# What is the worst bible you own?



## Eoghan (Oct 26, 2012)

I own a Living Bible - but I use it as a commentary (one I don't really use often) and do not deign to call it a translation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 26, 2012)

The worst Bible I own and the worst Bible ever made is the Message Bible. All you have to do is read John 3:16 to realize this fact. 

"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."

None of that eternal life stuff that God promises, just a "whole and lasting life" kind of like what you get if you eat fiber.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2012)

It's a tie betwixt the NIV & the RSV. Whether its a denial of the virgin birth in the RSV or Satan being a more effective savior in the NIV, both are awful. I picked them up for a class I was teaching on logic. Lot's of great examples of bad logic in these two. By the time class was over we had proven that squares are circles. We were dealing with the consequences of one inconsistency in your worldview foundation.

So while the worst, they did end up being the most fun.


----------



## christiana (Oct 26, 2012)

I have a Good News for Modern Man that my mother's group used as their syllabus on a trip to the Holy Land. I treasure it as her notes next to photos tell where she was on a given day and when they took the Lord's Supper next to the sea of Galilee. She had a wonderful time and since I've never gone there I go through her notes.


----------



## Wynteriii (Oct 26, 2012)

Cotton Patch Gospel

That's all I need to say


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 26, 2012)

I own a very dusty Scofield. I bought it about seven years ago only because I thought it looked cool. (Psst! That's a bad reason to buy a bible.)


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 26, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> I own a Living Bible - but I use it as a commentary (one I don't really use often) and do not deign to call it a translation.



I have often thought that bibles like the Living Bible, The Message, and other paraphrases should be treated as commentaries. I think it is awful that paraphrases are passed off to God's church as God's word. It says much about what a bible publisher actually thinks about God's bible.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 26, 2012)

I have owned a copy of the Living Bible in the past, as well as a Good News version. Currently my worst is an NIV Student study Bible.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 26, 2012)

The worst Bibles are the cult bibles. I have the Jehovah's Witness and Mormon bibles.

If you're talking about non-cult Bibles, I agree the Message is one of the very worst listed here. 

If anyone has them, maybe Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer's Bibles are worse. Yikes! And then probably The New Spirit-Filled Bible by Jack Hayford (Foursquare Pentecostal).

My main Bible is NIV 1984. Please explain about the "Satan being a more effective savior" part. What's that? If too-off topic, please start another thread. 



JohnGill said:


> It's a tie betwixt the NIV & the RSV. Whether its a denial of the virgin birth in the RSV or Satan being a more effective savior in the NIV, both are awful. I picked them up for a class I was teaching on logic. Lot's of great examples of bad logic in these two. By the time class was over we had proven that squares are circles. We were dealing with the consequences of one inconsistency in your worldview foundation.
> 
> So while the worst, they did end up being the most fun.


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 26, 2012)

I like the niv. 
The worse bible I own is the NLT student study bible


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Joseph G. 
Québec, QC


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 26, 2012)

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> The worst Bibles are the cult bibles. I have the Jehovah's Witness and Mormon bibles.



I also own a New World Translation (NWT) and a Book of Mormon. Actually, I own two copies of the NWT. I bought them both in order to prove that the Jehovah's Witnesses changed the wording to fit their doctrines. One of them was in Hebrews 1. The older bible would have all angels worshipping Jesus. The newer one would just have them doing obeisance to Jesus. I told a JW about how their bible commands the worship of Jesus in an effort to prove his divinity. He said, "So what..." I could tell he was really mad at me and that he thought I didn't know how to read my bible. I then decided not to press him about the first commandment (i.e. Christianity 101): Thou shalt have no other gods before me... though shalt not bow down thyself to them... That would've been one pearl too many.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 26, 2012)

How funny, Jon. I also have 2 copies of the NWT and use both this and the Book of Mormon to prove they don't agree with the Bible and that they are false. Nice that you got two copies with differences! I haven't checked if my newer one changed stuff from the older one, but I wouldn't be surprised. Your experience with the JW was interesting to read. Thanks for sharing. I haven't had a chance to use mine yet.  

The bible I really want is the Adventist cult bible - the Clear Word Bible because I heard they really changed a lot from our Bible to destroy the atonement of Christ and the Adventist church has a huge presence in this town. Everyone here thinks they are "just Christians" but don't realize they are one of the more far-fetched cults and the sneakiest at hiding it (in my opinion).


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 26, 2012)

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> The worst Bibles are the cult bibles. I have the Jehovah's Witness and Mormon bibles.
> 
> If you're talking about non-cult Bibles, I agree the Message is one of the very worst listed here.
> 
> ...



Answered in a PM.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 26, 2012)

We are a blessed people if the worst we have is the NIV.


----------



## jawyman (Oct 26, 2012)

I own an original TNIV. I received while I was still working for Zondervan. I also have the 2012 NIV, which is nothing more than the TNIV.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 26, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> I own a very dusty Scofield. I bought it about seven years ago only because I thought it looked cool. (Psst! That's a bad reason to buy a bible.)



I've had my "New" Scofield since 1986 when, in the book of Romans, I had the eyes of my understanding enlightened. I don't read the commentary but it is one of the only Bibles I've underlined and made margin notes in so I value it for that. Mostly mark up a wide margin NASB nowadays. I hate marking up Bibles in general though so those are reserved for that. I love the AV, the NKJV, and like the ESV and the NASB. Of late I've been reading an NLT (New Living Translation). Going through Proverbs and I think they did a good job. Especially for young people who don't have the inclination to read more advanced texts.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 26, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> Jackie Kaulitz said:
> 
> 
> > The worst Bibles are the cult bibles. I have the Jehovah's Witness and Mormon bibles.
> ...



If you're willing to make that kind of a statement in the thread, you need to be willing to own it at reply to it in the thread. Just saying...


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2012)

If we leave off the self-avowed paraphrases (LB, Cottonpatch, The Message), and restrict our discussion to purported translations (rather than specialty "study" Bibles like a Scofield or Osteen), then I cheerfully nominate a tie between . . . 

* THE VOICE (2012) - presented in the form of a screenplay
* COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE (2011) - an "ecumenical" scholarly mishmash (e.g., Son of Man = Human One)

As Mr. Rogers might say, "Can we say trendy? I knew you could."

Jerusalem Blade is right, however. The worst of the bunch is better than nuttin'


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 27, 2012)

Jeff Burns said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Jackie Kaulitz said:
> ...



The thread is about what we consider to be the worst Bible. Many people are aware of the faulty translation of the NIV in 1 Cor 5:5 and its logical implications. It is not necessary to go into in this thread which is about worst Bible versions. If you wish to delve deeper into the theological heresies in the NIV then we can start a new thread to that effect.

Also forgot about my old Scofield. But it's only bad because of the notes. Bring to mind two more bad study bibles: The Apologetics Bible & The Life Application Bible.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 27, 2012)

jawyman said:


> I own an original TNIV. I received while I was still working for Zondervan. I also have the 2012 NIV, which is nothing more than the TNIV.



I have never heard this before. Could you tell us more about this and why you think this?


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 27, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > I own an original TNIV. I received while I was still working for Zondervan. I also have the 2012 NIV, which is nothing more than the TNIV.
> ...



Some info on the two:

What’s Wrong with the 2011 New International Version? | jaredwellman.com

Trinitarian Bible Society - TNIV


----------



## jambo (Oct 27, 2012)

I used to think it was the New English Bible and was always struck by Martyn Lloyd-Jones saying "The New English Bible-I am now convinced that is a very appropriate name." The Douay Version is however much worse, Gen 3.15 being a prime example of not so much about how bad it is but how corrupt it is. I use it just as a point of reference.

Actually now that I think of it the New World Translation is the very worst on my shelves as it is not only bad and corrupt but has surgically removed the deity of Christ and has been used to poison the minds and to enslave the followers of the Watchtower.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 27, 2012)

How did Cotton Patch make it all the way out to California? A friend of mine made it over to Clarence Jordon's (pronounced Jaerden's) place where communion was observed with cookies! 

(I should add, that the ministry had a serious and influential side. It challenged local prejudices in a time when it could be deadly to do so, and was the foundation for Habitat for Humanity. A Jordon served in the Carter Administration.)


----------



## jawyman (Oct 27, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > jawyman said:
> ...



Here is another great site that does a side-by-side comparison with change percentages:

The New NIV 2011 Translation Comparison | More Than Cake


----------



## jawyman (Oct 27, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > jawyman said:
> ...



Here is another great site that does a side-by-side comparison with change percentages:

The New NIV 2011 Translation Comparison | More Than Cake


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 27, 2012)

jawyman said:


> Here is another great site that does a side-by-side comparison with change percentages:
> 
> The New NIV 2011 Translation Comparison | More Than Cake



I love the "in a death like his" from the article. The logical implications of such a statement leads to all sorts of theological absurdities. I may have to buy a copy of this one. It looks like a fun read. This will help in my "modern theology" project.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 27, 2012)

The worst Bible my family owns is the Message by far. I will not give in to getting these new contemporary translations like Voice, TNIV that skew the language to make it more palatable for a society who thinks that we can profit nothing anyway from a 'primitive' book.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 27, 2012)

I was trying to delete the double post of mine, but it deleted both! So here are my original words:

I trust you all know my position with regard to the Bible, but I must say that even a poor Bible is _far better than none._


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 27, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I was trying to delete the double post of mine, but it deleted both! So here are my original words:
> 
> I trust you all know my position with regard to the Bible, but I must say that even a poor Bible is _far better than none._



Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky. I think that probably would bear saying even a few more times .


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 27, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I trust you all know my position with regard to the Bible, but I must say that even a poor Bible is far better than none.



Very true. 

I don't even like the phraseology of the OP: What is the _worst_ Bible you own? 

My least accurate Bible is The Message.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 27, 2012)

I applaud with those who say the Voice, TNIV, and 2012 NIV are bad. Actually, all the 2011 NIV's are also bad for the same reason as the 2012 NIVs. They mixed the TNIV's teachings into the 2011 version too. 

I've been recommending my new Christian friends to go online and buy the 1984 NIV version for readability instead of the 2011 & 2012 NIVs.


----------



## Edward (Oct 27, 2012)

jawyman said:


> I own an original TNIV.



You probably ought to burn that one, or if you are environmentally sensitive, run it through a chipper and use it for mulch. 

And to respond to the original question, for me it's a "Good News Bible" paraphrase that I was given while in college. For my wife, it's a large KJV she was given at a Dispensational church as a young Christian. 



And now I've gotten our KJV fans stirred up, let me add that it is lavishly illustrated with second commandment violations.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 27, 2012)

Edward said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> > I own an original TNIV.
> ...



As an AV fan I thought you were going to say it was either a Scofield edition or a Mormon KJV edition.

Nobody has mentioned the Berkeley Bible yet. There's a verse in it in which Paul cusses.


----------



## Pantocrator (Oct 27, 2012)

The worst bible I own would definitely be the Orthodox Study Bible. The chapter numbering of the psalms is off by one, the books of the Old Testament are all out of order, the text is the clunky New King James version (with the Old Testament modified to reflect the Septuagint), the paper quality is poor, and the footnotes simply re-state what the text already says (except in a few cases, where they contradict the text itself). Plus the footnotes and articles were clearly written by somebody who takes issues with Calvinism. 
Worst. Bible. Ever.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 27, 2012)

The worst Bible that I own is the RSV _New Oxford Annotated Bible_ that I had to get for a college class many moons ago. The well known problems with the RSV aside, it's the worst due to the higher critical and unbelieving book introductions and annotations. I have all 3 iterations of the Scofield and they are veritable pillars of orthodoxy compared to the NOAB. in my opinion they are also better than the NRSV I have, if for no other reason than the translation. 

I also have the _People's Study Bible_ in the Living Bible paraphrase that was given to me years before I had any understanding of the Christian faith. Years later it was actually quite helpful to me very early on in my Christian life as the book introductions (especially) and the study notes effectively rebutted the RSV NOAB. Harold Lindsell, author of _The Battle for the Bible_ was the General Editor. As I recall it's more or less dispensational but also has some M. Henry quotes sprinkled here and there. I think I knew from the beginning or shortly thereafter that the Living Bible wasn't a "real" translation and that it was perhaps only helpful in trying to get a grip on passages that I found difficult in other versions. I used it until "graduating" to the NIV Study Bible and the MacArthur a few months later.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2012)

Some of the reasons why I put the Common English Bible in my least fav category . . . 

Genesis 1:1 - When God began to create the heavens and the earth—the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters

1 Kings 19:12 - After the fire, there was a sound. Thin. Quiet.

Isaiah 7:14 - 14 Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign. The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel. 

Matthew 9:6 - But so you will know that the Human One has authority on the earth to forgive sins”—he said to the man who was paralyzed—“Get up, take your cot, and go home.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15 11 A wife[a] should learn quietly with complete submission. 12 I don’t allow a wife* to teach or to control her husband.[c] Instead, she should be a quiet listener. 13 Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but rather his wife[d] became the one who stepped over the line because she was completely deceived. 15 But a wife[e]will be brought safely through giving birth to their children,[f] if they both continue in faith, love, and holiness, together with self-control.

As for “The Voice,” what can I say about a Bible that does not contain the words “Christ,” “angels,” or “apostle”???*


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Oct 28, 2012)

I have a hard time thinking of "worst" as a modifier for any Bible.

Thinking of the least accurate translation or worst study notes works better for me.

I have the NKJV Chronological Study Bible and have read the text and all of the study notes. I would never recommend this study Bible to a believer not already grounded in the word. I came away believing that many of the higher criticism notes were written by unbelievers. Throughout the Bible, the study notes cast doubt on God's word. I was dismayed at the beginning, but after pushing through it, I realized the notes helped me confront some of the very issues that non-believers will raise when we engage them in conversation. The study notes are the problem in this Bible, not the translation.

I also had a copy of the Living Bible in a parallel Bible, but I gave that away.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 28, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> I have often thought that bibles like the Living Bible, The Message, and other paraphrases should be treated as commentaries. I think it is awful that paraphrases are passed off to God's church as God's word. It says much about what a bible publisher actually thinks about God's bible.


great idea. If they were actually *called* commentaries, or at least, paraphrases, everyone would know what they were getting


----------



## JennyG (Oct 28, 2012)

There used to be an old RC Bible in this house. Any passages inimical to RC dogma had footnotes, some in the form of bare unadorned assertions, instructing the faithful that actually those passages didn't mean what they said. 
I don't know what edition it was, but it was quite ancient.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 28, 2012)

JennyG said:


> There used to be an old RC Bible in this house. Any passages inimical to RC dogma had footnotes, some in the form of bare unadorned assertions, instructing the faithful that actually those passages didn't mean what they said.
> I don't know what edition it was, but it was quite ancient.



It might have been a Douay Rheims or a Jerusalem Bible. Depends on how ancient it was.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 28, 2012)

I have A New English Translation of the Septuagint published by Oxford University Press on my shelf. It is the least precise translation of the Septuagint that I own. They try to make the Septuagint conform to the New Revised Standard Version.


----------



## Eoghan (Oct 28, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> The worst Bible I own and the worst Bible ever made is the Message Bible. All you have to do is read John 3:16 to realize this fact.
> 
> "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."
> 
> None of that eternal life stuff that God promises, just a "whole and lasting life" kind of like what you get if you eat fiber.



Shame on you - or was it just curiosity that made you buy it? If you were gifted it then that is an honest excuse...

ROFL


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 28, 2012)

I have the Atheist Bible, but I only use it to refute against what it has to say with what the Bible states.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 28, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > The worst Bible I own and the worst Bible ever made is the Message Bible. All you have to do is read John 3:16 to realize this fact.
> ...



Actually it is a parallel Bible that has the KJV on one side and the Message on the other. When I saw it, I couldn't resist buying it just to see how radically different they were.


----------



## Eoghan (Oct 28, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...





[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 10:13
[/BIBLE] Let's face it you caved in


----------



## yeutter (Oct 29, 2012)

*Septuagint in the Orthodox Study Bible*



Pantocrator said:


> The worst bible I own would definitely be the Orthodox Study Bible. The chapter numbering of the psalms is off by one, the books of the Old Testament are all out of order, the text is the clunky New King James version (with the Old Testament modified to reflect the Septuagint), the paper quality is poor, and the footnotes simply re-state what the text already says (except in a few cases, where they contradict the text itself). Plus the footnotes and articles were clearly written by somebody who takes issues with Calvinism.
> Worst. Bible. Ever.


I actually like the Orthodox Study Bible. It is a reasonably accurate translation of the Septuagint. 
As you note the footnotes are bad. The footnotes have been helpful to me as I try to understand how the the Canonical Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics understand some portions of Scripture.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 29, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> The worst Bible that I own is the RSV _New Oxford Annotated Bible_ that I had to get for a college class many moons ago. The well known problems with the RSV aside, it's the worst due to the higher critical and unbelieving book introductions and annotations. I have all 3 iterations of the Scofield and they are veritable pillars of orthodoxy compared to the NOAB. in my opinion they are also better than the NRSV I have, if for no other reason than the translation.


The notes in the New Oxford Annotated Bible are routinely liberal and bad. The copy I have also includes the Apocrypha which they have added as an appendix rather then inserting in the middle as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments. The version of the Apocrypha in the NOAB includes the Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees and Psalm 151. These features I found useful.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 29, 2012)

Eoghan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Eoghan said:
> ...



Yes I suppose you are right, It must have been the recommendation by the author of "The Shack" on the back cover that did me in


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 30, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > The worst Bible that I own is the RSV _New Oxford Annotated Bible_ that I had to get for a college class many moons ago. The well known problems with the RSV aside, it's the worst due to the higher critical and unbelieving book introductions and annotations. I have all 3 iterations of the Scofield and they are veritable pillars of orthodoxy compared to the NOAB. in my opinion they are also better than the NRSV I have, if for no other reason than the translation.
> ...



I think the NRSV New Oxford Annotated is worse based on a quick perusal of one in a bookstore a few years ago. The worst reference book I have by far is the Oxford Companion to the Bible, which is written from a similar perspective. I think that was a text for same college class that used the NOAB. 

I also have a paperback NRSV that my sister used in Catholic school. It has the Apocrypha, including 3 and 4 Maccabees and Ps. 151, etc. It is published by the American Bible Society. I'm pretty sure the Apocryphal books are in the middle but I haven't looked at it in years.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 30, 2012)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I have the NKJV Chronological Study Bible and have read the text and all of the study notes. I would never recommend this study Bible to a believer not already grounded in the word. I came away believing that many of the higher criticism notes were written by unbelievers. Throughout the Bible, the study notes cast doubt on God's word. I was dismayed at the beginning, but after pushing through it, I realized the notes helped me confront some of the very issues that non-believers will raise when we engage them in conversation. The study notes are the problem in this Bible, not the translation.



I'm impressed you read through all the notes, Melanie! Way to go girl! I have that Bible and it's thick! I didn't read the notes but it's good to know they can't be trusted. I actually can't stand the Bible itself because I think the chronology is obviously wrong in several areas. And other areas they were just too lazy to actually order chronologically. I can't believe they sold this as "the best Chronological STUDY bible". Well, I guess I do believe it - for money. It's all marketing. But I was pretty disappointed by the lack of effort put into the chronology. The NLT (if you can believe it) has a better chrono bible. Plus the NKJV Chronological Study Bible cost a lot! Big disappointment.



OPC'n said:


> I have the Atheist Bible, but I only use it to refute against what it has to say with what the Bible states.



Athiest Bible? What's even IN that thing? Does it have double columns? This would prob be one of the worst on the list so far. I haven't seen anyone post that they own a Satanic Bible 



Bill The Baptist said:


> Actually it is a parallel Bible that has the KJV on one side and the Message on the other. When I saw it, I couldn't resist buying it just to see how radically different they were. .........Yes I suppose you are right, It must have been the recommendation by the author of "The Shack" on the back cover that did me in



haha... "The Shack" recommendation... Actually I'm curious as to how the KJV and Message compare just to see how off it is!


----------



## Gavin (Oct 30, 2012)

Well as far as annotated Bibles go Id have to.say the Dake takes the cake.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 1, 2012)

I once had a New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) that had been given to me by some JWs trying to convert me. Got rid of it.

While the NIV isn't my favorite translation, I'm a bit less hostile to it now than I used to be when influenced by the Gipp and Ruckman KJVO school. Looking back through it, it's not as badly translated as I once thought (though portions of it are still too paraphrased in feel). However, the TNIV is an outright wreck of a translation. Stay away from that one.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Nov 1, 2012)

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> I'm impressed you read through all the notes, Melanie! Way to go girl! I have that Bible and it's thick! I didn't read the notes but it's good to know they can't be trusted. I actually can't stand the Bible itself because I think the chronology is obviously wrong in several areas. And other areas they were just too lazy to actually order chronologically. I can't believe they sold this as "the best Chronological STUDY bible". Well, I guess I do believe it - for money. It's all marketing. But I was pretty disappointed by the lack of effort put into the chronology. The NLT (if you can believe it) has a better chrono bible. Plus the NKJV Chronological Study Bible cost a lot! Big disappointment.



I read this the first time I read through the Bible from cover to cover. All of the notes were not bad, and they were not all authored by the same person. I liberally put my own notes in the Bible, especially to refute some of the bad notes they had. 

Though I know it was not precisely ordered, I enjoyed reading in the chronological format.


----------

