The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What Bible do you best like to read?

Practices Christian Living
#1

Could people tell us a little about their favorite Bibles? For reading rather than for study. (Anyone could start another topic for study Bibles). What do you like best about it? Please mention availability, and if you’d call it Hellist. Please also say what it does to Acts 8:37. (In my ignorant opinion, it should be left in. The KJV leaves it in and gives it as: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”) It seems a key verse. Please, I’m not trying to start a discussion on Greek versions.

My reason for this topic is that all of my small collection of Bibles are Hellist, and I’ve nearly stopped reading them. I’m looking for a new one. (Not reading the Bible doesn’t immediately kill your faith, I’ve found.) There could be a few of us looking for new Bibles.

I’ll start. Out of several Hellist Bibles, the one I like best is Good News Translation (if you find a copy with the lovely line drawings, get it). It really is in modern English and is easy to read. Definitely Hellist. Avalable from Amazon. Relegates Acts 8:37 to a footnote.

Nick Hawthorn

#2

Actually, I limit my to two:

The ESV - for word to word
The New Living Translation - for thought per thought

There are a few, fine English translations. It just depends on your preferences.

As far as what a particular passage says, there are a few sites that let you compare, multiple bible versions online.

#3

Easily my favorite reading Bible is the New King James Version. It gets rid of the archaic verb endings and the multiple forms of “you” used in the King James Version, plus it corrects a few howlers. Other than that, it reads like the KJV. I far, far prefer that elevated language to the “newspaper” language used in most English translations. I consider the NKJV to be the single finest example of English prose in existence.

It is definitely “Hellist”. I overlook that, and mentally supply the correct translations where appropriate.

In particular, I read the NKJV Single-Column Bible:
amazon.com/NKJV-Single-Colum … 1418545996

It is formatted like a regular book, with paragraphing, poetic versification, quotation marks, etc. Of course, chapter and verse numbers are still in there.

The NKJV does not get rid of any verses as most English translations do. Nor does it relegate any verses to footnotes. Here is the NKJV of Acts 8:37:

#4

Thanks Randy and Geoffrey. ESV sounds worth a look. I am tolerably familiar with NLT and NKJ. Thanks again.

Nick Hawthorn

#5

I still like Young’s Literal Translation, and (oddly enough) the King James Version (and the New King James Version.)

With a little understanding of Latin, and the etymology of English words like eternal

you can appreciate the KJV, the NKJV, and the Douay-Rheims a lot more (and even Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was a pretty good, and fairly literal translation at the time it was made.)

And unless you’re talking about a modern translation that really strives to be literal (like Young’s) the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims are really much better than the newer translations made today.

#6

Lately I’ve been reading from KJV a lot. Also recently picked up an MEV and have been enjoying it. WEB is great, nice footnotes that shows the variations in the texts used to translate, but still there isn’t a hardcopy of it worth purchasing.

#7

All translations of the New Testament fall into one of two major groups. One is based on late textual tradition, and the other is based on early manuscripts.

I invite you to check out the following post from 5 years ago:

[LATE TEXTUAL TRADITION OR EARLY MANUSCRIPTS)

Oh yeah. To answer the question, the translation from which I usually read is the English Standard Version. It’s not perfect, and I don’t know whether I “like” it best, but I think it is a reliable update of the Revised Standard Version which was based on the Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament. The RSV used King James English whenever prayers were uttered, but the ESV eliminated that practice. Over 100 people were involved in the ESV translation.

#8

Most definitely the KJV, but only the 1611 AV. Since it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:laughing:

#9

I know you’re goofing off, Gabe. But it’s interesting that the “King James Only” crowd insist on only the 1611 edition of the AV, whereas I doubt if any of them actually possess the 1611 edition. Here is a sample page of that edition:

#10

The 1611 is tough for me to read, the font is very distracting and the old english spellings would take a lot of time for me to get used to.

I went down the KJV Only rabbit hole for a while and at the time it felt nice to be able to say ‘Here it is, God’s preserved Word’ but after more investigation, I saw the holes in the so-called evidence. That said I do still prefer translations that use textus receptus for NT because of reasons.

Also there’s KJV people that say the Pure Cambridge Edition is the preserved word of God. bibleprotector.com/

#11

Hi Turtlejoy. Did you check out my dissertation on [ ?

The copyists who formed textus receptus made a considerable number of changes in the Greek text in an attempt to make it internally consistent. Other Greek editions such as Westcott-Hort or Nestle or the more recent edition by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wiegren, are almost identical with pre-300 manuscripts such as papyrus 66 and papyrus 75. For that reason, I think they are much more likely to approximate the original manuscipts than textus receptus.Early Manuscripts or Late Textual Tradition](LATE TEXTUAL TRADITION OR EARLY MANUSCRIPTS)

#12

Thank you Paidion, I haven’t checked it out yet but I bookmarked it to my reading list and look forward to reading through it.
I understand that there can be a big debate about the textual critism, and so far have only scratched the surface. I’ve been reading the collected posts if Jerusalem Blade ( puritanboard.com/entry.php/2 … ompilation ) who supports the traditional text, but I realize that I should investigate more looking to see why people support critical text. At the moment my main rational for traditional text is that even if verses were added, at least I have “bonus” verses in my Bible and if I’m studying with someone and the Bible they’re using is based off of traditional text, I’ll be able to easily follow along without having to read verses or phrases that aren’t there via footnotes. I realize that can come off as silly and so far haven’t been in that situation anyway, so I should probably read up and get a better idea about this.

#13

Hi Paidon

I just read your dissertation and found it very informative. really good stuff. i was wondering, because a long time ago, if I recall correctly, there was a notation in a Scofield bible I owned about some part of the conclusion of matthew 28 being an interpolation. Are you familiar with that? and if so does it have a connection with the Textus Recepticus versus the early manuscripts? i think all of group A and group Be agree on those verses but I think I recall this note in Scofield and the interpolation in John as starting me on my quest to see through the Trinity thing.

its possible my memory betrays me because I have been unable to find it again.

#14

Hi Eaglesway,

I just checked Matthew 28 in my mother’s Scofield Bible and did not find any such suggestion in Scofield’s notes that the final words of Matthew 28 are an interpolation.

Matthew 27 and 28 are not found at all in any extant Greek manuscripts of New Testament writings that are dated prior to 300 A.D. But that proves nothing. It is amazing that we have as much of the New Testament as we do from those ancient manuscripts.

Codex Sinaiticus, affirmed to have been compiled between 330 and 350 A.D. includes the passage. Codex Vaticanus (300-325 A.D) also includes it. I haven’t checked, but I’m sure the same could be said of Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).

#15

Thanks, Paidon, perhaps that is the dim memory factoid I was thinking of, and of course you are right it proves nothing. At that time(around 40 years ago) i wasnt looking for proof of much more than that i wouldnt go to hell forever for questioning the trinity doctrine :laughing:

#16

Paidion, I read your dissertation and found it very interesting. Especially the book of life vs tree of life in revelation. I’ve seen people talking about this before but haven’t looked into more until now and I think based on what I’ve seen presented that it’s probably tree of life. I’m sure the KJB only people have an answer for this but still, I think it’s hard to say that book is the correct translation when the original word in question isn’t contained in any of the copies in existence