Page 1 of 1 (11 items)
This post has 10 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 2
Joyce Johnson | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Mar 24 2011 8:09 PM

I use the 1611 KJV which one in our library do you suggest I try.

Posts 16
Bill Armstrong | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 24 2011 8:15 PM

I would recommend the Authorized Version or the KJV 1900.

Posts 1355
Edwin Bowden | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 24 2011 8:33 PM

Joyce Johnson:

I use the 1611 KJV which one in our library do you suggest I try.

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/5359/42181.aspx#42181

Posts 3578
steve clark | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 24 2011 8:38 PM

Hi Joyce, welcome to the Forums!

There are 3 different versions of the KJV in my library.

Two of them support a Reverse Interlinear (they can also display original language under the english).

Authorized Version (KJV originally published in 1873, this has the Reverse Interlinear)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KJV (originally published in 1900, this has the Reverse Interlinear)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KJV (originally published in 1769, no Reverse Interlinear)

 

 

QLinks, Bibl2, LLR, Macros
Dell Insp 17-5748, i5, 1.7 GHz, 8G RAM, win 8.1

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 24 2011 10:11 PM

Joyce Johnson:

I use the 1611 KJV which one in our library do you suggest I try.

Are you saying that you only want a recommendation for a version of the AV?  If you mean that you want a recommendation for a bible regardless of version, I would suggest the NRSV.  People don't speak Elizabethan English today, nor do they for the most part completely understand it.  Something more modern is more easily understood today.  I grew up with the AV and appreciate its cadences, but, in addition to the antiquated language, it isn't based on the best manuscripts and the translators were children of their time with the knowledge of the original languages and of Near Eastern customs of the time so that a newer version is pretty much requisite.  I am not completely happy with the NRSV, but I suppose that if I were to publish a translation of my own there would be those who wouldn't be happy with it either.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 3163
Dominick Sela | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 4:05 AM

I am not a theologian nor am I a professor, but I am in ministry, and I like the ESV a lot.  It seems to be a good translation both accuracy-wise and readability, and it carries the full power of Logos in underlying original language access through interlinears and other in-line display options (lemma, morphology, Strong's Louw-Nida, which some Bibles do not).  Because of the underlying support, you can do some better things with Visual Filters to highlight grammar and usage automatically.  Again, any Bible with underlying Original Language support in Logos has this, but coupled with a translation I enjoy it makes for a well-used package on my computer.

I also like the companion Study Notes, which is a quick way to get some help if I don't want to start searching through Commentaries. I have th Bible and th Study Notes up at the same time, linked so they move together.  You can read more about the set, which you can purchase together, by clicking this.

You may want to Google some Bibles and read samples of their text. I think a lot of it comes down to how readable you think a Bible is. If you hate the translation and won't read it, that defeats the purpose.

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 5:57 AM

Joyce Johnson:
I use the 1611 KJV which one in our library do you suggest I try.

Hi Joyce

Depends what you want it for, if you want a good version that allows you to see how we have arrived at the current KJV then I would suggest the Cambridge Paragraph Version of the King James as it has a lot of useful notes and comments in that arena. If you want it without the extras for reading then the 1900 is good. If you want this version because you prefer the Majority/Received Text then you might want to look a the New King James as this retains much of what KJV readers like whilst replacing some of the antiquated vocabulary. In the days when I used a KJV I favoured the Schofield (not in Logos) as this updated some words within the text for a better modern understanding but it was not a proper update like the NKJV.

One of the great things about Logos is that you can create your own parallel Bibles so it is a great tool for comparing Bibles, these days I use a NASB and have done for some time. I did consider switching to the ESV or HCSB and these are newer translations that follow similar principles to the NASB and which some would say are more readable. What I found through comparing the three in parallel was that there were very few differences so I stuck with my 'wooden' but very familiar NASB. Logos helped me make that choice. It might be worth lining up a few other translations with the KJV to see if something else works for you.

The coolest thing about Logos is that no matter what version you choose as your main reference it delivers the tools that will help you get more out of God's word.

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 7:19 AM

Joyce Johnson:

I use the 1611 KJV which one in our library do you suggest I try.

Hi Joyce,

I'd double-check the copyrights in the front of your Bible to see if you are actually using the "1611" edition...because 99.99% of people that use the KJV are actually using one of the three editions mentioned by Steve above.  The actual 1611 uses ancient/archaic "olde English" spellings and things like the "long s" that aren't recognizable to almost anybody today. Smile  Check what the latest copyright date is in the Bible you use and that will tell you which edition of the KJV you are using.

Posts 2358
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 6:08 PM

George Somsel:
If you mean that you want a recommendation for a bible regardless of version, I would suggest the NRSV. 

 

I also like and use the NRSV.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 8:41 PM

Appears 3 Authorized Versions have the original 1611 ambiguous pronoun added to verse 1 Kings 13:27

By the way, for verse 1 Kings 13:27 my printed 1611 Bible has:

"And he spake to his sonnes, saying, Saddle me the asse : and they sadled him."

Learned about verse 1 Kings 13:27 from http://www.logos.com/product/2816/the-bible-in-translation-ancient-and-english-versions

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 25 2011 9:02 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

Appears 3 Authorized Versions have the original 1611 ambiguous pronoun added to verse 1 Kings 13:27

By the way, for verse 1 Kings 13:27 my printed 1611 Bible has:

"And he spake to his sonnes, saying, Saddle me the asse : and they sadled him."

Learned about verse 1 Kings 13:27 from http://www.logos.com/product/2816/the-bible-in-translation-ancient-and-english-versions

Keep Smiling Smile

I'm glad I wasn't their father -- I wouldn't want a saddle put on me.  Cool

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS