5
6

[–] 9-11 5 points 6 points (+11|-5) ago 

Depends. I personally read the King James Version. It's had longevity that other versions have never had, and is "immune" to what some call "agenda based translations". New versions remove words like sodomite and lascivious and use PC language for prostitutes and some twist passages to imply rape. Another thing I like is the tenses of the kjv (the thou etc). I like the KJV for it's Shakespearean language, however young adults and kids (and some cultures) often have difficulty with the Kings English - so for these groups a plain English translation might be better, I'd suggest the ESV over the NIV.

If you're catholic there are specific versions you may prefer, as there are apocryphal books that are considered canon.

0
2

[–] TheRealMaestro 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I can second the Authorised Version: the grammar includes features which modern English has lost. I should add that the King James Version indeed includes the Catholic Apocrypha; most Protestants historically have agreed that they are good to read, though not of the same calibre as Scripture.

0
4

[–] Sarcastatron_9000 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I like the King James because it comes from more reliable manuscripts than a lot of other translations. If you aren't into the language, the New King James is also excellent. Stay away from The Message - it reads like an SJW read through a real Bible and made the language all sparkly and full of feels. It's retarded and you won't get an accurate theological understanding from reading it.

2
3

[–] DefenderOfTruth 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

It depends. I have recently been digging into a lot of historical versions. One thing I can say, the NIV, The Message, and many other recent versions are very watered down. I’d stick with the New King James or King James Version. The King James is very holy-sounding (for lack of better term), but sometimes the choice of words and old terms distract me. I read the KJV and NKJV usually.

Here’s a nice place to research:

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com

For a while I was dead set on only official Textus Receptus Bibles, but the NKJV is very close to being textus receptus based and since I grew up memorizing it, I don’t want to part with the familiarity.

When it comes right down to it, pick a more literal translation (NOT “thought-for-thought”) that you will read and read it! The Bible is powerful.

If you want an enlightening quick book to study along side the Bible, check out Chuck Missler’s The Bible in 24 Hours. He has helped me make tons of connections between scriptures which get me excited about how seamless the Bible is.

0
4

[–] DillHoleBagHands 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I can confirm this. The newer versions are heavily watered down. New King James is easier to read without rereading six times.

On a different note, I have an old German Bible in High German. Really interesting the large difference that is read between English and German versions.

3
1

[–] 9-11 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

The addition of a companion reader is usually a good idea ... Like mini-sermons.

0
2

[–] Dsciexterminationist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

King James for casual reading and an interlinear and concordance when looking into specifics

0
2

[–] Ina_Pickle 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I prefer King James. I don't mind the New Kings James either, it just lacks some in poetry.

0
2

[–] LDIP 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Downvoats because people are pissy about the bible just ignore them if you want to read it. I personally don't believe in christ but you might have a personal reason for reading it. Best of luck 🐐

0
2

[–] AnmanIndustries 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If you have never read the bible before, pick the one that is easiest to read. Do not read the catholic canon or any other additions such as the likes of what you get in mormonism and jehovah witnesses. Just the core bible. Once you find the one that is easiest to read, read it from start to finish. If God has decided that you need to pick up a different bible, you will know what to look for.

I have read from start to finish NIV, King james, new king james, the english standard bible, the living bible, countless comic bibles and an atlas bible (big ass book). I have read individual books for various research purposes from almost every possible translations possible, excluding most direct language translations. I cant read chinese. But even then, I have spent a lot of time studying the koine greek new testament (copy of the bible from the original greek used in the time of Jesus) and I used to be able to read a little slovak.

In the end they all say the same thing. If you find something that doesnt make sense or leaves you asking questions, 90% of the time you can either cross reference it against other text in the same bible. When you start to take up theology as a study or apologetics, THEN you can consider the differences between versions and research where and how they were created. For the new or average person, version is irrelevant.

0
1

[–] puggy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You can't associate the Catholic bible with modern additions such as Mormons and JWs. Protestant bibles exclude seven books from the Septuagint (called the Apocrypha) so the Protestant bible is an edited down version of the first bible. Catholics preserve the entire Septuagint rather than having added anything to it. Here is a good summary of the controversy throughout history.

1
3

[–] AnmanIndustries 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Oh? I cant put them together?

Which of the books were in circulation during the time of the new testament? More so, which of the books were used by the church of the apostles? The original church that Jesus set up? Regardless, I've read the apocryphas (I will admit, haphazardly, but will be evident in second) to determine if their content is of God or a requirements to Jesus' testament, and they are not. I can see one or two of them perhaps being written by those who walked directly with God (old prophets), but they have no purpose or meaning to the walk with God. New Testament or old. So why have them?

More importantly, why should you trust the catholic councils to determine what should be in the bible? Have you not seen what they have done through history? Imagine if they added or removed a book now with the state of their existence.

If OP feels that the bible is missing something, then they can find the apocraphas and read them to. However, I will strongly suggest against it because some of them are counter to the walk with God and it is why the catholic church suffers constantly.

0
2

[–] Ina_Pickle 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My Protestant Bible has the Apocrypha in it. All Protestant Bibles did up until the mid-1800s.

0
2

[–] glassuser 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm a fan of the world English bible. There are benefits to using an older translation, like KJV, though the translations are inaccurate in a few places (though nowhere near as many as some idiots will try to tell you today), and the language is fairly archaic and may not mean what you think it means.

load more comments ▼ (19 remaining)