King James Only?

[Adam Linton]

[David Jack]

[sehoy]

[hammurabi2000]

[Shadowland Dweller]

[Robin]

[Shadowland Dweller]

[tangent]

[Shadowland Dweller]

thats cool tangent :)
I remember in kindergarten using the KJ, ( I don't mean that I don't like KJ) and not understanding what I was supposed to be memorizing. I don't know what translation I use right now, but I like to just read the New Living I think it is...our pastor also will re-read a passage from The Message sometimes, I like that too. Those are nice straight read through translations.

[tangent]

There's something about the New Living Bible. It doesn't have a simplified vocabulary or sentence structure but it is very readable. Somehow, the text goes in more easily.

[tampastranger]

[John Anthony]

For anyone here who wants to really dig into the subject of the many versions in English of the Bible, here are links to four sites with lots of info, and quite a bit of opinion also:

http://ebible.org/bible/biblefaq.htm#translation

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vers2.htm

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm

[Karen]

[Robin]

Tangent, I'm a fan of the Good News Bible myself, it was really popular in the 70's and made the Bible accessible and interesting to me. I was later surprised to find out that it is not a paraphrase and was highly regarded by Bible translators (it is a thought for thought translation). I read the KJV for many years and it just was not natural to me, too "churchy".

[tangent]

The Good News was often rubished as a paraphrase because it didn't have any long words, and yet it is a true translation and is highly regarded by translators themselves. To try to avoid this negative image it is now being marketed as the Good News Translation rather than the Good News Bible.