http://s3.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=29212&threadid=315863
Interesting reading, though it did quickly de-evolve into a typical Chuck hate fest. If you are ever interested in taking part in a Chuck hate fest, the Record Room message board is the place to do it.
The question that started the thread was this:
A version that is as close as can be to the original language and meaning, without necessarily being utterly archaic in its usage of words. I don't mind old verbiage, and I definitely love the poetic grace of some of that stuff, I just don't want to labor over every single sentence. Actually, maybe you could offer 2 suggestions, a "best modern version" and a "best original-type version".
My answer was: the King James. It has hundreds of years behind it. It's the most reviewed and examined English Bible you can find. If you are interested in other versions, then at least study the background and origin of them, including , as much as we can decipher, the intent of the people who put together the alternate version, and the end result of their work.
As the thread reveals, trying to recommend a variety of translations is a slippery slope. If you say the NIV is better than the KJV, are you saying people have been reading an inferior translation for hundreds of years? What happens when your favorite new version of the Bible is replaced by a newer, "better" one? Do you track down the people you shared a verse with and let them know what the verse really means?
The KJV is not hard to understand for anyone willing to 1) put in the time to study it, and, more importantly, 2) pray to God for understanding. Without #2, all the #1 in the world will do you no good.
