Bible on One Page in Many Versions

[lyn1795]

[/quote]
The New Living Translation is one of the few translations, besides the KJV, that I feel comffortable with.[/quote]


I agree with you spike N ree!!!

[alixi]

I appreciate the many translations. We do have to be careful though.

Next to the King James version, I like the New Living Translation from Tyndale.

Generally, I use the NKJV. Is this careful enough? (honest question) I grew up with KJV, and the NKJV is close and so that is what I gave to my kids. I don't know why, but I just like the cadence of the verses.

[Spike n Ree]

Generally, I use the NKJV. Is this careful enough? (honest question) I grew up with KJV, and the NKJV is close and so that is what I gave to my kids. I don't know why, but I just like the cadence of the verses.

I consider the New King James Version vry good. I like it too.

[Serendipity]

One of my favorite features on the Gateway site is the audio option.
There is a button at the top and bottom to listen to the scriptures that you have searched.

The voice belongs to Max McLean. His reading is awesome.

You can listen to a sample on his website.

Listen to todays Proverbs

Watch a sample performance of his

[AllFreeMen]

I consider the New King James Version vry good. I like it too.

Here is a cool article on how the bible has been translated and re-written throughout the centuries.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/

The first bible was written some one-thousand three hundred (1380) years after Jesus's death and the re-worked numerous times after that.

[sophiawilliam83]

Excellent Post... Thanks to everyone for sharing the information.

[RiJoRi]

Generally, I use the NKJV. Is this careful enough? (honest question) I grew up with KJV, and the NKJV is close and so that is what I gave to my kids. I don't know why, but I just like the cadence of the verses.

There are several ways of translating anything, including the Bible. The first is literal or (almost) word-for-word. This can be seen in the KJV & NASB. The next is dynamic equivalence, which is thought-for-thought. The NIV, NEB, & NKJV(?) are of this type. The third is a paraphrase, with the Living Bible, & Phillip's Translation as examples. There is also the strict-literal-word-for-word of the Interlinear Bibles, and what Bible scholars call "lousy" translations such as the New World translation. (Sorry, JWs, but that's what they consider it. Although they use fancier words than "lousy.")

An example could be:
Original: “Las horas de la manana han de oro en sus bocas.”
Interlinear: “The hours of the [morning, tomorrow] have of [gold,I-pray] in their mouths.”
Literal: “The hours of the morning have gold in their mouths.”
Dynamic: “Hard work will make you rich.”
Paraphrase: “The early bird catches the worm.”

HTH,
--Rich

[Melodious Musician]

Hello!

I am going to tread lightly here, since this is my first time on this message board, but I feel that I must speak up about about the NIV.

There are many changed words in that "Bible" that do not line up with the original translation. For example: In Isaiah 14:12, the NIV refers to, what would normally be the name Lucifer, as the "morning star". This name was also used to refer to Jesus. According to this verse, the "morning star fell from grace". And we all know that Jesus did not fall from grace.

Also, the NIV refers to homosexuals as "shrine prostitutes". This is clearly biased--and for good reason, as, apparently, one of the NIV's authors, Virginia Mollencott, is a radical feminist and lesbian.

I know there were others, but I'm afraid I can't pull them off the top of my head right now. (Still asleep. )

Thank you all and God bless,

Melodious Musician

[Rob_0126]

I like the 1526 tyndale nt. Call me old school.

1611 kjv is the next best.

[Rob_0126]

I like the 1526 tyndale nt. Call me old school.

1611 kjv is the next best.

I am updating this post, to say that for a while now, I believe that the 1611 KJV is thee Word of God.