I use several, with perhaps NKJV a bit in the lead.<br><br>I usually take a NASB to Sunday morning service because it is small and there are books to take for Sunday School. For the service,<br><br>I will try to bookmark the readings in Olive Tree's Palm Bible Reader program where I have KJV, ASV, and with a new 16 Meg Palm NKJV and ESV.<br><br>I will also refer to a 1599 Geneva Bible (L.L. Brown's facsimile version).<br>
KJV for reading and basic studying<br>NKJV for reading to my 6 year old daughter<br>Jay Green's LITV or Young's YLT for studying<br><br>RSV, NIV, and Moffatt if I run out of logs for the fire.<br><br>Steve
I recently switched from the NKJV to the ESV. The ESV is in paragraph form which I like, and it is easier to understand--just compare reading Gal 3 and 4 -in fact all of Pauls epistles make much more sense when reading the ESV instead of NKJV or KJV.<br> I know this is begining to sound cliche--but it is true--the ESV also retains the literary eloquence of the KJV--<br>I still read my NKJV and KJV, the NASB seems to choppy and awkward for reading and I stay away from the NIV and other dynamic texts. The NIV may also be 'easier' to understand in some aspects, but it does not capture the poetry of Gods words in its translation.<br>
averagefellar<br><br>When you said "the Josepf Smith KJV", are you knocking the KJV by associating it with the heretic Joseph Smith?<br>I certainly hope not. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nono.gif" alt="nono" title="nono[/img]
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When you said "the Joseph Smith KJV", are you knocking the KJV by associating it with the heretic Joseph Smith? I certainly hope not.</font><hr></blockquote><p> I believe he meant that Joseph Smith used the KJV to make his [color:red]own version</font color=red>, thus the JSKJV for short. He was comparing it to the JW's NWT (New World Translation), who basically did the same thing. Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the LDS, made drastic changes in at least 3,410 verses of the KJV which consisted of additions, deletions, rearrangements, and other alterations that caused it to vary not only from the KJV, but from other biblical texts. Changes range from minor details to fully reconstituted chapters. <br><br>
Hardly. Please read more of my posts to gain a better understanding of my beliefs. After doing this, you should realise I am quite reformed and strongly oppose the errors of my forefathers in aiding Joseph Smith in establishing the mormon heresy. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img] I was simply putting the JSKJV and the NWT in a category of the worst. My opologies for not being clearer, friend. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
I am very curious why you would ask that question? I have always and only used the KJV. I don't use this Bible based on what nationality I am. Was this just curiosity on your part, or is there some hidden meaning?<br><br>Maybe we are both just curious.
J_Edwards said: .<br><br>The Never Intended Version (NIV) is not IMHO the best of versions, but I would rank it somewhat in another category—a commentary, and not a very good one at that.<br>