The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What Bible Translation do you use?

I’ve been wondering, all of the easy to read, popular translations use Eternal for Matthew 25:46 and the word Hell in other places. The bibles that translate the word Aion correctly are difficult to read (Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Young’s Literal Translation).

So I ask which bible translation do you use and why? I’ve been ok with the Amplified Bible because they put Gehenna in parenthesis after the word hell and also the ESV because they put a note after the word Hell that tells you it’s Gehenna. But, I still wish their was a more mainstream, easy to read bible with proper translation.

You might like to take a look at the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the Good News Bible (also known as Today’s English Version). I have many different translations and whilst none is perfect, I find these two have less doctrinal bias than most of the others. Of the two I find the NRSV more suitable for serious study and the GNB for devotional use. The GNB was the first bible I bought when I came to faith 25 years ago. I have recently rediscovered it and found to my delight that it is far more EU/UR friendly than I had realised before.

Yes, I’m yet to come across a really easy to read one which translates aion, aionios, Gehenna, etc. correctly :unamused: I find the Concordant Literal Version (CLV) & Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) useful.

For just everyday reading I currently use an NASB or ESV. For study purposes I use a variety (online –, and I have a Rotherham’s, and I also use the interlinear at


I think you have a point Reckoner we need a translation that is easy to read and gets key words translated correctly, I mean no wonder there aren’t people who believe UR: Rotherham, Concordant, and Young all sound like gibberish most of the time. If I had a single bible I could recommend to people that translate hell, eternal, forever, basanos(torment) and other such mistranslations correctly, I would give it in a heartbeat. Maybe I’ll have to start it and then get real experts onboard :confused:

I recently bought a copy of the Modern Young’s Literal New Testament, with Psalms and Proverbs. :slight_smile: It’s easier to understand than the original from what I can gather (haven’t read the original, so I’m not sure, but there’s no thees and thous and such :slight_smile:) and they tried very hard to keep the meanings the same even while changing the wording. :slight_smile:
That and they’re working on the rest of the Old Testament too. :slight_smile:
You may want to check it out. :slight_smile: Think they still have copies on Amazon for a reasonable price. :slight_smile: … 345&sr=8-1

Blessings :slight_smile:


The Authorized KJV is the only one for me!

Well, there’s the problem, right there! :wink:

The KJV is a lousy translation. Before I had even considered universalism, I could see that. I think there are few reasonable excuses for using it. And none of them include the seeking of Biblical truth.

Although I agree snitz and waab - I have to defend it on the beauty and poetry of the language - which I think can also give a glimpse of the divine (although for me the Welsh Bible sounds even more beautiful - but then I’m biased) :smiley:

It was a pretty decent translation 400 years ago, and of course, there is no studying English literature without at least glancing at the KJV a few times. But all that aside, better Greek manuscripts, more thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and the natural evolution of the English language have rendered it obsolete. With that said, though, sometimes it gets things right, and when it does, it usually gets them right in very beautiful ways (credit where it’s due!).

I actually used to be KJV-only myself. When I was a kid I had a KJV and an NIV and was trying to figure out which was the better translation, and made the mistake of searching online. You know what you find when you Google “KJV vs. NIV”? Nothing good, that’s what. But at the time, I swallowed every word about the conspiracy behind the NIV and Westcott and Hort being occultists and so on. In high school or early college, I refined my view to, “The KJV is the best translation of the Textus Receptus, and the Textus Receptus is the best Greek manuscript tradition.” Then I learned Greek and Hebrew and all about textual criticism and, well, there went any validity THAT view ever held.

When I was a young teenage Christian (about the age of 15 at my baptism - full immersion and soaked the first 2 rows of seats as I shook my waist-length hair on being pulled out of the water :smiley: ) I didn’t even know there were such things as alternative translations to the authorised KJV!

Most modern translations are lousy translations that have been modified due to the copyright laws. The 1611 KJV has not been subjected to these modifications. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Stick to the 1611 KJV, Jeff. Most modern translations are disgusting with all their modifications due to the copyright laws.


Most modern translations are lousy translations

Pray tell, how are they lousy translations? Can you give specifics?

that have been modified due to the copyright laws.

This assertion lacks substantiation and strikes me as absurd, but maybe it’s because I know a thing or two about textual criticism and translation. They are “modified” from the KJV on the discovery of more, earlier, and better manuscripts, the basis of increased knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and the basis that the English language has changed in the past four centuries (“prevent” no longer means “to go before” and “let” no longer means “to restrain,” for two instances).

The 1611 KJV has not been subjected to these modifications.

You’re right; it still uses inferior manuscripts, archaic English, and outdated Hebrew and Greek scholarship.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

You aren’t stating opinions. You are stating facts about the KJV and other translations–facts that I (and others) have disputed as false. And you have either been unwilling or unable to provide any sort of substantiation for those facts.

Most modern translations are disgusting with all their modifications

Now this is an opinion, of course, and a very strong one, but pray tell, what do you find “disgusting” about modern versions? Because most of the translation differences amount to three things:

  1. Differences in manuscript tradition.
  2. Updating archaic English into contemporary English.
  3. Actual revised translations based on updated scholarship.

due to the copyright laws.

And this is a “fact,” not an opinion–one which you have failed to substantiate despite having stated it twice in this post and multiple times elsewhere. When asked for substantiation, you’ve made vague references to “US Copyright Law,” yet have consistently failed to provide anything resembling a reliable source.

Revival, I think you’ve been misled by Peter Ruckman, the greatest clown in bibliology. The KJV was sponsored by the Crown and translated with a blatant political bias, it’s scholarship is four hundred years faulty and it’s language is four hundred years archaic. As for copyright, modern publishers copyright their translations for countless reasons. Publishers are obliged to preserve their translation from the distortion of pirated copies and are entitled to recover the millions of dollars it takes to translate and typeset such a work. This is not unusual; the KJV was also published with a copyright (Cum Privilegio, “with privilege” — meaning “with right”). So were even earlier translations like the Geneva translation of 1560. And if you weren’t aware, the KJV is still under the copyright of the crown today. If anyone’s making an exploitative profit from a Bible, it’s gonna be from the KJV!

Here is some interesting info on King James. … es_Version … rized.html … james1.htm … son-lodges

Apparently King James was a Freemason which is of course a Satanic religious cult.

King James also didn’t have a whole lot to do with the translation in his name; it’s more like he happened to be on the throne when the committee of translators did it.

So i still dont get it. Why is it in his name then?

Simply because he was King, and authorized this new translation. (The Great Bible, The Bishop’s Bible, and several others were in use prior to the production of the King James Bible).

The 1611 King James Bible has had several revisions. You are using one of them. To my knowledge no modern person uses the 1611 King James Bible. Most do not even know what it looks like. If you are interested, you can check out a sample page here:

1611 King James Bible