How To Choose A Bible

[ShiroiHikari]

Yeah, the form of a unicorn has pretty much changed over time... I'm pretty sure they were originally viewed closer to powerful oxen or goats with horns instead of the sparkling and frilly sort of unicorns you'd see from My Little Pony. XD

...Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Back on-topic, I use the NLT, NASB, and NIV versions.

[Nate]

From Wikipedia:

An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם‎) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns. This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns." This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.

The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornis) and employed unicorn to translate re'em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature. The American Standard Version translates this term "wild ox" in each case.

So that you don't have weird verses like Numbers 23:22 which says in the KJV "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Also, "an unicorn" is totally bad grammar. Unless the people of that time pronounced it "oonicorn." Which sounds dumb. XD

[mysngoeshere56]

Also, "an unicorn" is totally bad grammar. Unless the people of that time pronounced it "oonicorn."

Wow! I never saw that before... Come to think of it, I wonder if they did pronounce it like that. XD A lot of older writings I've found have said "an heritage" instead of "a heritage", because the "h" was originally silent.

[Falx]

Why choose just one bible? If you do a search for E-sword you can get free multiple translations in one package deal. Some of them you need to pay for but a lot of them are free.

[Warrior4Christ]

I have a couple NIV translations as well as a tiny NLT. I mostly use my small NIV translation because it's small enough to carry around. If that's what you're looking for book stores have smaller bibles you can carry around too.

Ditto - I like my small NIV. Can't go wrong with the NIV - it's good for studying. The TNIV just has some gender-neutral language and other stuff which I don't think is essential (I'm just used to mentally translating "men" to "people" anyway, and I don't need the extra political correctness they might try to use).
I like the NLT as a more of a paraphrase version.

Does the NKJV use the more recent manuscripts? I would assume so, since they had a perfect opportunity to...

[rocklobster]

I have the NRSV Catholic Study Bible. It has great articles that help you understand the text by putting it in perspectives relevant to today.

[Atria35]

Why choose just one bible? If you do a search for E-sword you can get free multiple translations in one package deal. Some of them you need to pay for but a lot of them are free.

Because I have issues with eyestrain already, and even a half hour in front of a computer screen starts to irritate it. And when I read, I like to read for long periods of time.

It's a good resource- just not for me.

Besides- I prefer the feel of a good book Ink and pages help me take it in better.

Looks like the NIV Study Bible is very popular- and very good! I'll be looking at one of those first when I get to the bookstore. I will compare it to others, of course, to see how I like it, but it will be one of the first I pick up and check out!

@ Rocklobster- thanks. I think I'll get one for reading/comparison. Extra information/books is never unwelcome.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I don't know why you guys are all discussing on which kind of Bible to choose. Only the KJV is the true version of the Bible. The rest contain lies and heresies. A website told me.

[Atria35]

I don't know why you guys are all discussing on which kind of Bible to choose. Only the KJV is the true version of the Bible. The rest contain lies and heresies. A website told me.

Regardless, I'm not fond of the KJV- it's beautiful to read, but it's just never jivved with me.

[Kaligraphic]

A side note on the KJV - while many people know that it dates back to 1611, fewer know that it went through multiple revisions, and the version we actually use today is from a 1724 printing. I love pointing this out to people to insist that only the 1611 KJV is accurate. ("Really? Then why don't you use it?")

And, personally, I use a mix of versions - KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, Vulgate, and original Greek versions. I have a Hebrew copy of the OT, but I'm still pretty reliant on translations for that. I probably have a few more versions around that I can't think of off the top of my head, too.

I'd say, when you're looking for a Bible, the first consideration is what you want to use it for. For conceptual reading, go further toward the dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought end of the scale. For detailed study, I recommend going further toward the literal or word-for-word end of the scale. Within those, if you just want a choice, NIV and NASB are pretty popular options. For general reading, you can go with either end, depending on what you like.

I personally tend to use NKJV or NASB for general reading, or KJV for its wonderful properties of being easy to find and out of copyright. (Also, Strong's concordance is indexed to the KJV.)

[Warrior4Christ]

I'd say, when you're looking for a Bible, the first consideration is what you want to use it for. For conceptual reading, go further toward the dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought end of the scale. For detailed study, I recommend going further toward the literal or word-for-word end of the scale. Within those, if you just want a choice, NIV and NASB are pretty popular options. For general reading, you can go with either end, depending on what you like.

This is good advice.

A side note on the KJV - while many people know that it dates back to 1611, fewer know that it went through multiple revisions, and the version we actually use today is from a 1724 printing. I love pointing this out to people to insist that only the 1611 KJV is accurate. ("Really? Then why don't you use it?")

Yeah, didn't the 1611 have 'v's instead of 'u's and 'i's instead of 'j's? So it would be "Iesvs" (and that would make it the 1611 KIV...).

[Shao Feng-Li]

[quote="Nate (post: 1449246)"]From Wikipedia:

An animal called the re’em (Hebrew: ר]

Heh, cool. Wild ox does sound better.

Aren't you supposed to use "an" before a vowel?

[ShiroiHikari]

But since we say it "yoo-ni-corn" in English, it doesn't begin with a vowel sound. "Y" is only sometimes a vowel. I think. Someone verify this please.

[Nate]

Aren't you supposed to use "an" before a vowel?

You use "an" before a word that starts with a vowel sound, not before all vowels. You use "a" before a word that starts with a consonant sound.

So you sometimes use "an" before a consonant and "a" before a vowel, depending on how they're pronounced. For example, you wouldn't say "This is an useful invention." You would say "a useful" because "useful" starts with a y sound, and y is a consonant (in that instance).

Similarly, it would be "I produced an homage to the Three Stooges." Even though h is a consonant, since it's a silent h that means you're starting off with the "o" sound, making it "an."

A side note on the KJV - while many people know that it dates back to 1611, fewer know that it went through multiple revisions, and the version we actually use today is from a 1724 printing.

Also a fun fact is the original 1611 KJV contained the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, etc. Even MORE interesting, the 1611 KJV contained three books that were not considered canon by the Council of Trent, 1 and 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasses (call me immature but that name makes me laugh). It wasn't until the 1666 KJV Bible that all of the Apocryphal books were removed.

[mechana2015]

I don't know why you guys are all discussing on which kind of Bible to choose. Only the KJV is the true version of the Bible. The rest contain lies and heresies. A website told me.

This satirical comment would be hilarious if I didin't have 45 pages worth of e-mails from people at a church I used to attend espousing this exact commentary in detail.