LSM (BfA) has Facebook Ad and Page

[Cal]

The link goes here. https://www.facebook.com/biblesforam...app_6009294086

[bearbear]

After leaving the LC I was surprised to realize that I seemed to get a lot more out of my bible readings. It could have been the lack of reliance on footnotes as I had switched to reading NIV from the recovery version. But after comparing some verses in the NIV against the RcV I realized that the NIV was just much easier to understand in many cases. Thought it was funny because one of BFA's main claims is that it's a bible that's easier to understand.. maybe when compared to older translations like KJV but definitely not against the most popular modern versions (NIV, ESV?).

I'm not a bible translation expert though, so maybe someone else could chime in on their experiences reading the bible outside of the recovery version.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by bearbear

After leaving the LC I was surprised to realize that I seemed to get a lot more out of my bible readings. It could have been the lack of reliance on footnotes as I had switched to reading NIV from the recovery version. But after comparing some verses in the NIV against the RcV I realized that the NIV was just much easier to understand in many cases. Thought it was funny because one of BFA's main claims is that it's a bible that's easier to understand.. maybe when compared to older translations like KJV but definitely not against the most popular modern versions (NIV, ESV?).

I'm not a bible translation expert though, so maybe someone else could chime in on their experiences reading the bible outside of the recovery version.

Personally I like the NIV and NLT (thought-for-thought) translations for ease of understanding and thus daily reading. And the NASB (word-for-word) for more precise word usage. BTW Phil Comfort - a former coworker in the LC system - was the New Testament Editor for the NLT version. I think he also did the translation work for the gospel of John.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

After leaving the LC I was surprised to realize that I seemed to get a lot more out of my bible readings. It could have been the lack of reliance on footnotes as I had switched to reading NIV from the recovery version. But after comparing some verses in the NIV against the RcV I realized that the NIV was just much easier to understand in many cases. Thought it was funny because one of BFA's main claims is that it's a bible that's easier to understand.. maybe when compared to older translations like KJV but definitely not against the most popular modern versions (NIV, ESV?).

I'm not a bible translation expert though, so maybe someone else could chime in on their experiences reading the bible outside of the recovery version.

bear, I still use the Recovery Version because I am too cheap just to throw them out, and because of familiarity. I have spent untold hours in both of my New Testaments, so I am able to find what I need fairly quickly. I definitely prefer the wording of the original (John Ingalls) Rec Version, however, to the later (Kerry Robichaux) version. I keep the complete Rec Version in my car for "church."

I also like the 1901 ASV which is quite similar. I often use the Nestle-Marshall-KJV interlinear because it enables me to use the many study aids. I believe the version you like the best is the right one for you. Perhaps you like two versions best, one for study and one for reading. Perhaps you like one version for the Old, and one for the New. Some still like the KJV for singing the Psalms. I have numerous translations, and the next one I want to get is the New KJV.