Featured Which Bible Translation Should I use?

Didn't he state tht they were not interested in having the "kings english", nor be really into biblical sentence structuring, but how most people speak and view modern English?

That many people do not know when bible states "becomes sons of God" refers to BOTH male/female?

 

The only way I know to answer the original question of the op is to say that one should use the version they feel lead to by the Lord, the version that makes the Word of God clearer to them with the help of the Holy Spirit.

The one exception is the versions that take way too much liberty with the translations, such as the one mentioned earlier that uses phrases like "father of the night" in the first chapter of Genesis. These types of writings cease to be versions and become paraphrases.

Personally, I feel most comfortable with the NKJV to follow Scripture in church and the NIV for study. I have no problem with those who choose to use KJV, as that is their choice. None of us has any right to impose our views on another reader of the Word. The way I look at it is that we are all blessed to have available a vast array of Bibles, and commentaries to aid in study. In some places, and at some points in history, the only Scripture someone had is verses that were memorized and passed down from generation to generation. If one looks at the Bible as a gift of God, the debate over "which version" becomes sort of ridiculous.

 

i have responded, but why are you still not seeing that there was a "bias" in at least the Tniv 2005 revision to get "male bias" out of the texts, in orderto make current culture 'feel better , and part of the biblical message/"

 

Already have, just mnot with answers that you think are the right ones!

 

Would you please explain how posts 75 and 76 are "counters to Yeshua's slander?" His posts seem quite straightforward and factual.

Why do you refer to Yeshua, a name that should be respected, as the Y-man? It is very disrespectful and deters from staying on the subject of the thread. Another evidence of a lack of respect on your part is the wording in Post 81.

 

You mean this?
"You've made up your mind, facts and information aren't going to matter. You're wrong on this whole agenda issue. Moo is as credible as it gets, worked on ESV and NIV yet you refuse to believe what he says. "

I never said did not believe him, just that the Niv was revised to speak to a "dumbed down" modern English users/speakers, as the 1984 NIV should still be perfectly acceptable!

Jesus called us the sons of God, do you really think that he did not include daughters also?

Blessed is the man, do we really need to have it made known that God meant also Blessed is the woman whose God is the Lord?

 

Still waiting for your answer to Post 90.

 

main fault lies with the team that redid the 1984 in the 2005 Tniv, they DID have that agenda to make sure the "Gender issue" was taken care of!

just saying that for every scholar you quote, others would refure that the 2005/2011 are "most excellent" translations!

 

Why is correct the myth of Bible gender bias being negative?