Which bible to read??

The 1611 King James Version has been out of print for nearly four hundred years. It was revised in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. This was done to keep pace with rapid evolution of the English language. The revision in popular use today is that of 1769.The most recent attempt to revise the King James, while keeping it "pure" was accomplished in 1982. The FOREWORD of The New Open Bible (New King James Version) Study Edition, by Thomas Nelson, Inc. quotes F. H. A. Scrivener, who observed that the King James Bible,I find it particularly telling that he alludes to how the KJV is "bound up with the religious convictions of the English people." Quote one word out of place and you can be branded as a heretic. Note also that this avid King James enthusiast cannot help but, in his honesty, admit to its errors and defect.Every group of translators offer the same rationale given by those who revised the KJV a mere 18 years after it was first published. Modern translators further point out that more ancient, and more reliable, manuscripts have been discovered.The original King James Version would be virtually unintelligible today. Even the revision of 1769 contains some renderings which are both humorous and difficult to interpret.For example:
Try explaining, to a modern audience, this from Job 21:24 ...Or this, from Job 26:5 ...The 1769 revision enjoyed immense popularity with Protestant fundamentalists for nearly two hundred years. I like it a lot myself. But if one truly wants to understand the variety of interpretations possible for any given passage then he, or she, must review more than a few different translations; not just those of one's peculiar denominational bias. Among my personal favorites are: The Revised Standard Version; The Modern Language Bible; The Living Bible; The Jerusalem Bible; The Anchor Bible; and the Good News Bible.I must caution the unwary, however, ... ALL versions of the Bible are to be approached with caution. Understand that they are produced and peddled, almost exclusively, by organizations with a religious agenda, an often hidden agenda. So, ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Is there something like "ecumenic" english translation?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Is this directed to me?Ecumenism (< Greek OIKOS house) is a movement toward unity among various denominations of Christianity. Both Catholic and Protestant organizations are involved. Not all denominations are in favor of it, of course, because Protestantism is, after all, a protest against Catholicism.There are Ecumenical Societies scattered across the states. The one in Vermont for example, uses the American Bible Society as a resource for distribution of its subsidized "free" Bibles. It appears that these would be taken from a promotional list which includes:
Good News Translation (GNT);
Contemporary English Version (CEV);
New Living Translation (NLT); and
New International Version (NIV).I imagine that one could procure any version which his particular denomination preferred, so long as it is still in print and available at a reasonable price to the Vermont, or other, Ecumenical Society.The Reformed Ecumenical Council which claims a membership of ten million, provides a link to Bible Gateway which, apparently, belongs to them. There, you can view a list of translations which they make available online.There is no given translation which can satisfy all the people, all the time. Individuals bring individual understanding to any given passage. To me, this is one of the beauties of having many translations available. When studied in conjunction with ancient science, history and culture, one may select those renderings which appear to best suit the requirements of reality.db

No, to everyone - just because I wanted to know. Here, in Czech rep., we have "ecumenic" translations. I use ecumenic translation from 1984. But when I work with English texts, I need English reference and I noticed that there are really big differences between KJV and my Czech ecumenic version. So I wanted to know whether there is something closer to my version.
From your post I understand that the answer to my question is "No", right?------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

I truly cannot say.I suppose you would have to examine some of those translations.Have you checked to see what other versions may be offered by the Bible Societies in your area?Is there only the one version available to you?I suspect that any document created for reading in your native tongue will read differently from its English counterpart. I find the Spanish and German versions of the Bible very interesting and helpful to gain a broader and deeper understanding of meaning of the words.Are there concordances available for use with this ecumenic version? If so, acquire the best one you can get your hands on. Otherwise, you might want to acquire Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, and/or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible for use with the King James Version. There is a concordance prepared for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible also. Our public library has one. The Revised Standard Version is a better choice for someone for whom English is not a first language. Even English speakers have difficulty understanding the King James.If you can do so, study the old Hebrew and Greek languages. Theological Seminaries specialize in biblical language studies. Surely there is one somewhere in your country.Good luck to you.db

Of course not. We have many different translations. We have also one from 1594 called Bible Kralicka, which is for us like KJV for English.
As for language differces - of course, they are understandable. It would be nice, but not possible right now...------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

I have several translations, but I am convinced the old 1901 American Standard Bible is the most accurate English translation ever. My copies are old ones. It's not a popular Bible and not easy to find but I understand copies are printed as well as availability on line.There are two major texts from which most Bibles are translated. One is the "Received" text and the other is the Alexandrian text. The Received text is the text used by KJV translators. The Alexandrian text was used by the American Standard and some other later texts such as the NIV which is less literal than the American Standard.My suggestion for anyone seriously interested in knowing how accurate their Bibles are is to acquire copies of both the Alexandrian and the Received interlinear Bibles which have the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT in them with the nearest English equivalent to the text language under each of the text language words. This way you don't necessarily need to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar in order to know exactly what the ancient texts say. I have both interlinears and find them very useful in study and research on exactly what is being said and how accurate the various translations really are. The 1901 American Standard Bible is one of the rare translations which do not change God's proper name, Jehovah into non-proper generic words which denote lordship or deity. I believe it is very important to keep what was written. Most Bibles have only a scant few references naming the god of the Bible. Thus this confusion about exactly who is god, Allah or Jehovah. Most falsely believe they are one and the same god, but this is just not true. They don't even have the same meaning, the name Allah simply meaning "god" and Jehovah meaning, "the existing one." the word allah, like the Hebrew word elohim are generic words which can mean any god. The word allah at some time in pagan history was elevated to a proper name, being then capitalized as a proper name of deity. It once refered to the moon god, thus the crescent moon symbol as the Muslim official icon or symbol. So had the translators of the various Bibles kept the name of Jehovah as it was written throughout the OT, there would not be this confusion about who the real god of the Bible was/is.I agree with whoever said the NIV is a poor translation. I heard one of the translators speak as this version was being translated, I believe back in the late sixties or early seventies. He made a statement which greatly disturbed me to the effect that the translators were not as interest in accuracy as they were in depicting the message. Thus, they were were more interested in interpreting text than in translating text. Imo, the interpreting should be left up to the reader

I forgot to explain for those who are'nt aware that the Received text manuscripts are not all as old as some of the Alexriandian texts are. This doesn't necessarily make one more reliable, but generally speaking, the closer the text gets to the original, the more accurate it would tend to be. Then too, various notions of exactly which books were to be considered cannon were debated, but it is the general consensus of scholars that what has emerged so far as texts go is a pretty reliable mix. There are some differences in text of the two major ones, but really not enough to quibble a lot about, imo.

Just a nitpick... God's name isn't Jehovah. It's YHWH (Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey) or YHVH (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey). Earlier in the bible, God was usually referred to as Elohim. -im actually is plural, but most bibles rub that fact out. Other words used for him are forms of adon (lord) and ba'al (master). However, later these terms became associated only with pagan Gods - those who still worshipped their God as ba'al were seen as horrible infidels. Variants on the Elohim name are almak, eloah, ilah, and eleh. Another name for God is El (does the term "El Shaddai" sound familiar? It means "God Almighty"). It is a more poetic name for God. Shaddai is occasionally used by itself, such as in Job. Elyon is sometimes used with other terms for God. Occasionally other forms also come with Tzevaot ("hosts"), such as YHVH Elohe tsevaot ("YHVH, God of Hosts"). A more exotic name used for God is Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh; it is hard to translate, but is often viewed as "I will be because I will be" or "I am that I am"."Yah" (Yod) is a short form of YHVH; this is where the Rastafarian form, Jah, comes from.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."