Different versions of the bible.

[DudleySmith]

One of my favorite New Testament commentaries were done by William Barclay. He noted that in Hebrew numbers could use other meanings, not just a count. For example, Twelve is the number of completeness (All twelve tribes). Notice that twelve was not just doubled, it was squared to 144. Even that was not enough for the author--he added a thousands to 144 to make it 144,000. What he is saying s that the number who will be with Jesus is great--complete and overflowing.

Hebrew letters themselves also had other meanings, not just numbers.

 

[SweetSue92]

The thing to remember about the Bible is that, while it's an absolutely fascinating book, it's fiction.

Christians will tell you that it's "the divine word of God", or some other similar bullshit, yet the Bible wasn't written for some time after Christ's death. Jesus is quoted often in the Bible, but no one alive when Christ was alive was involved in writing the Bible.

According to both the Jewish and Christian faiths, the first five books of the Bible (and the entirety of the Torah) were all written by Moses in about 1,300 B.C. That's debatable, though, because Deuteronomy claims the author dies and is buried. Writing about the author's demise would be impossible if you were the author.

Here's a really good write up I found on the Bible, both Old and New Testaments: The Bible

The biggest issue I have with the Bible is actually so in your face that many people (my ex-mother-in-law among them) don't even notice it.

Mark? Paul? Matthew? John? Peter? Mary?

These are western names, and not names which likely would have ever been heard by someone living in Jerusalem, or anywhere in Israel, frankly.

I've read the Bible, cover to cover, twice. It's fascinating. At times it can be difficult to read, but it's a great story. But that's all it is: a story...

Frankly, how is it that you have read the Bible twice and do not know the Gospels were written by men who were, indeed, alive when Jesus was alive--at least three of them? I ask this not to pin you down but just rather astounded.

 

[SweetSue92]

(Now maybe many will understand why I have not read it completely. Too many choices and which one is the truest?)

The best Bible you can read is the one that is easiest for you to read. NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV. Unless you pick some really funky version that wholly rewritten, it's all good.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Frankly, how is it that you have read the Bible twice and do not know the Gospels were written by men who were, indeed, alive when Jesus was alive--at least three of them? I ask this not to pin you down but just rather astounded.

Who were those three men?

"But despite the Bible’s undeniable influence, mysteries continue to linger over its origins. Even after nearly 2,000 years of its existence, and centuries of investigation by biblical scholars, we still don’t know with certainty who wrote its various texts, when they were written or under what circumstances."

Who Wrote the Bible?

 

[SweetSue92]

Who were those three men?

"But despite the Bible’s undeniable influence, mysteries continue to linger over its origins. Even after nearly 2,000 years of its existence, and centuries of investigation by biblical scholars, we still don’t know with certainty who wrote its various texts, when they were written or under what circumstances."

Who Wrote the Bible?

Bart Ehrmann is the first mistake there. The second is "The History Channel".

Here is where they getcha: ancient history is NEVER a "certainty". But the NT books are as certain as any are. Matthew, Mark, John were contemporaries of Jesus.

 

[Colin norris]

Gracie. You could use a Bible in one year. NLT version. I love mine. Each day you read a section of OT, NT, psalm, proverbs and in a year....you're through it. I have enjoyed it. Not doing it right now because i'm doing a study on the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 18) which should end in a couple weeks and then i'll pick up on current date in bible in a year.

If I suggested you buy mills and boon novels you would laugh at me. But you waste your life reading exactly the same thing every day as if There's something in reward for it.
You gave never received one thing from a bible or any God.
Now your delving into some fictional prophet to further your delusions.

The only thing correct in your silly books is The page numbers.
You will eventually find out. What a waste.

 

[Calypso Jones]

"...you waste your life reading exactly the same thing every day as if There's something in reward for it.
You gave never received one thing from a bible or any God.
Now your delving into some fictional prophet to further your delusions.

I don't read God's word as a 'reward' as you suggest. I read it for his wisdom, for my own wisdom, because he wants me to, because i want to, to see his hand at work in the world and in this nation. Those are rewards though. God blesses a nation that blesses Him. I am sorry you feel this way. I pray that he will open your eyes so you see that he is the one true God and that we need him YOU need him, to turn hearts back to him and to turn this nation back to him.

Just as an aside. God punished Israel for their wickedness...they were doing the same things that we do now. He used strong heathen merciless people to bring them to their knees and he is doing the same to us. This administration is bringing in the enemy in evacuation flights. I just hope they keep these savages in blue metropolitan areas.

 

[JohnDB]

When talking about Hebrew language the first thing that needs to be understood is that it is the OLDEST living language.

The Hebrew language started as only verbal but Moses made it become a written language at the time Egypt ruled the world.
So it started with a pictographic alphabet with a phonetic component.

Hebrew language is also a metaphoric language since inception. IOW there never will be a true "Word-for-Word" equivalent translation. Hebrew language also contains parts of speech the English language does not have. It also is deficient in several vocabulary words and parts of speech that are in use today.

On top of this...much of the Old Testament is written in various forms of poetry. When the Torah is read in Synagogues it isn't flatly spoken it is sung to music (but most exclusively Acapella)

Then....on top of this highly complicated language there are several forms of Hebrew. The high formal Hebrew language like what is used in the King's record's and what Daniel wrote in and then street Hebrew for the common man.

The oldest portions of the Bible (66 books, letters, and messages by 40+ authors over a span of 1500+ years) were written in the Ancient Near East over 5,000+ years ago....cultures have shifted many times since then. Modern understandings of things just don't apply no matter how much you want them to. So it takes a bit of study to actually understand why what was written was written in the manner it was written in. Even if you have a modern translation that is the most accurate possible...it won't include the requisite anthropology studies necessary to comprehend it.
I've never seen a book so widely published and yet so poorly understood and twisted to mean the exact opposite of what it says so very often. Scriptures/Christianity has been used as a license to perform just about every evil action under the sun for centuries...(I personally don't think God is amused by that either)

The scriptures actually do promote kindness, mercy, truth, and forgiveness.
The scriptures do denigrate fighting, envy, hatred, stealing, oppression, moral turpitude, and judgementalism.

 

[DudleySmith]

I will add getting a copy of Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus as a supplement; it will explain a lot of contemporary stuff that may be confusing re the local culture and terminology and references of the times. Very very handy. I would even recommend reading it first, or at least scanning through it and note the main topics for future reference.

Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus

If there's anything you want to know about life in first-century Jerusalem, you'll find it in Joachim Jeremias's classic study, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Delving into conditions during New Testament times, Jeremias discusses industries, commerce, foreign influences, economic classes...

www.christianbook.com

Also, if you're concerned about the claims that the orthodox versions aren't legitimate, you can get a copy of The Missing Gospels by Darrell Bock; it has pretty much handed Bert Erhman his ass on his fake claims as well as those of Walther Bauer and Elaine Pagels and their Gnostic rubbish.

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth behind Alternative Christianities - DTS Voice


Despite rather in-depth discussions, Bock makes this a readable volume. Knowledge of the new sources is not assumed. He provides helpful introductory information on each of these sources.


The value of this book is enhanced with questions included at the end of each chapter, and with two appendixes. The first appendix is a list of relevant “new material” texts discussed in the volume. The second appendix is a list of key texts in the apostolic fathers with their themes. Also the book includes a helpful bibliography.


In conclusion the best approach to countering arguments against orthodoxy is to read and understand the important early sources. Bock’s volume is a solid discussion of these sources and the appropriate issues that will restore confidence to those faced with recent claims against traditional Christianity. In addition Bock’s work should contribute to related areas as well. For example the question of the biblical canon often revolves around criteria such as apostolic origin, church acceptance, orthodoxy, and extensive use. These arguments are problematic and not sufficient for the present debate. Bock has proven that there is a core set of beliefs that can be traced to the earliest tradition. This core among the early books may be the reason the canonical books were chosen.

Start out with these two supplements and your doubts won't hang you up; the Gospels are completely contemporary writings, not a single anachronism in any of them, which is an impossibility if they was 're-written 400 years later n stuff', but that doesn't keep assorted deviants and clown cars full of nutjobs from constantly making the claim anyway.

 

[Clyde 154]

A Christian refers to a follower of Jesus Christ who may be a Catholic, Protestant, Gnostic, Mormon, Evangelical, Anglican or Orthodox, or follower of another branch of the religion. A Catholic is a Christian who follows the Catholic religion as transmitted through the succession of Popes.


Is this true? I was googling around and Alpha And Omega is supposedly the best "transcribed" bible, true to the translations of the times. Which goes along with what I have always said.....some of the gospels were left out, some not transcribed correctly due to the agendas of the times, etc. So I go googling and there are MANY bibles with different "versions". So which one is the best, in your opinion?



What version of the Bible do y'all read?

And finally, my last question for awhile:

What does it mean when a passage in the bible states that only 144,000 will be sent to Jesus when He appears? Surely there are more than that amount of people that are good and not evil?

What is a good translation? Any "literal" translation ......i.e., the content is translated word for word to the nearest English word or phrase. The original order of words of the original text is kept, These word for word translations are a bit difficult to read since different languages have varied grammar rules. To get the most comprehension from such a literal translation one should have some kind of formal education in other languages such as Hebrew or Greek. For the common average reader there are other translations that still transmit the original content and subject matter....but are not LITERAL TRANSLATIONS

There are translations called "essentially" literal. Once again the translations are word for word to nearest English word or phrase....but the order of the words might vary depending upon the rules of grammar for the English language. These translations are the most commonly used.....examples would be King James, the American Standard, the New American Standard, the New King James and the English Standard version.

The translations to stay away from because they are flawed drastically via personalized opinionated translations...........
THE PARAPHRASED VERSIONS. These are not true translations, they are more like a running commentary as defined by the one making the commentary ......or the idea of what the commentator thought was meant in the original language....its not a literal word for word or phrase for phrase edition. Examples would be...........The New Living Translation, Today's English Translation, Good News for Modern Man and The Message.

The most important thing with a good translation is that it remains loyal to the original Content, Context and Subject Matter. As a general rule one can comprehend any good translation via comparing the entire Content of the Book and chapter with the general subject matter. Example if you are reading a chapter concerning the subject of baptism and suddenly instead of water baptism the translation makes referral to Baptism of the Holy Spirit.....you know this is not a valid translation because it strayed from the original subject matter with the translator attempting to mold the word around their personal doctrine.........

 

[Gracie]

Got my book. So...crash course. Where should I start, and don't say Genesis. That part I know.

I want to start with OT. Then NT.

Suggestions?

The parts I don't read I can go back to later after.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Start from the beginning..... and go from there. If there are study notes at the bottom read those. It helps.

 

[BreezeWood]

what is your objective -

they wrote their version in the 4th century - state church of the roman empire - all you will accomplish is one rendition or another of their version. if you can keep that in mind and with all the forgeries and fallacies of those books hopefully there is a maintained deliberation in your objective and are not overwhelmed by those untruthful disseminations.

no one is born a sinner, liberation theology was the objective of a&e, they were set on a mission and one where failure is irredeemable. their choice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Christian refers to a follower of Jesus Christ who may be a Catholic, Protestant, Gnostic, Mormon, Evangelical, Anglican or Orthodox, or follower of another branch of the religion. A Catholic is a Christian who follows the Catholic religion as transmitted through the succession of Popes.


Is this true? I was googling around and Alpha And Omega is supposedly the best "transcribed" bible, true to the translations of the times. Which goes along with what I have always said.....some of the gospels were left out, some not transcribed correctly due to the agendas of the times, etc. So I go googling and there are MANY bibles with different "versions". So which one is the best, in your opinion?



What version of the Bible do y'all read?

And finally, my last question for awhile:

What does it mean when a passage in the bible states that only 144,000 will be sent to Jesus when He appears? Surely there are more than that amount of people that are good and not evil?

King James is most accurate and accepted by most Christian sects.

 

[norwegen]

King James is most accurate and accepted by most Christian sects.

The KJV is far from the most accurate. In fact, it's misleading.

 

[JohnDB]

What is a good translation? Any "literal" translation ......i.e., the content is translated word for word to the nearest English word or phrase. The original order of words of the original text is kept, These word for word translations are a bit difficult to read since different languages have varied grammar rules. To get the most comprehension from such a literal translation one should have some kind of formal education in other languages such as Hebrew or Greek. For the common average reader there are other translations that still transmit the original content and subject matter....but are not LITERAL TRANSLATIONS

There are translations called "essentially" literal. Once again the translations are word for word to nearest English word or phrase....but the order of the words might vary depending upon the rules of grammar for the English language. These translations are the most commonly used.....examples would be King James, the American Standard, the New American Standard, the New King James and the English Standard version.

The translations to stay away from because they are flawed drastically via personalized opinionated translations...........
THE PARAPHRASED VERSIONS. These are not true translations, they are more like a running commentary as defined by the one making the commentary ......or the idea of what the commentator thought was meant in the original language....its not a literal word for word or phrase for phrase edition. Examples would be...........The New Living Translation, Today's English Translation, Good News for Modern Man and The Message.

The most important thing with a good translation is that it remains loyal to the original Content, Context and Subject Matter. As a general rule one can comprehend any good translation via comparing the entire Content of the Book and chapter with the general subject matter. Example if you are reading a chapter concerning the subject of baptism and suddenly instead of water baptism the translation makes referral to Baptism of the Holy Spirit.....you know this is not a valid translation because it strayed from the original subject matter with the translator attempting to mold the word around their personal doctrine.........

There are no actual Word-for-Word translations...Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Early Latin are all too metaphoric and idiomatic to be done so. Even those translations that claim to do so don't as the end result would be completely unreadable...and then there's those words that have no English equivalent. And then what should be done with the deliberately misspelled words?
So even the most "Word-for-Word" translation has about half of the idiomatic expressions translated out...just to make it readable.
The problem arises when both the literal and the idiomatic meanings are intended at the same time...which happens often.

 

[JohnDB]

King James is most accurate and accepted by most Christian sects.

That would be the position of the Church of England...but the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptists, Calvinists and most others would probably disagree with you on that.

 

[Clyde 154]

There are no actual Word-for-Word translations...Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Early Latin are all too metaphoric and idiomatic to be done so. Even those translations that claim to do so don't as the end result would be completely unreadable...and then there's those words that have no English equivalent. And then what should be done with the deliberately misspelled words?
So even the most "Word-for-Word" translation has about half of the idiomatic expressions translated out...just to make it readable.
The problem arises when both the literal and the idiomatic meanings are intended at the same time...which happens often.

The New Testament was by majority written in Greek, and indeed Greek can be translated into English. The scriptures point out the Jesus is quoted as using The Septuagint version in referring to the OLD LAW......thus, you presented a false premise. If Greek is good enough for God incarnate........its good enough for the world. Even the Christ found no problem in translating the original Hebrew into Greek. What? God does not want the common man of the earth to comprehend HIS REVEALED WORD? You must be a Hebrew scholar in order to find salvation? Sounds to me like is at it again.

 

[JohnDB]

The New Testament was by majority written in Greek, and indeed Greek can be translated into English. The scriptures point out the Jesus is quoted as using The Septuagint version in referring to the OLD LAW......thus, you presented a false premise. If Greek is good enough for God incarnate........its good enough for the world. Even the Christ found no problem in translating the original Hebrew into Greek. What? God does not want the common man of the earth to comprehend HIS REVEALED WORD? You must be a Hebrew scholar in order to find salvation? Sounds to me like is at it again.

And you are showing your ignorance of anthropology. The Septuagint was only used by Hellenistic Jews. It was forbidden in the Temple and not taught at bethgashepher. (Grade school) and of course it was denigrated in Bethmidrash. (High school/college)

The language commonly spoken was a Hebrew/Aramaic blend. Greek was for the hated Romans. (Being multi-lingual was common in a "crossroads" country)

The first martyr Stephen was famous for his citations of the Septuagint and his style of explaining the scriptures just before he was taken outside and stoned for speaking in such a blasphemous fashion. He was of course a Hellenistic Jew. He was never raised in Israel, he only moved there after adulthood and was never taught in the Jewish public school system.

And I never claimed that a person needs to be a scholar of ancient languages to understand the core components of scriptures or the basics of what should be taken away from what is written...
But just like the major gaff you made in your false accusations demonstrate... don't make a major out of a minor or go beyond what is actually written.
That's a hard and fast rule of hermeneutics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The KJV is far from the most accurate. In fact, it's misleading.

I disagree and so does most Christian religions.