Zone1 Best Version of the Bible and Why?

[Woodznutz]

Can Christ save who is His...?

Of course.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Sans "without a cause" the narrative doesn't make sense.

Yea, so KJV added it in for effect.

 

[hobelim]

Looking for opinions back by a fax and argument.

In researching this, I realize I had assumed for no good reason that most post king James versions were basically translations of the King James version. Then I saw a recommendation for a modern version that is taking more directly from the original group text. But that was just a brief search.

I always prefer to hear from experts. That’s why I come here to ask.

by far the best translation that corrects many errors in earlier bibles preserving the original meaning and intent of the authors making strange literal sayings more easily understood....

 

[airplanemechanic]

That would suggest that expressing anger, a normal human emotion/response, is sinful. God and Jesus himself frequently expressed anger at his people, actually killing lots of them.

Angry "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22? - KJV Today

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22, KJV) The word...

www.kjvtoday.com

"Coveting thy neighbors wife" would be normal, too. It's a normal thing to want your neighbors wife if shes hot. But it says don't do it. Just because its normal doesn't mean the bible can't say that it's not right.

The fact remains the original text did not include "without a cause". That's just a KJV thing, and yet another reason I avoid the KJV like the plague. When ONE translation adds a phrase that EVERY SINGLE OTHER TRANSLATION DOES NOT, it points fingers at the one translation that does and raises tons of questions, like, where the fuck did this come from?

 

[hobelim]

"Coveting thy neighbors wife" would be normal, too. It's a normal thing to want your neighbors wife if shes hot. But it says don't do it. Just because its normal doesn't mean the bible can't say that it's not right.

The fact remains the original text did not include "without a cause". That's just a KJV thing, and yet another reason I avoid the KJV like the plague. When ONE translation adds a phrase that EVERY SINGLE OTHER TRANSLATION DOES NOT, it points fingers at the one translation that does and raises tons of questions, like, where the fuck did this come from?

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22, KJV)

"But what I tell you is this: Anyone who nurses anger against his brother shall be brought to judgment. If he abuses his brother he must answer for it to the court; if he sneers at him he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell." (Matthew 5:22, NEB)


“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” (Isaiah 7:14 KJV)

"Therefor the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel. By the time he has learnt to reject evil and choose good he will be eating curds and honey: before that child has leant to reject evil and choose good desolation will come upon the land before whose two kings you cower now." (Isaiah 7:14 NEB)


See what I mean?

 

[Polishprince]

The Donald Trump version of the Bible is new, but has received a lot of rave reviews.

 

[Seymour Flops]

(before I start, I didn't know whether to give you a winner reaction or a laugh...the last comment is perfect hahaha. But I love talking about the Bible so I went with that instead of humor)

At any rate:

My top is the English Standard Version. It's readable without seeming to "modern" or colloquial. It comes at the Bible with a Reformed perspective--but not overly so.

Number two is the NIV.

TBH that's all I read. If I HAD to stray from those, I might go with the NASB or the NKJV, but imo I far prefer the above two.

The Message Bible is a trip to me, but I understand its use and support that. I grew up in the church and so am used to "Bible language" (though I didn't become a saved Christian til later). If you as an adult were just trying to get what God is saying, the Message is a good start.

Thanks I’ll try both of your top two.

I had asked earlier on this forum, where the information about the end times, the rapture, the tribulation, etc. was in the Bible. Someone said it came from how Hal Lindsey‘s work. I read his first book, and it did sound exactly like what I was taught in Baptist Church as a teenager in the 70s.

I read his book Satan is alive and well on planet Earth as a teenager, and my grandmother, who did not go to the same church, did not like me reading it. But just based on the title, she probably thought it was Satan worship or something.

I want to read for myself how accurate Lindsey’s take on the prophesy is.

 

[Woodznutz]

"Coveting thy neighbors wife" would be normal, too. It's a normal thing to want your neighbors wife if shes hot. But it says don't do it. Just because its normal doesn't mean the bible can't say that it's not right.

The fact remains the original text did not include "without a cause". That's just a KJV thing, and yet another reason I avoid the KJV like the plague. When ONE translation adds a phrase that EVERY SINGLE OTHER TRANSLATION DOES NOT, it points fingers at the one translation that does and raises tons of questions, like, where the fuck did this come from?

Did you read the link? It did appear in versions much earlier than the modern versions. That said the KJV has some shortcomings, as do all the rest.

Consider that every bible version of Genesis 3:14 has the 'serpent' 'crawling on its belly and eating dirt'. Just a cursory word study reveals that this is a wrong translation. The translators wanted so badly to reduce Satan/Lucifer into a snake that they deliberately mistranslated the passage, just as they did in Acts i.e. pacha/passover into Easter.

Modern versions corrected this error, but the dirt-eating snake remains.

 

[DudleySmith]

My favorite is the Sondervan NKJV Faith Life Illustrated Study Bible. It has maps, tables, timelines, and footnote on most of the word translation differences, backgrounds to for the various books, and is generally comprehensive, plus I like the Old Testament translations used the Thomas Nelson translators used on the Masoretic texts over the Vulgate and Siniatic texts, with the exception of Revelation. I pretty much ignore the Apocrypha and the prophets from Ezra and the Babylonian 'Return' as merely self-serving and not really 'canonical'. I don't care for any of the other translations, like NIV, etc. I would rather use the old KJV over those for a number of reasons.

 

[Cougarbear]

Study it for yourself as an adult.

And then pray about it after studying and meditating on what you study. Try that as a true student of Jesus Christ. It should be noted that the true latter day Prophet Joseph Smith, when commissioned by Jesus Christ to correct errors in the KJV of the Bible omits the phrase “without a cause.” He also said these same teachings to the ancient Americans in the Book of Mormon omitting that phrase as well. He did this well before he studied with any scholars and was still a young uneducated man. Interesting.

 

[DudleySmith]

That said the KJV has some shortcomings, as do all the rest.

That seems to be more of a case of the readers themselves having the shortcomings imo. On the other hand, Christianity as a belief doesn't rely much on scholarship as a beleif system for most people, being a faith based endeavor. scholastic arguments don't mean much to most New Testament Christians, and they don't have to care, really. The Four Gospels are all they really need be concerned with for that.

 

[Woodznutz]

Translation is one thing, interpretation is another. Error in one can lead to error in the other.

 

[Woodznutz]

That seems to be more of a case of the readers themselves having the shortcomings imo. On the other hand, Christianity as a belief doesn't rely much on scholarship as a beleif system for most people, being a faith based endeavor. scholastic arguments don't mean much to most New Testament Christians, and they don't have to care, really. The Four Gospels are all they really need be concerned with for that.

True. Traditional beliefs often trump scripture. Worse, we don't know how the Bible has been 'fiddled with' over the centuries. John's warning in Revelation suggests as much.

 

[DudleySmith]

we don't know how the Bible has been 'fiddled with' over the centuries

It's pretty clear the orthodoxy is still the best and most accurate; the Dead Sea Scrolls are still verifying that. Darrell Bock's The Missing Gospels pretty much settles that issue, and is written for laymen, with plenty of references to other historical works. Too many copies to have been 'fiddled with' much, and certainly not 300 years later, by a Roman Emperor. IF that were the case there would be all kinds of anachronisms and historical errors in it. Another good supplement is Joachim Jeremia's excellent contemporary social study that verifies the texts were indeed composed in the times they're attributed to ans covered current events, names and places, etc.

Ones of the reasons I don't consider the 'books' after Ezra as legit canon is the literary structures. outside of the older parts of Daniel, don't resemble any of the rest of either the OT or the NT literary structures. John's warnings were probably aimed at the Gnostic rubbish which by the time Revelation was composed was already becoming pervasive.

 

[Cougarbear]

True. Traditional beliefs often trump scripture. Worse, we don't know how the Bible has been 'fiddled with' over the centuries. John's warning in Revelation suggests as much.

Ezekiel prophesied the need for a second witness for helping to correct doctrine in chapter 37 when in the last days, the book of Joseph would come to us through a prophet. Isaiah also saw the coming forth of this book as a marvelous work and wonder in chapter 29. These are the last days. Anyone else have the book of Joseph, the marvelous work and wonder saved in the ground under a rock?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

true events of the 1st century are not represented for why they gave their lives -

Manifest Unmanliness

Why didn't those who witnessed the "miracles" fight to save Jesus from crucifixion? The way they and even the Apostles ran and hid proves that there weren't any miracles. Certainly, if Jesus had proved he was God in such an obvious way and promised eternal life, his cult had nothing to lose by fighting the Romans and the High Priests.

Second, with all the miracles in Egypt, there's no way the Hebrews would have worshipped a Golden Calf if the plagues on the Egyptians and the opening of the Red Sea had really happened.

As for those sacrificing themselves in the Roman Coliseum, they were escapists who had nothing to live for except the delusion of eternal Heaven.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You've been duped by creepy Joseph Smith, sadly.

A Study in Scarlet, by Arthur Conan Doyle

 

[SweetSue92]

Of course.

Yes--to the uttermost. He doesn't need our help, or put conditions on whom He has saved. If we ARE saved, good works/fruit will follow.

 

[SweetSue92]

Thanks I’ll try both of your top two.

I had asked earlier on this forum, where the information about the end times, the rapture, the tribulation, etc. was in the Bible. Someone said it came from how Hal Lindsey‘s work. I read his first book, and it did sound exactly like what I was taught in Baptist Church as a teenager in the 70s.

I read his book Satan is alive and well on planet Earth as a teenager, and my grandmother, who did not go to the same church, did not like me reading it. But just based on the title, she probably thought it was Satan worship or something.

I want to read for myself how accurate Lindsey’s take on the prophesy is.

The Bible states clearly that some will be alive when Christ returns, and the dead will be raised. The contention (such as it is) comes in whether Christians will endure the tribulation or not. I don't put much stock in that. Whether I am dead or alive--Jesus will return.

 

[DudleySmith]

Why didn't those who witnessed the "miracles" fight to save Jesus from crucifixion?

Peter wacked an ear off an official who came to arrest Jesus. Read that chapter to understand the reasons why Jesus stayed their hands. They were willing to, but it would have gone against the prophecy and reason for his death if they had saved him.

If his teachings had no effect then the Babylonian scam artists wouldn't have bothered with him. He was going to cost them money and was attracting converts left and right, and kept doing so after death and soon dwarfed the Pharisees' Babylonian cult and its fake 'Oral Torah' and the silly rabbinical cults that came after the Temple scam collapsed.

The Roman empire served a very important purpose; it allowed travel over great distances and a large population to spread in.