A Bible question!!!

[Dinner]

How about making a Bible printed on paper made out of edible bacon? That way you can say you're really consuming goods word.

[Kidlicious]

I prefer the NIV (haven't given the new one a chance yet.)

[Uncle Sparky]

Cloth, of the 3. Leather can be... well, crappy.

Especially on hot, humid days. Same with leather pants.

[The Mad Monk]

NIV, though I have a fondness for KJV; I received one for Christmas when I was about seven, it was the first Bible that was "mine".

[Imran Siddiqui]

The issue with the KJV is that it is pretty crap as a translation. Maybe not in 1611, but due to modern scholarship and research, it isn't that great. And a lot of KJV's tend to make each verse their own "paragraph" making it impossible to read it as it was intended to do so (one of my Bibles is "The Books of the Bible", a TNIV translation that eliminates chapter and verse divisions so that the books can be read as they were meant to, as historical narrative or poems or letters, etc rather than as a "constitution"). Though the language does sound nice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NSRV is quite popular with Catholics. I teach with one. Gets the job done.

For 99 percent of what I do the NIV is good enough. Used to own one, gave it away. It was a gift from a friend.

Since then I've not had a paper bound bible.

I believe my Kindle version is a Holman Christian Standard (it was free). I also like the New English Translation (or NET Bible, get it?) at net.bible.org which has the 60,000 translator notes with it.

Though I think both of those lack the Apocrypha (and personally, being a Protestant, I prefer my Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, because it makes it easier to discuss with others who are Protestant... I have nothing against those books myself... but in Bible studies, having, say 1 Maccabees after Ester makes it slightly more difficult to flip through quickly ).

[Ben Kenobi]

Though I think both of those lack the Apocrypha (and personally, being a Protestant, I prefer my Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments, because it makes it easier to discuss with others who are Protestant... I have nothing against those books myself... but in Bible studies, having, say 1 Maccabees after Ester makes it slightly more difficult to flip through quickly

Well, that division is very modern. King James makes no such distinction. Jerome was the first to put them in the order that they are now.

Do they have the Prayer of Manasses and 3+4 Ezra?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The King James did make the distinction, putting them in between the testaments, as Luther did (KJV actually, to be more exact, followed the set up of the Geneva Bible).

Neither the NIV, nor Holman Christian, or NET have Prayer of Manasses or 3rd and 4th Ezra.

[Ben Kenobi]

The King James did make the distinction, putting them in between the testaments,

Hmm, interesting.

I see I'm wrong about that.

Originally, yes, but they were removed later on.

Am I wrong to be amused by someone who claims King James Only but doesn't have all the books? That amuses me to no end.

Neither the NIV, nor Holman Christian, or NET have Prayer of Manasses or 3rd and 4th Ezra.

Really. Interesting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, for some reason they were removed later on. I think that people didn't realize that early Protestants may have seen the Apocyrpha as non-canonical, but useful for teaching. The pendulum of sola scriptura swung far that other way (canon or bust?).

King James Only people are strange folks. As if no historical manuscripts (like, I dunno, the Dead Sea Scrolls?!!) were found after 1611, or the English language stopped evolving after 1611. So feel free to be amused . However, I think the KJO folks would say that those books aren't canon so shouldn't be there.

And yes, Protestant Bibles don't have any of the books indicated as "Apocrypha". The NRSV doesn't advertise itself as Protestant translation, so it does include them, though intertestament (well, aside from the Catholic versions - one of which I have). This has led to Protestants being very wary of those books (I've been told, by Pentecostals, to "be careful" while reading them and that they may be "dangerous" - because after all they had to have been taken out for a reason).

[The Mad Monk]

There's no such thing as a "dangerous" text.

...unless the text starts to squirm or glow as you read it. That could cause issues further on.

[Elok]

The OSB is often regarded as something of a rush job, I admit...they compared the NKJV to the accepted church Greek texts and added on some notes. The OT took a lot longer since it's a translation of the Septuagint checked against the Masoretic, but Fr. Peter Gilquist said that it was created urgently to fill an urgent need for an OSB in English. I'm no biblical scholar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would also be my opinion (no "dangerous" texts), but some evangelical Christians are uber paranoid.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well some texts can be dangerous... like this one

During the Cultural Revolution, studying the book was not only required in schools but was also a standard practice in the workplace as well. All units, in the industrial, commercial, agricultural, civil service, and military sectors, organized group sessions for the entire workforce to study the book during working hours. Quotes from Mao were either bold-faced or highlighted in red, and almost all writing, including scientific essays, had to quote Mao.

[Ben Kenobi]

King James Only people are strange folks. As if no historical manuscripts (like, I dunno, the Dead Sea Scrolls?!!) were found after 1611, or the English language stopped evolving after 1611. So feel free to be amused . However, I think the KJO folks would say that those books aren't canon so shouldn't be there.

But they were in the original KJV! That's the whole point!