Which Bible version do you memorize?

Started by Inspirationmemory
F3b517295c242d82dc693398391eecf7?s=128&d=mm

Inspirationmemory

I am memorizing AKJV because that is what I am familiar with and have memorized a lot in it already. But I am memorizing a few verses from other versions because I like them better. The King James is very old fashioned and full of -eth and thous, and which and that for who and other old words which don't speak to the heart so well as something in our language today.

42cd972e83f8ca97da207e3443c5f35f?s=128&d=mm

Piece of Peace

I don't think war is the correct word in this context. I think dramatic discussion about the pros and cons of each translation would be better.

Ff9df071020a63f46c5735796fe06fdb?s=128&d=mm

Noah Hirsch

I am not one who believes that only one Bible version may be used. I do believe, however that we should stick to versions that try to be more word-for-word and use a literal translation philosophy. Whether you prefer the ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, or some other more literal leaning version is another issue from what translation philosophy your version uses. I personally use the New American Standard Bible, but other versions are good too. I respect people who believe that the text underlining the King James is superior to other manuscripts used by the ESV or NASB, but I disagree with them. There are some verses that prefer in the ESV or sometimes even the KJV or NKJV, but primarily I use the NASB. I used to use the ESV, but since then have switched to the NASB. I do think it is important we avoid using versions like the NLT, the Message, or NIV as actual translations. I know no version can be 100% literal and there is a balance between literalness and readability, but examining versions like the NIV, NLT, and GNT I cannot in good conscience acknowledge them as translations in the same way as ESV or KJV. It is not just that they interpret a lot; it is that their interpretations or re-wordings I have observed often take away from the full meaning of the text.

Trans