I'm not sure where this should go, so I figured I'ld start it here.

When I was first baptized, the ICOC strictly used the NIV.  At the time, It was the easiest to understand, while still having a good degree of accuracy. Since then, several new translations have come out, that seem to fit even better into the role of being easy to read, and are even more accurate then the NIV.  While I still use the NIV since it is standard in our fellowship of churches, I have stopped taking it with me to a lot of things, as I am becoming more conviced that there are better translations to use, such as my favorite so far, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (I really want to check out the New English Translation, but have yet to find one.)

So, here is my question, open for debate. Is it time that as a fellowship of churches, we might want to start considering other translations than the NIV as our standard for use?

In Russia, when I was baptised, the most commonly used translation was the so called 'brick' - a very thick red Bible, modern translation (most orthodox churches in our country use the synodical one). but I don't like it since it's translated not from Greek but from English so we get a translation of a translation which can't be good from linguistic point of view.

Through the years Moscow church started using other versions as well. Actually, in Russia we've got only three translations of the Bible: the synodical, the modern and the so called 'Good News'. So we don't have much to choose from))))

Hi there.

I'm on my 8th version.

The NIV is technically accurate but, out of all I have read so far, I really like the New King James best. The New American Standard is pretty good as long as you have footnotes. It really comes down to "Do I want a word for word? or Meaning for Meaning?"

I'm not a fan of the Living Translation, Good News version or the Message, which are paraphases. They are alright if you have already read a solid translation.

I belive every actual Bible is accuarate for what we need to know to have a realtionship with GOD and be saved as well as basic history and how to live as a disciple of Jesus.

For example: The NIV translates the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5) as "peace" which is technically true in American venacular. However, the more accurate term "longsuffering" is used in the NKJV and NASB. They both are correct but, I believe 'Longsuffering" shows a bit deeper what Paul was saying to the Galation Church. I would encourage you to read several versions and some commentaries that go with them. The rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper. Great fun.

Enjoy the ride.

A rather amazing story happened to me a few days ago because of the difference in trasnlations. I was challenged in being selfish - the sin I don't remember mentioned in the Bible))) It took quite a time for my discipler to explain to me what it is and even after that I didn't completely understand in what situations I sin. When I came back home and had a chance to study this topic I realized that since I've always been using the synodical translation of the Bible, there's no such word as 'selfish' rather 'pugnacity' which more corresponds to English 'strife' in KJV. The fun is that I haven't even realised that such sin exists!)) because I'm used to reading only one translation.

You should look for a translation that best honors God's name (Matthew 6:9), most bibles replace YHWH with LORD. This is not an acceptable "translation" as they mean different things with God's name meaning "he causes to become" and Lord meaning leader.  The preface of most bibles will explain this.   We can't really imitate Jesus or get baptized properly if we do not appreciate the need for God's name to be declared and known, John 17:26 and John 12:27-28. If God declares he will glorify his name, wouldn't we want to take a part of it? Remember Revelation 19:1-6 states Hallelujah several times, we should fallow that pattern: Praise Jah by getting a bible that utilizes all available tools to truly honor God's name by putting it back where it belongs.

Young's literal isn't bad and it contains God's name in the old testament to find a bible that uses God's name in both the old and new testament is somewhat rare,  but they should use it in the new testament  wherever the old testament is being quoted since Jesus wouldn't follow the pattern of the pharisees of not declaring God's name or reading it aloud.

Young's literal:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2012:27-28;&version=15;

One more thing, the Word of GOD is perfect but, there is no exactly perfect translation in any language except the original. However, GOD gives us what we need. Read/study several versions and compare them to the original  Septuagint (Hebrew Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament). Keep in mind that the differences are generally very minimal (not salvation issues) and every translation lays out the plan of salvation correctly.

Haley I disagree with you. Most people miss the main purpose of Jesus' coming to earth because God's name has been remomved and minimized in scripture. Look at all of Jesus' prayers and even when he taught us to pray, the main thing was the sanctificcation of his father's name. Now, people don't see this as critical, but consider this: Paul quotes Joel 2:32 and Romans 10:13, notice what he says: All who Call on the name of Jehovah/YHWH will be saved......this is very different than: All who call on the name of the Lord Shall be Saved. So this is a "salvation" issue, if we need to know it/appreciate it to be saved.

My favorite is the Greek Interlinear Bible. It's online at scripture4all.org.

I don't know what goes into the whole movement changing the standard Bible translation, but I don't think it's completely necessary as they, at least where I am, encourage us to check out other (accurate) versions and overall study our Bible a lot. If it happens or not, I'm ok with it. I don't stick only to the NIV.

YBIC,

Ed M.