Best English Language Bible?

Samuel

Pigeon
It depends how you want to use the Bible. For pure reading pleasure you should purchase any translation that suits you. Unfortunately I don't own one, but I heard the Common English Bible with Apocrypha is the most complete Bible in the English market. The language should be easy to read and it has (basically) the Orthodox canon of the Old Testament. For my personal use, I read from the 1611 King James Bible and The Septuagint with Apocrypha translated by Sir Lancelot Brenton; you will be astonished how different the Septuagint is from the Masoretic Text, just compare Proverbs 15:28. For scholary use I read from Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, which has extensive commentary on a linguistical level and provides historical commentary; for example after the book of Joshua there are a few pages of historical background of the Canaanite cult practices and as to why God ordered the Israelites to exterminate them.
It depends how you want to use the Bible. For pure reading pleasure you should purchase any translation that suits you. Unfortunately I don't own one, but I heard the Common English Bible with Apocrypha is the most complete Bible in the English market. The language should be easy to read and it has (basically) the Orthodox canon of the Old Testament. For my personal use, I read from the 1611 King James Bible and The Septuagint with Apocrypha translated by Sir Lancelot Brenton; you will be astonished how different the Septuagint is from the Masoretic Text, just compare Proverbs 15:28. For scholary use I read from Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, which has extensive commentary on a linguistical level and provides historical commentary; for example after the book of Joshua there are a few pages of historical background of the Canaanite cult practices and as to why God ordered the Israelites to exterminate them.
Commentaries are bunk my friend, you have absolutely no way of knowing who or what manner of man spewed his 'theology' into your bible. As regards history, anything outside of the biblical account is unreliable.
As for which Bible, I think it's pretty obvious with a comparative study -
 

Samuel

Pigeon
AB managed to slip that post in as I slowly put this one together while cooking and eating dinner. A few points in it have been covered but I think it's still worth throwing in as is.

So... English language Bibles then...

Once again I've waded far over my head into the Deep Forum. I was just looking for a nice, smooth reading Bible.

Trying to understand KJV wording is painfully tedious and only leads to me giving up for months or years. I'm only fluent in Rural Bogan (For those outside Australia that's somewhere between Redneck and Chav) though I can understand most styles of modern english except txtspeak.

As I mentioned on the first page, I'll often read a chapter here and there on the free WEB. Just enough that I've got something to go and think about as I work, but it involves sitting at my desk and reading on a monitor. Plus now I see that it's down the chain from Westcott and Hort who, if they were around today, would evidently be having meetings in the back rooms of pizza parlours and exchanging emails with the Clintons.

The other day after reading this thread, and the links within, and the Wiki list of all the abbreviations I was in town and happened to find a brand spanking new NIV in very convincing imitation leather for two bucks.

I forgot that the NIV was actually the subversive satanic trick bible from the video on the first page.
I like the way it is laid out, with bold headings and clear language. I can read it. Taking into account that I very well understand it is not to be trusted (mine's a gender inclusive one too). Would I not be better off reading it and turning to the KJV to clarify certain passages rather than trying to battle through the KJV and having to get out the NIV every time there's something I don't understand?

I put a lot of thought into trying to understand a bookmark I found in an old book I'm reading that says;

"Men ought always to pray, and not to faint. Luke 18 Vs 1"

What does that mean? I wondered. Men should treat praying like lifting weights, so that if shit hits the fan they don't put the back of their hand against their forehead and buckle at the knees like a corseted woman? Or? What?

NIV says "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up."

Oh right, gotcha.

Well we would hate you to have to do anything hard, like learn to read above your level.
I mean Jesus only took all your sins upon himself, died a humiliating and shameful death, mocked riddiculed, spat upon and forsaken, then spent three days in hell to purchase you redemption.

The slothful man saith, There is a lion in the way;
a lion is in the streets.
Proverbs 26:13
 
Commentaries are bunk my friend, you have absolutely no way of knowing who or what manner of man spewed his 'theology' into your bible.
Have you read the 1611 KJV for yourself? It even says in the introduction by the translators that, if one is really interested what the Scriptures originally said, you have to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. The original KJV had commentaries, some of which showed alternative translations. With your reasoning, do you think the translators of the KJV were heretics?
 

Tex Cruise

Kingfisher
Well we would hate you to have to do anything hard, like learn to read above your level.
I mean Jesus only took all your sins upon himself, died a humiliating and shameful death, mocked riddiculed, spat upon and forsaken, then spent three days in hell to purchase you redemption.

The slothful man saith, There is a lion in the way;
a lion is in the streets.
Proverbs 26:13

Hey Samuel,

May the seed of many beasts large and imposing, gush into thy anus against thy will.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
Have you read the 1611 KJV for yourself? It even says in the introduction by the translators that, if one is really interested what the Scriptures originally said, you have to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. The original KJV had commentaries, some of which showed alternative translations. With your reasoning, do you think the translators of the KJV were heretics?

Actually I believe King James' specific instruction to the translators was to provide a copy of the Bible in English WITHOUT commentary, to allow each and every person the individual liberty to have the Holy Spirit guide him as he reads the Word of God, rather than some devil with an axe to grind whispering over his shoulder.
"An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character." - Encyclopedia Brittanicca.

As far as learning the original languages, I dealt with this in another post, but I will appeal to Scripture -
2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
I highly doubt Timothy was fluent in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic - If he had access to holy writ in the lingua franca of his day, why should God expect a faithful servant in 2020 to be required to learn ancient languages in order to understand?
Have you even looked into the qualifications of the 54 scholars who worked on the KJV translation?
If you think there is anyone alive today that could hold a candle to even a few of those guys you are mistaken.
I consider the AV1611 to be the fulfillment of Gods promise in psalm 12 to preserve His word forever.
Psalms 12:6-7

6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Not surprisingly that promise is removed from almost every other Bible version in print today.

An heretic is a man that espouses false doctrine - we all have some false doctrines.
Where the translators saved? I'm sure some of them were. Can Gods Spirit move in unsaved people - yes the bible is clear on that.


Romans 10:8
The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 

Samuel

Pigeon
Hey Samuel,

May the seed of many beasts large and imposing, gush into thy anus against thy will.
Sorry, my bad, I thought Australians could take the piss.
But seriously, Christianity is a mans religion, not for the faint hearted. Christ may ask you to lay down your life or be tortured for your faith.
So its better to start learning to do hard things.
Including being rebuked.
 
Actually I believe King James' specific instruction to the translators was to provide a copy of the Bible in English WITHOUT commentary, to allow each and every person the individual liberty to have the Holy Spirit guide him as he reads the Word of God, rather than some devil with an axe to grind whispering over his shoulder.
That's what you believe, but not what is real. When the Bible refers to the Word of God, it does not mean the Bible, since the Bible as we know did not exist during that time. The writers of the Bible meant reason, order, thought of God that enters you to do and say the right things. When you post New Testament verses to make your point regarding the Word of God, it doesn't make sense because the New Testament, as we know it, did not exist at that time. The Bible is not God, the Bible is not Jesus. You can be a Christian without a Bible, as many illiterate Christians before us were.

Are you a new convert? If so, you will grow out of it.
 

Cold

Pigeon
That's what you believe, but not what is real. When the Bible refers to the Word of God, it does not mean the Bible, since the Bible as we know did not exist during that time. The writers of the Bible meant reason, order, thought of God that enters you to do and say the right things. When you post New Testament verses to make your point regarding the Word of God, it doesn't make sense because the New Testament, as we know it, did not exist at that time. The Bible is not God, the Bible is not Jesus. You can be a Christian without a Bible, as many illiterate Christians before us were.

Are you a new convert? If so, you will grow out of it.

The Word of God is in the scripture which is the Bible, while the Old Testament is still useful to walk with God in the present is to also acknowledge what the New Testament preaches which could override certain aspects of the old one. The NT, is part of the Word of God.
 
He
I met my wife in Toronto, as far as I can tell, she was the only good thing they had.

I strongly encourage you my friend, to do your due diligence when it comes to choosing your sword -
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.

If you are going to have victory in the Christian life, choosing a butter knife will not serve you well.


Use this website, do your own due diligence, feel
free to message me with any questions and don't make the fool descision to stick with a wrong choice because you just spent 60$ dollars on it.
God is able to give you much more than this, His Word is more valuable; rubies, Silver and Gold cannot compare.

Godspeed
Hello, and thanks so much. I've gotten the KJV and so far, I've been enjoying it and from what I can tell, it's about as authentic as I can get. I will definitely message you, as there is a lot of stuff to digest and all the churches are still closed so I can't go there. Weed and alcohol stores are open, but I guess churches aren't "essential" like they are. :) I really appreciate this community here.
 
I use a variety of translations, depending on the situation. For reading aloud as part of my daily prayers, I like the KJV. It's reasonably literal, and written specifically to be read aloud in church. They did a good job. I also use the KJV audio recordings to listen to the Bible when I'm in my car or cooking.

For speed reading, I like the ESV or RSV. They're basically the same, less literal than the KJV but it makes them much more readable. Unfortunately translated from a modern critical text, but that's to be expected these days.

For fidelity to the Greek, I like Young's Literal Translation. It seems to be about as close to a word-for-word copy into English as is humanly possible, which makes it barely readable. But it's useful for clarification when I'm studying a particular passage.

The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart is also extremely literal, and I use it for silent reading sometimes. I have mixed feeling about it. Hart doesn't whitewash the Greek of the New Testament. In Ye Aulde English like the KJV or YLT, the random changes in verb tense during stories, and things like that, sound poetic. But in modern English like Hart's, it sounds like the books were written by a bunch of fishermen. Which they were, but I'm more of a KJV snob at heart.

I also use Brenton's translation of the Septuagint here and there sometimes. It's relatively traditional English but much more modern than the KJV.
 
The Word of God is in the scripture which is the Bible, while the Old Testament is still useful to walk with God in the present is to also acknowledge what the New Testament preaches which could override certain aspects of the old one. The NT, is part of the Word of God.
Do you have any facts to back that up?
 

Samuel

Pigeon
That's what you believe, but not what is real. When the Bible refers to the Word of God, it does not mean the Bible, since the Bible as we know did not exist during that time. The writers of the Bible meant reason, order, thought of God that enters you to do and say the right things. When you post New Testament verses to make your point regarding the Word of God, it doesn't make sense because the New Testament, as we know it, did not exist at that time. The Bible is not God, the Bible is not Jesus. You can be a Christian without a Bible, as many illiterate Christians before us were.

Are you a new convert? If so, you will grow out of it.

Luke 10:25-26
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is WRITTEN in the law? how READEST thou?

Correction, you can call yourself whatever you want, especially in this age of self-identity and
'Christian' encompasses JW and Mormons and basically any bozo that knows something about Jesus - the only question is does Jesus know you?
Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
 
Luke 10:25-26
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is WRITTEN in the law? how READEST thou?

Correction, you can call yourself whatever you want, especially in this age of self-identity and
'Christian' encompasses JW and Mormons and basically any bozo that knows something about Jesus - the only question is does Jesus know you?
Matthew 7:21-23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
You did not answer my question, so I assume you are a new convert. It is good that you are zealous, though it is not good you are self-righteous. I hope you outgrow it.
 
I'm a King James man going way back (like the dramatic prose.)

What is the most faithful to the original material though?

If there are better Old and New Testaments list them. Break it down even further (this is the best Gospel, these are the best versions of Paul's writing etc) if necessary.

I've also heard the Orthodox use more than 66 books. Thoughts?
When I read the KJV (I must admit I didn't complete the entirety of the old testament yet) it was prefaced with a dedication to 'Prince' James. Is this a different version or is this common for the KJV? I always considered it to be a 'prince james version' but I must have been wrong.

Also I must say when I read it I felt like the words were... burned into the paper. Felt like fire was burning into my mind when I read them. It wasn't hot and didn't burn but was very... bright. Surreal.
 

Spartan85

Pigeon
Schofield is poison. The NIV isnt a good translation. I like the Geneva Bible, KJV, and the Orthodox Study Bible. The ESV and HCSB are pretty good if you want more modern language.
I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
Schofield is poison. The NIV isnt a good translation. I like the Geneva Bible, KJV, and the Orthodox Study Bible. The ESV and HCSB are pretty good if you want more modern language.
What is it that attracts you to the Orthodox church?
Im Baptist myself, and when it comes to authenticity and adherance to what the NT church actually practiced, I cant see any Christian ‘denomination’ that compares. Are all Baptists legit?, heck no, but it was always going to be a narrow way.

 
Last edited:

Spartan85

Pigeon
What is it that attracts you to the Orthodox church?
The beauty of the liturgy and the emphasis on the importance of sound doctrine and tradition. I grew up pentecostal and witnessed a lot of nonsense and heard many new age doctrines and heresies from the pulpit. It also supported feminism. I was Baptist for awhile but then had a crisis of faith. I now consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian. Although I have yet to attend a service because I work on Sundays. I am also very disappointed that so many churches bowed before government tyranny by going to online services. American Institutional Christianity seems to be completely cucked... I admire the Orthodox Church of Russia for its faithfulness to Christ and its impact on the culture.
 

Spartan85

Pigeon
What is it that attracts you to the Orthodox church?
Im Baptist myself, and when it comes to authenticity and adherance to what the NT church actually practiced, I cant see any Christian ‘denomination’ that compares. Are all Baptists legit?, heck no, but it was always going to be a narrow way.

I like the Southern Baptists but its current leadership is being corrupted. That is the problem with denominations. They get infiltrated and subverted at the top and then the board spreads its poison and slowly corrupts the denomination as a whole. The Methodists were founded by holy men like John Wesley,John Fletcher and Adam Clarke. But now the methodists are liberal progressives just like nearly every other protestant denomination besides the Baptists. But now even the Baptists are going towards liberalism. The Catholic Church was great for the most part ( I believe priests should marry) until the popes became corrupt and started changing its doctrines. Now they have an extremely evil pope. The Orthodox Church isn't perfect either but I think it is much better than the alternatives.
 

Aboulia

Robin
Mage: If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Don't need Hebrew, just Greek. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and The Septuagint was a translation of the OT comissioned by Ptolemy of Egypt for the Library of Alexandria approved by the High Priest of Jerusalem roughly 200 years before Christ came, The Septuagint is blockier, and doesn't have the poetic beauty of some of the Masoretic text, but it's a totally unbiased translation since it was done only using texts written before the time of Christ. The Masoretic text by comparison is roughly 1000 years older than the Septuagint, it is a corruption as it was edited by Jews hostile to Christ hundreds of years after Christ's death/resurrection. The whole purpose was to introduce plausible deniability since the Jews could now say (dishonestly) that Christ didn't check all the boxes and therefore wasn't the Messiah.

This isn't to discourage reading of translations such as the KJV, most differences are minor, but they do matter in the grand scheme of things. People now are so far divorced from the original Christian mindset that reading any of the translations are better than nothing.

Im Baptist myself, and when it comes to authenticity and adherance to what the NT church actually practiced, I cant see any Christian ‘denomination’ that compares. Are all Baptists legit?, heck no, but it was always going to be a narrow way.

Hey, Mr Original Baptist Church, what do you think about 20th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council. You guys are the only legit Christians, who adhere to doctrine and practices of the NT church, so your church follows this right? (this council preceded the compilation of the scriptures known as the bible, so I don't want to hear any "it was an innovation")

The Word of God is in the scripture which is the Bible, while the Old Testament is still useful to walk with God in the present is to also acknowledge what the New Testament preaches which could override certain aspects of the old one. The NT, is part of the Word of God.

In no place does the NT ever override the OT (outside of basic dietary things, and inclusion of the gentiles) Christ didn't say much politically because the basic structure of beliefs was already laid out by the prophets, he walked in the same path as the prophets and was the culmination of them.
 
Top