I've had my feet in and out over the years of really starting my journey into the words of Jesus Christ, but haven't fully accepted it. I finished watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ4NTdSK5ac] and my mind is blown. Especially the part he says towards the end that "why should god show himself to me if I won't continue banging on the door over and over?"
It's like I've been waiting for proof, but if I knock once or twice, don't get proof and give up, why should god present himself?
I encourage you all to watch this video. For those of us who were on Voat, it says a lot of what we already knew, but he provided sources, citations, photos. It's quite remarkable the work he put into this video.
Anyways, I would like to get myself a bible and I am curious what the most accurate version is?
I am also curious if the words of the bible today can be trusted? Who is to say the satanists didn't take over publication and tweak words, remove verses, etc? This is a legitimate concern of mine.
This is the most serious post I've ever made and I am genuinely looking forward to responses so I can proceed to the next step of this journey.
Praise the Lord. We now have another friend to stand with us in Heaven. I can't wait to see you there and really get to know you. Bless you for keeping the faith until you found your answer.
From remote viewing studies, it appears that there was no resurrection. A drunken patsy was crucified in place of J'shua, who lived on Earth for many more years. Consequently, any book that describes a resurrection maybe can't be trusted.
Just from my research. Believe what you will but remember that many people believe that the election wasn't stolen. It's easy to be brainwashed if you don't consider all the available evidence.
New American Standard version is the easiest to read.
This is also a modern version translated painstakingly from the oldest Greek manuscripts available. I appreciate it. I think it's important to look at more than one translation. Parallel Bibles rock. But, its also important to remember that God speaks through His word continually and reading most any Bible will create that relationship connection.
I only have the older version.
I have the 1995, then, thought you meant they made a new one recently. I feel like, biblically, I'm a bit rogue compared to most I see discussing it online. I don't get too semantic but try to look at more than one translation often. I don't think God is a petty God trying to trap us with tricks and semantics in to or out of anything and so of course He has made it so that as we seek Him through His Word, He shows us new and different wisdom each time and in many ways. There's a very good book called Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby that speaks on some of this too. We know God is speaking to us when we encounter the same message about something in our Bible, devotional, through other believers, all in that too good to be a coincidence timing. And I have sure preferences about which Bible versions I read, and why, but all were translated by mere humans, so we appears have to rest in the relationship with the true Author to know for certain how to take things from it and use them in our lives.
Amen
https://www.christianbook.com/page/bibles/about-bibles/bible-translation-reading-levels
The NASB is high on the list of reading levels which puts it as harder to read than most English translations. I like the NASB.
It's more difficult, but it is a more modern English as well.
I enjoy the NASB for its literal word for word translation from the older Greek texts.
That being said, I did learn most of my memorized verses as a kid from the KJV. What you commit to your mind is what sticks in your heart.
Despite being very popular, I heard that the KJV is the least accurate (most manipulated). But what do I know,? I'm a Lutheran.
There are nuances in the KJV that are lost in some other English translations. "One and only Son" vs "Only begotten Son" (KJV) is probably the biggest one. Some Christians understand is that be April children of Heavenly Father, which is lost in the former phrase. The latter satisfies that doctrine while still indicating Jesus' status as the one Child of God uniquely sired by Him.
Also a consideration is that there really is neither mortal translator nor accessible source that is perfect.
When it comes to translating Aramaic, we are all plant-like
I feel that way LoL
You are correct.
Yeah, I'm sure the world told you it's inaccurate. And that you can be a man or a woman, your choice. And you need to wear a mask or you'll die.
The KJV is the Word of God, infallible and without error. Read it for yourself, ask Christ or the Holy Spirit of God if you do not understand something.
KJV has been changed and altered more than any other version by a longshot. Definitely one of the most inaccurate versions. You can argue all day but it's true. Why point someone towards something that is incredibly hard to understand especially a new believer at that, despite your feelings on accuracy? This goes beyond whatever denomination you represent.
Shakespeare/ KJV - What light in yon window breaks?
ESV - Why that hoe leave the light on?
Yeah, I know all about easier to read and new math and participation awards.
Do a side by side comparison. It's like a child took a crayon and defaced the Word of God, just because they could.
ESV/NASB removed this in it's entirety
1 John 5:7 KJV “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
Why?
Now put your money where your mouth is - list out the "inaccuracies."
I have an honest question. If we believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. Would He let us alter His word in a way He didn't want?
I agree with that completely and the Word in most versions points in the same direction or meaning with different translations but to the point I made above, why point a new believer to, by far, the most difficult version to understand? Giving KJV to a new believer is a good way to scare someone off just because we might like the way it translates certain verses a little than another tranlastion. I'm all for going deeper and that's why I like strongs concordance and blue letter bible but I don't believe a new Christian should start there either. Sorry, I made some assumptions in what I thought you were hinting at.
Because we have free will.
The ESV is blasphemy.
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12iNnVuIfj/kjv-versus-esv/
Read the link write up. It's quite clear.
This comment explains it better than I ever could
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12igY9kOxc/x/c/4E0xNK044AM
This is a pretty good idea. I will need to check it out. Thank you!
As long as you stay away from a paraphrase (Living Bible, Good News, CEV) as your PRIMARY source most mainstream versions are solid. The Message I would very much approach with caution. My father in law is a very godly man and he loves the CEV for large chucks of reading but uses the NIV for study.
There are some KJV only people so don't fall into that trap as the KJV is just a revision of the Bishops Bible which borrowed heavily from the Tyndale Bible. Most of the phrases we attribute to the KJV actually came from the Tyndale Bible.Also I think if you are under persecution and Bibles are scarce any translation would be welcome.
For me as we read out loud as a family and memorize I find the NKJV reads out loud best and the easiest for me to memorize. In fact one of the items the KJV translators factored in was oral reading when making translation decisions. Also the NKJV has the best textual notes showing the variants between the TR and Codex. That is the second main reason I like the NKJV.
I also like the CSB as it is a fresh translation unlike the ESV which just is a revision of the RSV which I find reads out loud a bit awkward and more difficult to memorize. It could be just because I started with the KJV/NKJV.
A great free resource - https://www.biblegateway.com/
Also a fantastic free web that has an Interlinear (so you can look up words) - https://biblehub.com/interlinear/. Just be careful in using - the early translators were learned Greek and Hebrew when 12-15 years old so I keep that in mind before thinking I have some "new" insight. Interlinears add color and context to many of the words.
Last - remember the golden rule when studying CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! The Bible letters were not written TO you they were written FOR you. Consider the audience, the time, the issues being addressed when making interpretive choices. :) I like to try and read the whole book first to get a broad sense of it, then go back and work my way through a bit at a time.
Just read, and read some more. Remember there is nothing inspired by study notes in a Bible nor chapter markers or verses, and immerse yourself in God's Living Word.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16
This is a great explanation of how to find the truth through the noise :D
Great comment.
I like to use online Bibles so I can compare different versions and pick the one that speaks to me the most.
And that varies by passage.
Hi Pede, for accuracy you should stick with Hebrew for the Old Testament and Koine Greek for the New Testament and some Aramaic sprinkled in. If you’d like to read it in English there are some good translations that have a “thought for thought” vs. “word for word” translation. I personally like the New Living Translation (NLT) by Tyndale House and the New International Version (NIV) by Zondervan. I also have an English Standard Version (ESV). I enjoy a Study Bible that has notes at the bottom of the page. The good news is you can read the Bible on your computer, iPad, phone through the Bible Gateway app. They have almost every translation available and different languages. In a perfect world I would sit down every morning and read the Bible for 30-60 minutes. There is a One Year Bible that has a portion of the OT, NT, a Psalm and Proverb for each day so you can read through the entire Bible in one year. Also, I do have a copy of the King James Bible but it was translated hundreds of years ago and I have difficulty understanding it. It is like reading Chaucer in Middle English. Anyhow, I appreciate it’s beautiful prose, especially in the 23rd Psalm, but I don’t read it for Bible devotions. Finally, there is an excellent Bible app called, “YouVersion”. It has hundreds of reading plans. I am currently going through the “Bible Project” plan with four other people. We listen to the Bible each day and check off our reading. I also supplement my daily readings with the “Bible Recap” 5-8 minutes commentary. You can listen while driving or working around the house. Hope this post isn’t too long. God bless!
I love the "YouVersion" bible app. I read it from my phone. You can change the font size if you have trouble reading small print. I also like that I can read the same verse in different versions. I too like the NLT. I also like the CJB - Complete Jewish Bible. I've recently found the MSG - the Message which has brought the bible to 2021. Anytime you read the bible, ask God to give you understanding. Welcome to the fold.
The Message is not scripture. More like a paraphrase, and while fine to read, lacks the specificity of language and is not a literal translation. I highly recommend NASB and ESV. Both are literal, well-researched, painstaking translations of the original texts/languages.
Thank you, fren!
I like the ESV for a more direct translation, and NLT to capture more of the beautiful poetry that is missed in other translated versions.
Plenty of comments on Bible versions. Since you are starting a new journey I would recommend joining a good church. Community and fellowship is an essential component to understanding and growing in your faith. Many churches offer online services due to the last year and that could be a good way to learn about what type of church is right for you. I grew up in a Lutheran family but I have switched to Evangelical. I did so because I wanted a more personal relationship with Jesus Christ and didn't enjoy be lectured to. I feel so much closer to God and truly enjoy raising my family this way. An example of an online service is here. This church has a congregation of 6000+ locally [deep blue lockdown area]. During the pandemic they have gained a worldwide audience. https://www.blackhawkchurch.org/
i use several translations along w strongs concordance. for the most part i found these bibles say the same thing. yes a word here or there may be diff but the over all msg is the same. at times i would study by topic-ex-Jah's love. i'd find scriptures in hebrew n greek n compare to get a true understanding. if i found a verse didn't seem to 'fit in' w the rest then i'd look deeper. the bible is in complete harmony, written under the guidance of Jah's spirit. the book is a big puzzle leading us to the completed prophecy of Gen 3.15. ur on an amazing journey....enjoy
thx!!! wish more ppl understood this
The most accurate is the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek at any comparative website like BlueLetterBible.
The best Bible for you to get for personal devotion at this time in your life depends on your way of thinking and being spoken to. Here's some of the options.
If thou hast not difficulty, and thou speakest freely the Queen's language without doubt, get thee thine own KJV.
Otherwise, pick one and trust God to clarify the tricky bits. NKJV and ESV both carry the majesty of the Bible in modern language, NIV is simpler but has grown blander, NASB works well in between these two poles.
More important: Commit to read the one you get constantly for at least a year (then you can recommit after that). To tweak what some others have said, I'd say start with John, then read Luke and Acts together and continue with all the books after Acts. From there you can go back to Genesis and read through the whole thing while regularly dipping into Psalms and Proverbs (which are good for briefer reading times) and review of the New Testament. It's my opinion that if you succeed in reading the whole Bible, you have opportunity to get a different translation and read through that one just to get additional nuances.
Though there is influence during translation processes, God preserves the meaning of his word in the substantial manuscripts of the original languages and the study tools available. The BLB website allows you to instantly compare 20 versions and to do original-language study as a beginner whenever you have doubts, so Satan's occasional infiltration of committees cannot defeat the holographic preservation of God's word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckHlhvo5nbo I'm King James all the way
Thank you for this video. This is the reason I consider KJV to be the most accurate & will compare it to other translations to see if there is some other consideration I might see.
kent hovind is wonderful for Bible study, glad you liked the video, he is very entertaining while educating
God bless you and your journey!!
King James is missing 7 books. Including many from the Greek Septuigent, which is the version that our Lord quoted from.
My mistake.
So much good advice here! Also, I don’t know if this has been said yet so forgive me if a repost but please consider watching “The Chosen”. It’s changed my life. Free to watch on the Chosen app- just download the app and start watching. I was a Christian before, but now I feel like I’m learning and seeing everything new again.
Underrated comment. The Chosen is a beautiful visualization of Jesus's humanity.
Get yourself a Strong's exhaustive concordance.
Blueletterbible is good. I, personally, am in favor of KJV. As a youth it madE no sense to me; now I view it as more precise/concise. Also, my dad bought me a strong's. So that's the path Ive taken. Not disparaging, but it works for me. As long ad the message gets thru, pursue it. Hope you find what keeps you in the Word. It's all we have. Peace and Grace, fren.
I apologize in advance for the post length. This post might not make me any friends, but this is what I would want someone to tell me. I am a non-denominational Christian who has been saved for over twenty years. I read the bible in Greek and Hebrew and have studied the bible version issue for several years. First of all, you are on GreatAwakening, so you should understand the concept of the Deep State. Archbishop Carlo Vigano mentioned in his letters to Donald Trump that there is also a Deep Church. The New Testament says to watch out for false prophets and false teachers who will be in the church.
What does this have to do with bible versions? Well the New Testament was written in Koine ("common") Greek. We have around 5,000 copies of it in Greek manuscripts that are older than a few hundred years. About 99% of them are basically identical except for very small spelling mistakes and occasional transpositions of words, etc. However there are a few copies that are radically different from the rest. Specifically two of them are worth knowing about. They are the "Sinai" and the "Vatican" codexes (Codex basically means book).
They are both dated to around 350 AD, and because of this date they are often referred to as the "oldest and best manuscripts". However, we should not judge things by their appearance, but do our own research. Here are some quick items of note:
These two codexes ( "codices" for the pedantic ) omit a disturbing amount of verses in the New Testament, not to mention tons of omissions of individual words.
There is a pattern to these omissions. They focus on the divinity of Christ, references to the blood of Jesus, references to fasting, detecting demons, and other topics such as faith before baptism.
There are tons of evidence of editing of these codexes. One of them had two additional authors go over sections of the manuscript and edit it. When quoting these parts, you have to specify which editor you are quoting.
These codexes constantly contradict each other. They often have divergent changes in the same verse.
One of my favorite facts, that I verified myself, is in the Vatican codex. This codex has 3 columns per page. In every book in the New Testament, when that book ends on one column, the next book starts on the next column. Except, that is, for one transition. The book of Mark ends on one column, and then there is AN ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN and then the book of Luke starts after the blank column. Why is this worthy of note? Many people now teach that Mark chapter 16 verses 9-20 are not in the original manuscripts because Vatican and Sinai codexes omit them. However the scribe who wrote the Vatican codex left a big fat piece of evidence that something was missing. This is even more interesting when it is claimed that Mark was the first gospel. Without verses 9-20 there is no real evidence of resurrection, and you can imagine how atheists have a field day with that fact. Modern scholarship unironically believes that the gospel of Mark literally ends with the words "and they were afraid".
Other important sections changed or left out of these two codexes are "the woman caught in adultery", someone being told that they should only be baptized if "they believe with all their heart", a verse that says "God was manifest in the flesh", and teaching that some demons only come out "through prayer AND FASTING".
Why would oldest not be the best? Well, I have a couple of bibles that I don't like and some that I love. Guess which books are in better shape? The ones I don't like stay preserved perfectly on the shelf. The good copies get used until they break. The same thing happened throughout history. The sketchy copies stayed on shelves and the good copies were used until they wore out.
More importantly, we should look at the fruit. The traditional manuscripts, often called "the received text", were the bibles of the Protestant reformation that caused peoples hearts to burn for the word of God. Also Catholics ended up having to go back to the word to fortify their beliefs. Ever since the teaching that "the oldest manuscript is the most accurate", which really caught on in the early 1900s, we have had dozens of new bibles in English, and the church has arguably become more and more watered down and lost its power and influence. The average christian that I know almost never reads the bible on their own because their bibles are not empowering them.
This is a very deep rabbit hole and the information overload can be overwhelming, so feel free to dm me for further conversation.
Also, for Catholic and Orthodox frens (God bless you!), the Orthodox new testament is very close the protestant received text. The older catholic bibles such as Douay Rheims also used the received text. Church fathers who wrote before 350 AD often quote verses that are omitted in the Vatican and Sinai codexes.
I haven't even mentioned Wescott and Hort, who led the push to abandon the received text, and their membership in a seance club and association with Madame Blavatsky, the occult theosophist. That is a worthy dig for any Christian anon who is curious.
In summary, this knowledge took me years to research on my own, and I feel that the Greek received text is the purest form of the word of God. It has done a very good job sustaining me in several horrible life events. The Old Testament manuscripts are way more uniform, and that debate, in my opinion, is nowhere near as serious as the New Testament issues.
Available bibles based on the received text are the old and new king james bibles. I am not "King James Only". I can point out places where I disagree with the translation, but it is as good as things currently get.
Final fun note, the Sinai codex was discovered by a guy who saw monks using it to start fires because they thought it was a corrupted copy. The Vatican codex appeared MYSTERIOUSLY with no history in the vatican library. Gotta love that.
Here is a list of changes in Vatican and Sinai: ( Warning, this site IS kjv only )
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html
NKJV in the new testament is in general is focused on the received text, but some of their translation choices are sort of questionable. If I recall correctly, some of the verb tense translations are debatable and different from the older king james.
I am used to the older king james maybe out of reading it for a long time and getting used to the older english, but I don't typically quote it without paraphrasing it to make it sound more modern, or giving an explanation of the older words to whoever I am talking to.
There are a handful of versions with names like "modern king james version" and "21st century king james version", but I have personally found that they don't provide enough of an advantage to either the KJV or NKJV to be worth a lot of time. Also, they have a lot smaller circulation, so any translation mistakes are going to probably exist longer without anyone noticing. The old KJV has been around for hundreds of years, so people like myself who choose the "received text" but are not committed to thinking that the KJV is the most perfect translation possible can find resources to discuss all the specific verses that might have problems. To me it is just a very well-known foundation. You can compare it with the earlier Geneva bible published in the 1560s (not the 1590s version) and the Catholic Douay Rheims of 1610 (not later Douay Rheims that were revised to be a little closer to kjv) for a nice contrast.
My biggest issue with NKJV is that many copies have footnotes that completely contradict the received text, so be aware of that and look for a version without a ton of footnotes, if you like the received text. Anecdotally some of the people on the translation committee for NKJV were rumored to be against the received text.
The footnote issue can also happen with old king james editions too. I prefer to use a version with no footnotes, or for those who don't mind doing a bit of digging, you can find 1611 reprints that include the footnotes from the original KJV translations, and those are very interesting. For commentary I recommend Matthew Henry (more predestination) and Adam Clarke (more free-will).
The French speakers are actually way more blessed than the English speakers with a modern received text translation. They have the modern Ostervald versions. There is a modern Spanish "Reina Velera Gomez" received text as well. It is actually getting to the point where non-English speakers have more received text options than English speakers.
I missed this comment yesterday, and I'm kicking myself for it now. I'm reading Obedience of a Christian Man, by William Tyndale, and it is hard to put down. I request that you recreate this same post over at https://communities.win/c/Christianity/new because it has such great and well written information in it. I will also DM you with this request. Thanks
Ask, and ye shall receive... :)
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12igYIndqb/
I just finished watching that too. What an eye opener. I can’t quit thinking about it. Now some of the music I’ve always enjoyed makes me nauseous. Thankfully I haven’t followed anything out of Hollywood in years and I’ve always been leery of politicians but now I’m second guessing the people I thought could be trusted. I definitely need to dust off my Bible & start reading it again.
I prefer the New King James Version.
King James is missing 7 books. "Thou shalt not add or take away..."
Which ones?
The 7 books are not regarded by anyone as the inerrant Word of God but are regarded by Catholics as a supplemental set that has a unique place among other works of men. "Thou shalt not add" does apply to them. They are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Other than the institution of Hanukkah in the 2nd century BC you're not missing much.
Thanks!!
Well since the catholics worship, Mary as 'special' pray to her and to others for 'intercession' I am thinking it is satanic...and it is...false gods etc...and they LIE to the sheep...a LOT! And look at the pope....really? When the Lord tells me to read that crap as worship then I will ...till then...history? I don't know...
That is likely the apocryphal books. The Catholic church still has it in the KJV language IIRC
I have been taught that the Apocryphal books have great wisdom, and should be read & considered with the Holy Ghost as a guide.
When I include those in my study & cross reference it has so many interesting Qincidences.
I've heard of the Apocrophyra, and bought my dad a copy years ago. I will find an online resource. Thanks!
You are welcome. I found 2 Esdras very interesting when compared to Daniel & Revelations.
I am thinking that line of kings from the 3 headed eagle are president's post Truman IIRC, the 2nd is Roosevelt by number of elections & then JFK, Nixon & DJT all line up.
I was way off on my varied ideas about how it played out & once I saw Biden & Harris go in, I saw how more of it easily fulfills & potentially plays out.
I am waiting to see which ones (groups?) kill themselves off before the rise of the Antichrist which I am still trying to figure out if they are just a type of christ, or a antithesis of christ. Where I don't see a feather put back in, I don't see Trump taking that seat again (though possibly he could take a true Presidency for the republic instead of for the corporation of DC). No matter how it plays out, it amazes me how many have not been willing to accept that the MAGA movement is a strong contender for the young lion mentioned that chases the 3rd beast out. Though I might be reading way too much into it all.
For accuracy definitely NASB. Instead of it being thought for thought translation it's a literal word-for-word translation.
It depends on what accurate you want. If you want best literal it is a 1911 American standard followed by a new American standard. A bunch of scholars got together and didn't take any money from churches and such to write it. So it is a better literal translation.
King James captures the time frame better but it was translated from a translation so there is that. God bless and have fun
Every translation has its issues but they all spread the gospel which is what you are seeking. The translation debate is not one you need to get into if you're knocking on the door. Don't allow the translation thing to become a hurdle in your faith.
https://youtu.be/XvedtFbNbkM?t=390
edit: Reading through the comments of so many others, I hope my point is clear. There is no slam dunk "this version is best". Don't let it hold you up. Trust in the Lord.
Buy a color coded student Bible, the color coding dictates who is speaking, it's much easier to understand
I would recommend the Thompson Chain Reference Bible in the New American Standard version... It has a lot of cross referencing for all of you Researchers to allow you to find what was going on at the time to put things into perspective as well as references to other passages that support it. It shows you how the Old Testament predicted Jesus birth, existence, and death... and then shows the proof in the New Testament... I have multiple versions, but this one is my favorite.
I have a parallel Bible that includes King James, Modern Language, Living Bible and Revised Standard. It allows me to compare words and thoughts. I use Our Daily Bread for daily devotion and they have a Bible in a Year program included (I use app on I phone).
I like the CSB version. Honestly, all are fine to read. Some harder to understand like the KJV. I find the CSB to be easier to read. They have pretty good commentaries to help you out.
Whichever one you choose, stay away from the Passion translation and the Message Bible. Not translations. They are not true to His word.
Look up Pastor Mike Winger on YouTube (I know YT, but he has links to his website on there if you don't wanna stay on YouTube. ) He answers questions like yours: how do we know the Bible is the true word? Was it changed? Etc... He's SUPER knowledgeable!
I like Mike Winger, too!
Glad to know someone on here listens to him too! He's very informative and honest.
Yes, I was shocked to learn about the World Mission Society Church of God cult from one of Mike’s interviews. One of their churches was recently built in a neighboring town and I had not heard of them before. How depressing so many people will be led astray! https://youtu.be/IICnYikZod0
Oh yes, some of the research he's done on some of these so called "christian" denominations, sects, whatever you wanna call them is crazy. Hard to belive people fall for that stuff....then again not really. I need to watch the one he just did on BHI. They're.... out there lol.
Apologia studios and cultish goes very in depth on "christian" cults as well.
Yikes! I haven’t seen the one on the Black Hebrew Israelites. Think they were the ones at Washington, D.C., taunting the boys on a school outing with Nick Sandmann, who wore the MAGA hat.
I'm not sure, but some of them can be really vile! Vocab Malone on YT deal with them alot, goes super in-depth.
From a black Jewish lady’s perspective after the encounter happened... https://nationalcenter.org/project21/2019/01/28/before-sandmanns-smirk-there-was-the-black-hebrews-hate/
Thanks, pede!
https://youtu.be/bmO0Fwa74QM
https://youtu.be/tU_BuZhWBl0
https://youtu.be/z6cWEcqxhlI
A reminder that the Bible is a recount of humanity’s history with God and an invitation to know Him personally. When God sends the Holy Spirit to counsel you, He will help you interpret scripture and also help you develop the character of God from inside out.
I personally like the NASB, the ESV, and the NKJV and sometimes the Passion translation for something more vernacular. If you really want to get into theology is always good to do word studies of a word in its original language context. Michael Heiser is great for this for the Old Testament.
:)
New King James Version!
King James is missing 7 books. Douay Rheims is the best English Translation.
Yes, it is the only English version that was promelgated by the Church that was started by our Lord.
There is no question that our Lord built His Church on the Rock that was Peter (Mat 16:17-18). Peter's name means Rock. Our Lord changed Simon's name to Peter. The apostles refer to Peter as the prince, the one who holds the keys to the inheretence, which our Lord gave him the keys to heaven (Mat 16:19).
Saint Jerome (4th century) arguably the greatest bible scholar in Church history, who actually formed the first common bible (bibliography of holy scripture) had this to say about the church: "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. ...This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. ...And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church's enemies are also my enemies." (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology)
Our Lord and the apostles were standing next to a large rock where the pagan temple to Caesar was built, and he turned to Peter (Greek Petros), and said on this Rock (Greek Petra) I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. It would be silly for Him to give Peter the feminine form of the word rock (Petra). On the flip side, the feminine form of the word designates a large Rock, like the one they were standing next too. Why would our Lord name Simon "rock" and say he would build his church on this rock when responding directly to Peters previous statement? Plus, our lord used Aramaic, which did not distinguish between the masculine and femine forms of the word, so he likely said the same word. Why would he say one thing but mean another? That doesn't sound like the Logos.
Praise the Lord. His Word does not return void. The two most accurate English translations and most easily read (modern English) are the New American Standard and the English Standard Versions. I also like KJV as I was raised on it, but it is far from the most accurate. I start my kids out on ESV and they find it easy to read and easily understood. May the Holy Spirit guide you into repentance and faith in Christ alone! For the glory of God alone.
I just did a search on Amazon, and could only find used versions of NASB 95 like I have. Pretty sad.
Read it with a grain of salt and don't take every word literally. The Bibles words have been translated, mistranslated, and manipulated through centuries so there's no 100% accurate interpretation.
This is bad advice. The bible is to be taken literally first, it is not just good lessons or myths as your suggestion implies. The Douay Rheims is the only English translation that has the formal backing of the Holy Ghost.
You are correct in that the last 3 popes were likely antipopes. I also believe that Biden is a terrible president, but I'm not going anywhere, and I still respect the office of the presidency. Even more so the chair of peter. Yet I do believe, as most traditional Catholic Theologians, that the antichrist will sit in Peter's Chair. But the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, and God only started one church, just as he gave Noah one boat. No one succeeded in making another boat, even if they did try taking the materials from Noah's boat.
Honestly, I was little uncareful in that wording. I think there's a strong argument that all the Pope's since vatican 2 were antipopes... 5 total, (6 if you count the murdered JP1)Here is a strong argument for JP2 being the antichrist. I believe that Rome is more corrupt and evil than Jurusulum was in the time of Christ. Just as our Lord, a Jew, was condemned by the Jewish elders and high priest, His body, The Church is being Crucified by the Church leaders and pope. The body of Christ, that is the church will undergo a passion and crucifixion (great apostasy) followed by a resurrection. I think we are in the passion (I'm open to the argument that we are in the death), and that the crucifixion will be the end of the papacy, which may come when Francis gets his just deserts. I think we all need to follow our Lord's advice when He told the beloved apostle (the only one that kept the faith and stayed by his side) to behold his Mother (John 19:27).
Lord have Mercy!
This is solid advice.
Great response.
Don’t read it to remember; it’s the map back to the kingdom which is inside us and we already know the answers ?
It's also not the only map
The KJV is not the most accurate. For instance, it’s the only translation that contains the word “Easter” but we know easter is a pagan holiday. That word is not accurate and is not in any other translation.
NIV for readability, ESV for clunky but literal translation.
An ya don't think that the Father is WAY above being able to 'protect' His Word? He is the CREATOR ...of EVERYTHING...I'm sure that He's got this...So God Bless, King James or the 1690 (?date) bible...What the Lord wants you to comprehend he will help you comprehend so, don't let the thees and thous bother you...just let your brain substitute his, her, he, you them they etc! Welcome to the Bride of Christ, we love you.
Can you read Hebrew?
He doesn't have to. Our Lord quoted from the Greek Septuegent, which is the Hebrew to Greek translation. This translation, along with the new testament was translated by the greatest bible scholar in history in the 4th century into the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate IS THE BIBLE. All others are offshoots. The Douay Rheims is the closest English translation.
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that the Vulgate is the Bible (which is the same error as "KJV-Only"), but that the original-language manuscripts are the Bible. It also does not teach that the deuterocanonicals are inspired in the same way as the 66 books. You may provide sources if you disagree, as I'm interested.
Here is a little on the Vulgate. You are correct in implying that the Latin Vulgate is not greater than the original manuscripts. The effect is never greater than the cause. However, the Vulgate has been the principal bibliography (where we get the word bible) for 16 centuries. The other manuscripts are not bibles in themselves, but together. The Douay Rheims, was the most carefully translated version, protecting the theological notes that were extracted from the originals.
In regard to the Deutorocanicals, those books are part of the Greek texts that our Lord and the apostles used. It was the first century Jews that first removed them. Then the protestants followed suit in the 1600's because it didn't jive with their new theology. this article provides a little insight about how the Church has always held those books as the inspired word of God, just as the others. If they were good enough for our Lord, who are we to remove them?
There is no canon of "the Greek texts that our Lord and the apostles used": with Wikipedia's help, I cite Edward Ellis: "No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha .... The Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of scripture."
So the set of texts available to the early church is not defined. It turns out that, beside most all of the 39 books (24 scrolls) of the OT, they did use Epimenides and Enoch and the like, but oddly not any of the deuterocanonicals even once. This suggests the vast body of literature used semi-authoritatively by the Jews, in Greek and other languages, was held by them as a secondary canon just as much as the Catholics held their own secondary canon, and what I said about their secondary level of inspiration applied to the Jews as well. Except it could be said the Catholics "removed" useful books from those that the Jews found secondary inspiration from, when the LXX variety was standardized. I don't know if the Orthodox did or not.
TLDR: I don't remove any books from readability. I only add books to protocanonicity when the whole body of believers did so. But the deuterocanonicals were never "good enough" for the Lord to quote them or the church to elevate them as it did the 66 books.
u/Secretyrussianspy: To the OP question of what Bible for beginners, it won't hurt you if you get a DR version with the extra books, just keep in mind that official Catholic doctrine places them on a secondary level, and use of DR confuses Protestants.
Here are the words of one protestant scholar "(The Septuagint) was translated from a Hebrew Old Testament text-type that is older than the Masoretic text, from which most Old Testaments are translated today. This is sad, for the apostles had access to both the Septuagint and to the proto-Masoretic text that was in existence in their time. And they chose to quote from the Septuagint, not the proto-Masoretic text."(sauce)
While this protestant concludes this historical fact to be sad, a better conclusion would be to acknowledge the Septuagint as a legitimate sacred text.
The word Septuagint means 70, it is derived from the 72 Hebrew scholars, 6 from each tribe of Israel, who were each isolated during translation, and by miraculous act of God, all 72 returned with the same translation. This ancient letter) is the evidence of the legitimacy of that story.
Another possible reason the apostles and our Lord used the Septuagint instead of the older text "that existed in their time"(ibid) was that it contained the deutorocanicals that all Bible reading Christians ascended to for the first 1600 years of Christiandom.
It was the first century AD Jews who were the first to remove those books, probably because many of their prophesies were fulfilled by our Lord. Read Wisdom 2:12-22 as one example.
That being said, the full bible was not formed until the 4th century, primarily by St Jerome, while in a cave in Bethlehem, utilizing the Septuagint, the ancient Hebrew texts, and other Hebrew scholars. (Sauce)
That original formal bibleography was then the "common" text amongst the church fathers to Christianity today (or 1960's Vatican 2), for the word vulgate means common. Those texts were all hand copied so they were primarily only in the hands of the apostolic successors (I.e bishops).
Ironically, soon after The invention of printing press, formal protesters arose based on their own interpretations of their personal copies that they were reading in their local tongues. Now there are 30,000 different groups of Protestants who all interpret scripture differently. That is not WWG1WGA
Here is a little more about the Vulgate. Jerome used more than the Greek when translating in the Bethlehem cave amongst Jewish scholars. However the Vulgate was the first "common" (which is what Vulgate means) bibleography (long for Bible) amongst Christians, and it served as a means of protecting the most critical theological notes that preserved the faith of our fathers. Thus, it IS THE BIBLE
Nice! I've never heard of that translation, but I'm going to check it out! Thanks for dropping knowledge!
A pede put a video of Kent Hovind who back in the 90's went through the history of the 2 current codexes: 1.) Codex sinnaticus which every Bible apart from the Geneva and kjv are translated and it was found in Egypt and written by the alexandrians who also stoned our first Christian martyr Stephen. They were the gnostic anti Trinitarians who removed verses specifically mentioning the diety of Jesus then acoused the textus receptus for adding verses as most commentaries in New age Bibles will tell you.
2.) Textus receptus which was found in king James' time in the church of Antioch (the first Christian church in turkey) which include the kjv and the Geneva. The strength of the textus receptus is that the dead sea scrolls confirm WORD FOR WORD as kent put it, that the textus receptus is the pure unedited preserved word of God. As the psalmist prophesied. The dead sea scrolls completely matched the textus receptus minus spelling. No human could cause something of that magnitude.
God bless you in Jesus name, sibling and welcome to the fold.amen
Amen sibling. Defend the kjv, Geneva. In Jesus name amen
https://youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU
Textus receptus was written by Erasmus based on a handful of Greek manuscripts he had on hand and the Latin Vulgate. It was not "found"
Right. I'm not saying it like it's a bad thing, just clarifying the compiled TR wasn't unearthed somewhere through archeological means. It was constructed by Erasmus through codices that had been in libraries for a while, and I'm sure they had been "found" at some point.
https://youtu.be/L5HY22JBzDU
Read each version with the tools available online. And compare to a direct translation from the original Hebrew/Greek.
Realize that sometimes it is speaking in allegory and sometimes it is speaking directly. Keep both the literal and allegorical versions of what you read in mind.
Not the king james...
The most accurate version is the Strongs Concordance.
Translate yourself
I have been wondering the same. Anyone have thoughts on the 'self pronouncing' KJV? I got one, but I think I'd rather look for a more original version.