What bible do evangelicals use?

[andyandy]

just wondering.....

In the UK, we have the King James version (old and crusty), the Good News version (simplified), and the Giddeons (ie the new testement)...and given that Church of England doesn't espouse biblical literalism, the use of different versions is not a problem - but what is the bible of choice for Evangelicals? Would cutting out the old testement (ie Giddeon's) be acceptable?

...and on a more historical point, what are the documented differences between translations through the ages?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The ones I've met used King James Version or the New American Standard Bible.

Actually, I met a really funny creationist who argued that the KJV was the only True version.

I never heard of the Giddeons version before. It soundes interesting though. I've always wondered what the point of the OT was if the never really followed it.

[joobz]

The ones I've met used King James Version or the New American Standard Bible.

Actually, I met a really funny creationist who argued that the KJV was the only True version.

I never heard of the Giddeons version before. It soundes interesting though. I've always wondered what the point of the OT was if the never really followed it.
rent a room in any hotel. YOu'll see it there.

[-Fran-]

just wondering.....

In the UK, we have the King James version (old and crusty), the Good News version (simplified), and the Giddeons (ie the new testement)...and given that Church of England doesn't espouse biblical literalism, the use of different versions is not a problem - but what is the bible of choice for Evangelicals? Would cutting out the old testement (ie Giddeon's) be acceptable?

...and on a more historical point, what are the documented differences between translations through the ages?

It's funny, but haven't the Giddeons (Gideoniterna in Swedish) named themselves after an Old Testament character? Obviously the book meant something to them as it inspired what they actually call themselves, and then they go and throw it out? :confused:

[andyandy]

The ones I've met used King James Version or the New American Standard Bible.

Actually, I met a really funny creationist who argued that the KJV was the only True version.

I never heard of the Giddeons version before. It soundes interesting though. I've always wondered what the point of the OT was if the never really followed it.

hmm, i wonder how the New American Standard differs (if at all) from the versions used over here....

with regards to the Giddeons bible - i think it's a rather good idea to remove all the nasty OT stuff and (i think) Revelations...i don't really know the history behind it...though i may google to find out :)

[-Fran-]

with regards to the Giddeons bible - i think it's a rather good idea to remove all the nasty OT stuff and (i think) Revelations...i don't really know the history behind it...though i may google to find out :)


While I don't disagree with this, I don't see why we should stop there :)

[andyandy]

It's funny, but haven't the Giddeons (Gideoniterna in Swedish) named themselves after an Old Testament character? Obviously the book meant something to them as it inspired what they actually call themselves, and then they go and throw it out? :confused:

from the horse's mouth

In 1899 three commercial travellers in the USA formed an association of Christian businessmen to encourage each other in their Christian faith and to spread knowledge of God through personal evangelism and united service for the Lord Jesus Christ. They chose the name Gideon’s after an Old Testament leader who, with a few chosen men, did a great work for God. Today, over 250,000 members work in 181 countries placing a total of over 60 million copies of the Word of God annually as well as witnessing personally for Christ. Internationally over 1 billion scriptures have been presented.

Our objective is to share God’s message of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ by personal witness and through placing Bibles and New Testaments into people’s hands.

The Gideons became established in the British Isles in 1949. God has blessed the work of our National Association. To date over 30 million Gideon Bibles and Testaments have been presented nationally and there are 5,000 Gideons and their wives involved in the work across Britain.

We are a non-denominational extended missionary arm of the Christian church. We work closely with Christian churches, for it is through them that we draw our membership and our prayer and financial support. http://www.gideons.org.uk/Gideons/index.asp

doesn't say why they chose just the NT though....maybe it was just cheaper at the printers :)

[-Fran-]

doesn't say why they chose just the NT though....maybe it was just cheaper at the printers :)

:D yeah, maybe. Still seems weird that they don't want people to become aware of this great character in the OT who inspired this drowning the world in the NT (1 billion books, uh? That's a LOT of trees there...)

And, 5000 gideons and their wives? You can only be a male Gideonite it seems :rolleyes:

[m_huber]

Down here in the Bible Belt, you can see quite a variety. Some claim the KJV is the only "real" version (I once got chewed out for not having one at church), many use the New International Version, some the New American Standard Bible, some the New English Standard, some the Holman Version of the Bible; some use more obscure versions, like the "Recovery" version I saw recently, and I've even met pastors who translate the Greek themselves. Some people prefer paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible. The only critical factors are really that it not include the Apocrypha and at least approaches the original language (ie., not the New World Translation). Of course, for the common man, even these factors may not be important.

But in my experience, the most common for evangelicals are the NIV and KJV.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ones I've met used King James Version or the New American Standard Bible.

Actually, I met a really funny creationist who argued that the KJV was the only True version.

....Probably thinks Jesus quotes should be in red, too.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm) uses the King James version because (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/faq.html#kjv) For three reasons:

1. There are no copyright restrictions on the KJV.

2. It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only "authentic" version.

3. It has not been subjected to cosmetic editing, as have some of the more modern versions.

Most of the Bible's problems, though, are unrelated to the particular version that is read. Still, it is a good idea to compare the various versions, and to help with this I have provided links to some of the more common ones.There are links to other Bible versions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/versions.html) on their web site. And the Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) has a search engine you can use on any of them should you desire to check for differences.

BTW, the SAB also has the same search features for the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

[Skeptic Ginger]

just wondering.....


...and on a more historical point, what are the documented differences between translations through the ages?
The modern versions update the pronouns and other archaic words. Thee and thou become you and you and so on. Begats become, "to [insert name] was born [insert name]".

Sex is still disguised as "lay with". I guess that's for the kiddies' sake. ;)

[Skibum]

But in my experience, the most common for evangelicals are the NIV and KJV.

Same in my experience.

Some of the services I've been to have used both.

[m_huber]

Found a humorous website from Chick publications, which is a major publisher of gospel tracts.

This is their analysis of whether or not translation matters (which boils down to whether you believe that it is God's word or not)
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

And this is a comparison of KJV (God's real word) vs NIV (that evil new translation):
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/comparison.asp

[hgc]

I found this about the Gideon's bible in Wikipedia...

the Bible text itself (the New King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version) translation is currently favored), without notes, references, or any other reference matter other than chapter and verse headings — this can either be the full Bible (typical of the copies placed in hotel rooms with the expectation the copy will remain in that room, rather than be taken by any one guest), or just the New Testament, Psalms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms), and Proverbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proverbs) (typical of the copies handed out as gifts to particular individuals);


I thought that the Gideon's I've seen in hotels was the full thing.

[-Fran-]

I found this about the Gideon's bible in Wikipedia...

I thought that the Gideon's I've seen in hotels was the full thing.

Ahh, OK, so they have not really tossed the OT out? They are just handing out the NT alone, as some sort of sample? :)

[matthew 7-3]

The ones I've met used King James Version or the New American Standard Bible.

Actually, I met a really funny creationist who argued that the KJV was the only True version.

I never heard of the Giddeons version before. It soundes interesting though. I've always wondered what the point of the OT was if the never really followed it.

They OT laws have been fullfilled by Christ, but it does show us a lot about what God considers sin.
As far as the Bible versions, the King James is probably the closest to the original, but they all have the same message.:)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hi Matthew 7-3 (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hypocrisy/mt07_03.html). ;)

Welcome to the JREF forum.

[matthew 7-3]

Hi Skeptigirl, Thanks.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hi Skeptigirl, Thanks.You do know that something underlined is a link, right?

[m_huber]

They OT laws have been fullfilled by Christ, but it does show us a lot about what God considers sin.
As far as the Bible versions, the King James is probably the closest to the original, but they all have the same message.:)

Of the dozens of Bible translations, the one commissioned first, by a committee overseen by a biased King of England, is probably not the closest to the original (unless you mean the original English, and it isn't the original there either. See John Wycliff). Archaeology has uncovered lots of manuscripts in the last 400 years, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have much better understanding of the ancient Middle East, which gives a better understanding in general of what the language means. On top of that, there are larger committees working on the Bible now, which allows less room for error.

The most accurate version of the Bible isn't in English. But the most viable English version isn't the KJV.

And I use "accurate" to mean the closest to the original intention of the authors.

[firecoins]

And I use "accurate" to mean the closest to the original intention of the authors.

authors? as in plural? I thought the bible represented the word of God? You mean he used ghost writers? I always wondered where the Holy Ghost came from.

[matthew 7-3]

You do know that something underlined is a link, right?
Yep

[matthew 7-3]

Of the dozens of Bible translations, the one commissioned first, by a committee overseen by a biased King of England, is probably not the closest to the original (unless you mean the original English, and it isn't the original there either. See John Wycliff). Archaeology has uncovered lots of manuscripts in the last 400 years, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have much better understanding of the ancient Middle East, which gives a better understanding in general of what the language means. On top of that, there are larger committees working on the Bible now, which allows less room for error.

The most accurate version of the Bible isn't in English. But the most viable English version isn't the KJV.

And I use "accurate" to mean the closest to the original intention of the authors.

So what one do you think is closest to the original intention of the authors in English? Do we agree that most have the same message and intent?

[doctoratlantis]

just wondering.....

In the UK, we have the King James version (old and crusty), the Good News version (simplified), and the Giddeons (ie the new testement)...and given that Church of England doesn't espouse biblical literalism, the use of different versions is not a problem - but what is the bible of choice for Evangelicals? Would cutting out the old testement (ie Giddeon's) be acceptable?

...and on a more historical point, what are the documented differences between translations through the ages?

The Giddeon's in most hotel rooms in the US are the King James (full version). I know I enjoyed reading that to my girlfriend whenever we got us one of them fancy motel rooms for a little overnight bible study....

[firecoins]

The Giddeon's in most hotel rooms in the US are the King James (full version). I know I enjoyed reading that to my girlfriend whenever we got us one of them fancy motel rooms for a little overnight bible study....
I have had a few of these sessions with street walkers. Just getting God's word out on the street.

[m_huber]

So what one do you think is closest to the original intention of the authors in English? Do we agree that most have the same message and intent?

I'm not a Greek scholar, so I don't know which one represents the best overall interpretation. What I've read over the years seems to imply that different modern translations do better jobs on individual passages.

Of course, any translation that makes effort to represent the original text will be similar to other translations.

[Fnord]

What bible do evangelicals use?

All of them.

[This Guy]

I believe the main reasons the Giddeon's pass out the small New Testaments with Proverbs and the Psalms, is because it's both cheaper, and easier to make in a pocket fitting format. They give those to all sorts of groups (or at least used to). I remember, back in the 70's when I went to boot camp, getting one along with the various toiletries and what have you that we were given during our check in process.

I don't believe the small NT books are intended to replace the full bible. They simply give the Christian part (along with instructions for asking for forgiveness/being saved if I recall correctly) in a form that is easy to carry around, and doesn't cost a lot to distribute.

As for the OP, most Fundies use the KJV. At least those I have met do. Some groups prefer more modern versions, without the "Thee" and "Thou"s, just because they are easier for many modern readers to understand.

It's been argued that there is no important difference between the KJV and the more modern translations, in respect to the actual message of "Salvation". I don't know if that is true or not. I've read arguments for both sides of the question, but don't have any ready reference to give.

One big exception is the "New World Bible", written and used by the Jehovah's Witness'. They don't believe in the "Trinity" (Father/Son/Holy Ghost as three separate, yet together, being the one God). They changed several passages to remove the implication that there might be more to God than just God. There's an interesting read here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html) (though I can't speak for it's accuracy).

[TX50]

The Gideon people once came to our school and handed out little
"testaments" to us all. I eventually used mine on Army Cadet exercises;
the bible-paper was great for "toilet use", firelighting, gnumphing*and
[emergency] roll-up cigarettes.

* gnumphing. Rip a page from the "Word of God", chew it up into a pulp,
project it at a target by a variety of means. Hilarity ensues!