love it! thanks for your perspective for a younger person like me. after doing some research on NKJV and NASB, your descriptions fit most.

@@TheLychie may God bless your life and your ministry as you go forth to serve Him.

Amen! I became a Christian a few years ago at age 28 and reading the KJV was instrumental in my faith being built up. I personally do not think I would have sensed the presence of God through His word if I hadn't been reading the KJV. Not KJV onlyist but its the version i read the most. It gives me comfort, I feel closer to God whilst reading it and its wonderful for memorization. I get sneered at a LOT for reading an "outdated" version and have had some pressure to read The Message which I simply cannot engage with. I just ignore them, but I dont understand why there's so much hate and venom based off what version someone reads. You'd think people would be just glad the bible gets read!

Chad Tan overrated poop

I find the ESV and NIV to be much easier to read than the 17th century KJV

The same happened to me! I love the ESV now, used to be KJV only hard head.

If you don't like the archaic English of the KJV then try the KJV ER (easy read). It updates the archaic English without changing any scripture.

how very sad. Even if you were to switch to one of the newer translations --those based on manuscripts without multiple witnesses (a Torah requirement reiterated by Jesus)-- you'd be much much better off with the NASB than the ESV. If you were to spend serious time and patiently go verse-by-verse for a couple chapters (anywhere in the NT) comparing the KJV, NASB and ESV, you'd see that the ESV is woefully inadequate and compromising. Look at word order. Verb form rendering. (Look at KJV vs ESV's handling of the aorist indicative for example). Singular vs plural & implicit vs explicit pronouns. Then also notice the KJV & NASB _italicize_ translator-supplied words (as do other scholarly works); the ESV does not. Beside all this, many of the receiving-language words the ESV employs are just NOT right. The ESV, for example uses, "predict" where the NASB, KJV and NET bible use "prophesy." Vegas bookies make predictions, so do weathermen; Jesus prophesies. If you're interested, do the research yourself. But go primary source. Studying is not taking a lexicon derived from crossway's own translation to check against their translation. The quality of the ESV is really quite overblown. No really, it is.

Jfiniti Is it better than the '70's Paraphrased "The Way" Bible? lol just kidding.

No shot. It may be okay, but the 95’ is superior in every way.

im waiting for the legacy too! so excited for that. I was planning to buy the expensive MacArthur study bible but might hold off for the legacy standard.

Edward Russell what do u just freely make things up and/or not fact-check yourself before speaking: Here is 1 THESS 4:4 NASB "that each of you know how to fnpossess his own vessel in sanctification and honor" The Holman CSB renders it, "that each of you knows how to control his own body in holiness and honor," With a footnote after body which reads, "Lit. to possess his own vessel" The ASV renders it, "that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor," The Young's literal translation, "that each of you know his own vessel to possess in sanctification and honour" The word is σκεῦος It appears in MAT 12:29 & MRK 3:27 (Jesus' parable about a strong man's goods) MRK 11:16 (Jesus forbids any man from carrying any _vessel_ through the temple) LUK 8:16 (no man lights a candle and covers it with a container/jar/vessel) JHN 19:29 ("now there was a vessel full of vinegar.." ie crucifixion scene) ROM 9:21 ("does the potter not have power over the clay to make one vessel/pot for honored use...") And many other places. - Please, we're dealing with the word of the living God here: don't just make stuff up. The literal meaning of the word in 1 THESS 4:4 is vessel as the KJV & NASB render it. The ESV, as the commenter above rightly pointed out, is here as in many places overly-involved in interpretative decisions rather than literal translation. Heck, even their own study bible footnote at 4:4 says "GREEK LITERALLY: "vessel." But that fine-print footnote is not included in all the ESV releases and not something everyone will see even in those which do include it. The fact is THE ESV TEAM OPTED (unlike the NASB, ASV, KJB and others) to tuck the literal word "vessel" away in fine print, and printed the same word the NIV went with "body" in the main text. "Well but.." Well but nothing. The ESV does this sort of nonsense constantly. Constantly: it's seriously ridiculous. This isn't opinion, it's verifiable fact. "He that has ears to hear, let him hear."

I agree. I really want to know the original wording, even if it means having to really study the translation I’m reading to understand it. That’s why I prefer the NAS77 and RV1885.

The additional 15 books, included in some bibles are called the Apocrypha. By Jewish and Christian tradition, they are not the inspired Words of God, and thus are not equated with Scripture. The exception being the Catholic Bible; Catholicism includes the words of the apocryphal writings in there Bible translations and doctrine.

@@thebombdigitydotcom173 66 books in the Protestant Bible. 66 chapters in Isaiah.

Yes you are correct kind Sir. However, there is another KJV ("Original") in 1611 AD; before the KJV "Authorized" in 1855 AD. And now the NKJV ("New") in 1982 AD. All three are different. Original has 80 books, Authorized has 66 books and the New has 66; but it has ALL Elizabethan words changed to what they should've been. IE: belief vs believeth; you vs thine and thou; among vs amongst, Etc. And many other wrong translations. Which is typical of all bibles. This due, to any English bible, was translated 4 times afore. Hebrew to Greek to Latin, Manuscripts (because all Scrolls are gone; and no one knows where they went.). And then into English. May Jesus bless you and yours always...

NOOO. read the Bible📖😉