Have Any Of You Switched?

[RipponRedeaux]

I think your preference had a lot to do with what you used when you first got saved.

Those of us who have lived for the majority of a century (that means anyone 51 and older) probably started with the KJV. And most of us have moved on to a series of other translations. We have fond memories of the KJV from our childhood. We still have retained a number of verses in our memory from the KJV. But for a number of reasons we have moved on. Improved accuracy in modern versions being an important consideration. But the most important being a more natural-sounding Bible translation that is fresh and understandable. There is no logical reason to have to retranslate a translation.

 

[rlvaughn]

Have any of you switched over to another translation as your primary Bible version in the last year or so?

No.

I have a bunch of physical copies and I go to BibleGateway as well.

I own about 8 or 10 English-language print Bibles other than my primary Bible (KJV), but I would not buy hard copies of some of them nowadays. I use BibleGateway to go and see what various translations have today when I want to do so, and they also provide access to Bibles in other languages there.

Do any of you own physical copies of any Roman Catholic Bibles?

No. I have a Jehovah's Witnesses NWT (gifted by a friend in Junior High school) and a "Holy Name" Bible (because we have a couple in our neighborhood who hold that view).

 

[Yeshua1]

Your sentence can be interpreted as when you were saved you were reading from the LB and then switched to the NASB.
But I suppose you thought that you were expressing the idea that when you were unsaved you were reading the LB, and upon being saved you opted for the NASB.

When first saved, was using a Lidsell LB study bible, then moved to a Ryrie Nas!

 

[Yeshua1]

No on the 2020. I have the perfect version in the 1995.


Can the NJB be purchased at all?

Better one was the 1977!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

No. I own about 8 or 10 English-language print Bibles

If it's not too much trouble, could you identify those eight or ten translations please?

 

[Yeshua1]

Those of us who have lived for the majority of a century (that means anyone 51 and older) probably started with the KJV. And most of us have moved on to a series of other translations. We have fond memories of the KJV from our childhood. We still have retained a number of verses in our memory from the KJV. But for a number of reasons we have moved on. Improved accuracy in modern versions being an important consideration. But the most important being a more natural-sounding Bible translation that is fresh and understandable. There is no logical reason to have to retranslate a translation.

Had one time a 1952 Rsv catholic bible, and except for that gross rendering of virgin in Isaiah, pretty good translation!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Had one time a 1952 Rsv catholic bible, and except for that gross rendering of virgin in Isaiah, pretty good translation!

That "gross rendering" has been an alternate reading listed in the NASB for decades. Look for it in your 1977 version. The reference is Isaiah 7:14.

 

[Yeshua1]

That "gross rendering" has been an alternate reading listed in the NASB for decades. Look for it in your 1977 version. The reference is Isaiah 7:14.

Yes, but thankfully the Holy Spirit interpreted that to mean Virgin in Matthew!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yes, but thankfully the Holy Spirit interpreted that to mean Virgin in Matthew!

But we were speaking of the Isaiah reference. I do not believe in altering Old Testament texts to conform to the New Testament wording.

 

[Yeshua1]

But we were speaking of the Isaiah reference. I do not believe in altering Old Testament texts to conform to the New Testament wording.

The Holy Spirit gave to us how to view that Isaiah passage, and since he authored the Bible?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Holy Spirit gave to us how to view that Isaiah passage, and since he authored the Bible?

Learn to finish your sentences. You left this one dangling.

 

[rlvaughn]

If it's not too much trouble, could you identify those eight or ten translations please?

Offhand I remember: CSB, NASB, NIV, RSV, TEV, Living Bible (not a translation), and the so-called Purified Translation (which someone gave me). That's only seven I can think of, but I think I have a few others (and there are also the two "niche" translations I already mentioned above).

 

[tyndale1946]

Do you ever compare the KJV with other translations? Do you have other versions in your 'abode' Glen?

My wife has all the translations you can think of... Me I'm died in the wool KJV!... Compare???... Why do you think I read the KJV?... No comparison!... Why bother with the rest, when you have the best!... Now don't bother this old timer with trivialities... Brother Glen

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Offhand I remember: CSB, NASB, NIV, RSV, TEV, Living Bible (not a translation), and the so-called Purified Translation (which someone gave me). That's only seven I can think of, but I think I have a few others (and there are also the two "niche" translations I already mentioned above).

I'm surprised that you have the CSB, since it is relatively new. What edition of the NASB do you have --the 1977 or the 1995?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

My wife has all the translations you can think of... Me I'm died in the wool KJV!... Compare???... Why do you think I read the KJV?... No comparison!... Why bother with the rest, when you have the best!... Now don't bother this old timer with trivialities... Brother Glen

The expression is "Dyed in the wool."
Is it conceivable that there may be other translations that word particular passages more accurately than the KJV? Passages in which the non-KJV reading may give you an "Ah Hah" moment? You know, a feeling of, "I never thought of it that way before. So that's what it really means."

 

[37818]

The CT is closer to the original than the TR.

Based on what?I will give you two reading where the TR is right and the CT is wrong. John 1:18 is to read "Son." John .13:2 is to read "being ended." Those for me are two test verses. Tbe oldest reading is wrong on John 1:18 and right on John 13:2 except for a spelling error.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The expression is "Dyed in the wool."
Is it conceivable that there may be other translations that word particular passages more accurately than the KJV? Passages in which the non-KJV reading may give you an "Ah Hah" moment? You know, a feeling of, "I never thought of it that way before. So that's what it really means."

Glen is old, it’s died in the wool. He has bugs in his wool older than I am, and I’m 50.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm surprised that you have the CSB, since it is relatively new. What edition of the NASB do you have --the 1977 or the 1995?

I have the CSB, and it’s okay. I like the HCSB as well. Don’t ask me why, but I like it better than the CSB.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What was the version? Because there is no translation called "The Big RC Family Bible."

No idea

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Based on what? I will give you two reading where the TR is right and the CT is wrong. John 1:18 is to read "Son." John .13:2 is to read "being ended." Those for me are two test verses. The oldest reading is wrong on John 1:18 and right on John 13:2 except for a spelling error.

Based on the majority of New Testament Bible scholars. But in the CT camp they don't walk in lockstep. There are times in which some translations differ with the mainstream of the CT. I'd have to go to BibleGateway to document, but the NIV and CEB both have "Son" in John 1:18.
What is the spelling error in John 13:2?