For general reading - e.g. if I want to read a whole letter or section of a historical book - I use the Revised English Bible (a British publication) and the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible, both of which are clear, fairly accurate (as accurate as any translation can be) and are fairly good literature too.  At present, I'm using the Welsh translation for my devotionals.  

For study and preparing for sermons I use the NRSV (which is the version our church's lectionary uses), the NIV, the Nestle-Aland Greek NT (UBS 4), the Zondervan edition of the Greek Septuagint and the REB (see above).  I also find it interesting looking at the two French translations I have to see what happens in other languages.

The moderators of this forum are, of course, perfectly entitled to impose such rules as they consider necessary.  In fact, rules governing legal matters, personal abuse and deliberate trolling are necessary for any online discussion forum.

However, I was troubled by this part of the new rules:

"Prohibited material also includes promotion or defense of alternate lifestyles, other religions, atheism, humanism, or other beliefs that are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Bible."

My concern is that a lot of the topics which concern many sincere, faithful Christians - homosexual persons, persons of other faiths, why persons become atheists, the nature of scripture and how the Church uses it, and what beliefs actually are contrary to the Holy Bible - are thus stifled.  

The above rule would make it impossible to post a thread under the title "Why I Believe the Scriptures are Inoconclusive on Homsexuality" or even to consider whether there are legitimate reasons for some people losing their faith or how a person should relate to Holy Scripture.  Is this really what is intended?  Surely a forum for debate should not be afraid of these issues, should not be afraid of confronting ideas with which they are uncomfortable?  Is the only answer to shut out all the ideas we disagree with so that we don't have to think about them?

Brother Love, some friendly advice from a lawyer - just saying the same things over and over again don't prove your point.  I have argued that your assertion is wrong - it is still wrong even if you post it again.  Is it safe for me to assume that, by not being able to rebut my point, you accept it?

I would like to pick up on an erroneous statement made in the opening post of this thread.

"the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large".

This is not true.  The King James Version of the Bible was, obviously, only used in the English speaking world, and not by all of it.  

During this same period there were other English translations (e.g. the Douay-Rheims), translations into other languages (Louis Segond in French, William Morgan's in Welsh and the indigenous languages of the lands where Orthodox Christians worshipped) - therefore it is simply not true to say that the KJV was anywhere near used by "the Body of Christ" at large.  

Those who did not speak English or were part of the Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe (and those who emigrated to the Americas) certainly did not use the KJV.  Many of them would have been hard-pressed to know who King James was.