Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[3rdrockfrmsun]

Lately I’ve been reading the NASB, but I’ve also got a copy of the 1611 KJV — the real deal, with the old spellings and the Apocrypha still included. It’s tough to read sometimes, but there’s something about the language that feels more grounded, like you’re stepping into history instead of just reading about it. I’ve got a few modern KJVs too, and I’ve noticed how much they’ve changed over time — little word swaps that end up changing the whole meaning of a verse.
I keep hearing people say the Geneva Bible is the only one they trust, which got me wondering how much of our belief is shaped by the version we happen to read. Every translation comes through the hands (and theology) of someone — and sometimes I wonder if we’ve lost parts of the message in all that rewriting and rewording.

Jesus Himself quoted books that don’t even appear in most Protestant Bibles — and He referenced Enoch (Mark 14:62 / comparing with Enoch 62:5-7) — which sent me down a rabbit hole of reading older texts and alternate translations. It’s strange to think how much of what we now call Scripture has been filtered, cut, or rearranged over the centuries. People forget that our Savior read from scrolls we don’t even have in the modern canon.

So I’m curious what everyone else here reads, studies, or trusts. Do you stick with one version, or do you cross-compare? And do you think the “missing books” actually matter to our understanding of the Gospel — or did God allow only what we needed to survive in the canon?

[Quantum12]

Being Jewish we read the Torah.

[UltraBudgie]

Trust? That comes about from within. However:

Tanakh
Septuagint
Textus Receptus
King James 1611
This one, for some reason.

...and various others. Get a Strong's Concordance. Don't trust that, in itself, but it is useful when exploring.

Blue Letter has a nice interlinear comparison feature with built-in concordance.


Edit: And in my opinion, "The Bible" isn't the only scripture...

[Creaky]

 Do you stick with one version, or do you cross-compare? And do you think the “missing books” actually matter to our understanding of the Gospel — or did God allow only what we needed to survive in the canon?

A bit of all but ultimately none 
while I read a bit, I discuss my faith with others, glean information from here and there, listen and learn from different sources 
To many times have I misunderstood, taken confirmation bias or simply misinterpreted what I was reading

my faith in in Jesus not a book.
Not saying it’s not good to read, just saying the bible doesn’t save

[FlyersFan]

my faith in in Jesus not a book.

Sure.  But the only way to learn about Jesus is through the bible.
And not the gnostics.   They are obviously fakes and have been condemned.

[UltraBudgie]

And not the gnostics.   They are obviously fakes and have been condemned.

What ones are those? Do you mean the deuterocanonicals (eg Orthodox Catholic) or are you referring to the Nag Hammadi texts? Do you opinions/experience exactly align with Roman Catholic doctrine?

[David64]

The one I've read most is King James I guess, but I don't follow any particular brand of religion or attend church.

I mean, there are so many and they all think their version is The One And Only Truth, but which one is right ?

Is it the Jewish ?
Pentecostal ?
Baptists ?
Lutherans ?
Mormons ?
Catholics ?
Presbyterians ?
....and the list goes on.

I usually just talk to Him while I'm sitting on a river bank fishing. He seems to be ok with that.

[UltraBudgie]

I usually just talk to Him while I'm sitting on a river bank fishing. He seems to be ok with that.

That reminds me of Siddhartha. Just listen to the river. It can take a long journey back and forth to get there though.

[FlyersFan]

What ones are those? Do you mean the deuterocanonicals (eg Orthodox Catholic) or are you referring to the Nag Hammadi texts? Do you opinions/experience exactly align with Roman Catholic doctrine?

I'm talking about texts like the gospel of Judas and the gospel of Mary.   Those have been proven to be false ... written 140 AD or so and contradict the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).   Nag Hammadi was 350 AD or so.   Again, written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which were written by disciples of those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus life.    The book of Enoch is totally false ... there was no Adam and Eve therefore there was no Enoch to be 7th from and it contradicts the canonical gospels.   And no, my opinions do not exactly align with Roman Catholic doctrine, but they come close.   The Catholics get it the closest to being accurate IMHO.

[UltraBudgie]

there was no Adam and Eve therefore there was no Enoch to be 7th from and it contradicts the canonical gospels

Thanks for the response; I'll just point out that your statement there contradicts the gospels, specifically Luke 3:23-38.

But truth is often more subtle than our opinions!