5:57pm
I was once persuaded that I should only read KJV and I did for a whole year. Then I went back to the NIV, because honestly, KJV is harder to read and if I want to read regularly, I need something that makes me understand and want to dig in further.

The pastor's wife here gave us a little info on translations at the start of our Bible study this year. I didn't get a handout, but can ask for it or do some research online.

My personal opinion on the issue is that we need to have faith that God is working among those who seek to put out a new translation/version. He isn't going to allow His word to be twisted to the wrong message, so I have faith that when I find a translation I like it's going to be presenting God's words and not man's errors. (BTW, NLT is a fave of mine right now, NCV is also good from what I've seen in our Max Lucado study)

I think we should all be free to study what we wish personally, but I see nothing wrong with the pastor and deacons sticking with NIV for church gatherings - it's just easier for most people to understand and you don't want to alienate those with a lower reading level just because the KJV was the first English translation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2007
Mon, 06-20-2011 - 7:50am
Nicely put. That is what I was thinking also. I think many people would not read the Bible (both regular readers and new to faith readers) if they had to use a KJV. It is just too hard to read and understand. Personally, I would not be receiving God's Word if I used a KJV, because I would have no clue what He is saying to me. I read out of a NLT. But I do love using Bible sites to compare scripture in different versions :)


Powered by CGISpy.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-19-2009
Mon, 06-20-2011 - 11:52am

I use a NASB (New American Standard Version). It is a literal translation, meaning the words themselves from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts are translated, not just the ideas. However it is easy to read. I think that your DH should (just to be fair) study things that are written from the opposing viewpoint (if he hasn't already) about why the changes were made. I haven't studied that much on it but I don't think I'd stake so much possible dispute with brothers in Christ at a deacons meeting from reading things that might be very biased. I personally don't care for NIV, although I used it when I was first saved. I recently purchased a KJV and find it difficult to understand certain verses ( I ended up going to a Strong's dictionary to look up the original word then looking at all the different words it had been translated to). Translation is really a tricky deal because there is so much involved. The exact meaning of the individual word has to be looked at (there are 5 different words that we use the word "love" for, so we lose meaning, In English there just isn't a single word for each of the single Greek counterparts. Then there's colloquialisms - Oh, cool! Doesn't really mean something has a low temperature in English, it's just a saying. All the biblical languages have that too. For instance in Bible College it's a big joke for someone to say " I love you with all my bowels" because that's the literal word in Hebrew, but we know it's general meaning. I am really interested in learning more about the different translations, and the KJV only Idea.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-21-2009
Mon, 06-20-2011 - 11:58pm

Ok, Cathy, when are we meeting up?!

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2008
Tue, 06-21-2011 - 6:20am

Interestingly, if you assess the reading level of the KJV vs the others, KJV is actually written at the lowest reading level (5th grade level vs 6th grade and 8th grade for the "newer ones").

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-30-2007
Tue, 06-21-2011 - 10:54am

I have struggled over the different translations in the past and wanted to research a little before replying.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-19-2009
Wed, 06-22-2011 - 3:15pm

I was reading up on this a little and this guy brings up soem good questions about which KJV is the right one. Apparently

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2008
Thu, 06-23-2011 - 7:12am

Thanks Lindy and Heather for those links.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-19-2009
Thu, 06-23-2011 - 8:48am

Cathy I'm soooo with you on subtle things like "parents" instead of joseph and "Jesus'mother"! I think for those of us who are already saved it's not a problem but for those who have all their lives been "brainwashed" by the humanism that we are saturated with, but are now seeking Truth, I think that it could potentially confuse them. what a fun education I'm getting studying this! Ty for starting this thread!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-01-2009
Sat, 06-25-2011 - 12:28am
I don't have a problem with referring to Joseph as one of Jesus' parents. As far as we know, Joseph acted as Jesus earthly father and as Mary's partner in raising Him, though I'm sure he didn't need much "raising". To me, it's similar to referring to the adoptive parents of an adopted child as one's parents. No, they didn't actually conceive the adopted child, but they chose to take on the child as their own and raise him/her. Joseph obeyed God and married Mary despite his reservations upon finding out she was pregnant, and I have no problem with him being called Jesus's parent. However, I can see how it might be misleading if you've never heard or don't believe the idea of the virgin birth.

That wasn't the intent of your original post, but I just wanted to give Joseph props! LOL!
Photobucket

Pages