What's the best Bible version?

[foggedinn]

I read OT king James when I was 8. Took a year. Hooray for Websters third.
It will always be my favorite.
A good bible app makes many translations available.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well this is a bit of a tricky question. I would argue that the "best" version of the NT is probably Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus but you have to be able to read Greek to understand them and they have some problems of their own. Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bibles can be very good but it depends on what manuscripts they are translating and, as with all Bibles, how faithful the translator is to the text.

I'm not sure there is a "best" Bible in English. I can tell you how I go about it if that helps at all. I don't rely on a single Bible. When I study I generally read the same section from multiple sources. I usually use the KJV for the Byzantine line, the NIV for the Alexandrian line, a Greek Interlinear, and an Amplified Bible. Then I read an absolute shitload of commentaries from as many different time frames and backgrounds (scholarly & non-scholarly) as I can find. That takes a LOT of time, but I have found it pays off...for me at least.

If the bible is 100% accurate because it is inspired of God, no matter who might have written all the different books, or when they might have been written, why are there so many differing versions ?

I never said it was. You have me confused with Koshergrl.

Believe me. I would never confuse anybody with Koshergirl. I don't claim to know all your previous posts, but from your above statement, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask the question.

The reason why I use multiple sources is because I recognize that there are thousands of different manuscripts and all of them are different. The vast majority of those differences are completely irrelevant, but sometimes they are very relevant. If the Bible was the inspired word of God He sure didn't put a lot of effort into preserving it in its original form. Thus, what comes to us now is more accurately the word of man. Hence, by reading multiple versions one can identify similarities and/or aberrations. It still doesn't get back to the originals (which will probably never be found and hence we will probably never know what they said), but it's better than just grabbing one version and accepting it blindly.

Thank you. The bible is fascinating on so many levels, and can be a great source of comfort and insight. I kinda wish it was the direct inerrant word of God that so many believe it is.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well this is a bit of a tricky question. I would argue that the "best" version of the NT is probably Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus but you have to be able to read Greek to understand them and they have some problems of their own. Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bibles can be very good but it depends on what manuscripts they are translating and, as with all Bibles, how faithful the translator is to the text.

I'm not sure there is a "best" Bible in English. I can tell you how I go about it if that helps at all. I don't rely on a single Bible. When I study I generally read the same section from multiple sources. I usually use the KJV for the Byzantine line, the NIV for the Alexandrian line, a Greek Interlinear, and an Amplified Bible. Then I read an absolute shitload of commentaries from as many different time frames and backgrounds (scholarly & non-scholarly) as I can find. That takes a LOT of time, but I have found it pays off...for me at least.

If the bible is 100% accurate because it is inspired of God, no matter who might have written all the different books, or when they might have been written, why are there so many differing versions ?

I never said it was. You have me confused with Koshergrl.

Believe me. I would never confuse anybody with Koshergirl. I don't claim to know all your previous posts, but from your above statement, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask the question.

The reason why I use multiple sources is because I recognize that there are thousands of different manuscripts and all of them are different. The vast majority of those differences are completely irrelevant, but sometimes they are very relevant. If the Bible was the inspired word of God He sure didn't put a lot of effort into preserving it in its original form. Thus, what comes to us now is more accurately the word of man. Hence, by reading multiple versions one can identify similarities and/or aberrations. It still doesn't get back to the originals (which will probably never be found and hence we will probably never know what they said), but it's better than just grabbing one version and accepting it blindly.

Thank you. The bible is fascinating on so many levels, and can be a great source of comfort and insight. I kinda wish it was the direct inerrant word of God that so many believe it is.

It would certainly make things a hell of a lot easier, huh? But what fun would that be really? It would take away so much of the mystery that makes life and the search for knowledge so rewarding

 

[Maggdy]

Well this is a bit of a tricky question. I would argue that the "best" version of the NT is probably Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus but you have to be able to read Greek to understand them and they have some problems of their own. Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bibles can be very good but it depends on what manuscripts they are translating and, as with all Bibles, how faithful the translator is to the text.

I'm not sure there is a "best" Bible in English. I can tell you how I go about it if that helps at all. I don't rely on a single Bible. When I study I generally read the same section from multiple sources. I usually use the KJV for the Byzantine line, the NIV for the Alexandrian line, a Greek Interlinear, and an Amplified Bible. Then I read an absolute shitload of commentaries from as many different time frames and backgrounds (scholarly & non-scholarly) as I can find. That takes a LOT of time, but I have found it pays off...for me at least.

If the bible is 100% accurate because it is inspired of God, no matter who might have written all the different books, or when they might have been written, why are there so many differing versions ?

I never said it was. You have me confused with Koshergrl.

Believe me. I would never confuse anybody with Koshergirl. I don't claim to know all your previous posts, but from your above statement, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask the question.

The reason why I use multiple sources is because I recognize that there are thousands of different manuscripts and all of them are different. The vast majority of those differences are completely irrelevant, but sometimes they are very relevant. If the Bible was the inspired word of God He sure didn't put a lot of effort into preserving it in its original form. Thus, what comes to us now is more accurately the word of man. Hence, by reading multiple versions one can identify similarities and/or aberrations. It still doesn't get back to the originals (which will probably never be found and hence we will probably never know what they said), but it's better than just grabbing one version and accepting it blindly.

You let me remind you that the writing technique itself has gone through many changes too. The people used another punctuation character thousands of years ago. BUT previously the speech and it was transmitted to teaching. There is a lack of transparency in the time before Christ, because this science the writing was an undeveloped. That what is was described four thousand years ago, it has been talked about before, that's for sure. Who knows how many thousands of years that they spoke and after this is what they described four thousand years ago? In my opinion, there is no mystery, but there are regularities. The evolution of mankind is to be thought of as a small child when they grows up. First speak, this after read and write, then thinking later. No exact dates too.
No matter how long we discuss the matter, the result will be the same.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well this is a bit of a tricky question. I would argue that the "best" version of the NT is probably Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus but you have to be able to read Greek to understand them and they have some problems of their own. Greek and Hebrew Interlinear Bibles can be very good but it depends on what manuscripts they are translating and, as with all Bibles, how faithful the translator is to the text.

I'm not sure there is a "best" Bible in English. I can tell you how I go about it if that helps at all. I don't rely on a single Bible. When I study I generally read the same section from multiple sources. I usually use the KJV for the Byzantine line, the NIV for the Alexandrian line, a Greek Interlinear, and an Amplified Bible. Then I read an absolute shitload of commentaries from as many different time frames and backgrounds (scholarly & non-scholarly) as I can find. That takes a LOT of time, but I have found it pays off...for me at least.

If the bible is 100% accurate because it is inspired of God, no matter who might have written all the different books, or when they might have been written, why are there so many differing versions ?

I never said it was. You have me confused with Koshergrl.

Believe me. I would never confuse anybody with Koshergirl. I don't claim to know all your previous posts, but from your above statement, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask the question.

The reason why I use multiple sources is because I recognize that there are thousands of different manuscripts and all of them are different. The vast majority of those differences are completely irrelevant, but sometimes they are very relevant. If the Bible was the inspired word of God He sure didn't put a lot of effort into preserving it in its original form. Thus, what comes to us now is more accurately the word of man. Hence, by reading multiple versions one can identify similarities and/or aberrations. It still doesn't get back to the originals (which will probably never be found and hence we will probably never know what they said), but it's better than just grabbing one version and accepting it blindly.

You let me remind you that the writing technique itself has gone through many changes too. The people used another punctuation character thousands of years ago. BUT previously the speech and it was transmitted to teaching. There is a lack of transparency in the time before Christ, because this science the writing was an undeveloped. That what is was described four thousand years ago, it has been talked about before, that's for sure. Who knows how many thousands of years that they spoke and after this is what they described four thousand years ago? In my opinion, there is no mystery, but there are regularities. The evolution of mankind is to be thought of as a small child when they grows up. First speak, this after read and write, then thinking later. No exact dates too.
No matter how long we discuss the matter, the result will be the same.

Your English is a bit confusing. I think I am getting the idea of what you are saying but I am not quite sure. If I understand you correctly, my response would be "yeah...I am fully aware." But I would advise you that you are talking WAY above the average USMB poster's head so you have to make it very basic for them or you will waste your time arguing "advanced physics to kindergarten students". Follow me?

 

[Maggdy]

If the bible is 100% accurate because it is inspired of God, no matter who might have written all the different books, or when they might have been written, why are there so many differing versions ?

I never said it was. You have me confused with Koshergrl.

Believe me. I would never confuse anybody with Koshergirl. I don't claim to know all your previous posts, but from your above statement, I thought it might be worthwhile to ask the question.

The reason why I use multiple sources is because I recognize that there are thousands of different manuscripts and all of them are different. The vast majority of those differences are completely irrelevant, but sometimes they are very relevant. If the Bible was the inspired word of God He sure didn't put a lot of effort into preserving it in its original form. Thus, what comes to us now is more accurately the word of man. Hence, by reading multiple versions one can identify similarities and/or aberrations. It still doesn't get back to the originals (which will probably never be found and hence we will probably never know what they said), but it's better than just grabbing one version and accepting it blindly.

You let me remind you that the writing technique itself has gone through many changes too. The people used another punctuation character thousands of years ago. BUT previously the speech and it was transmitted to teaching. There is a lack of transparency in the time before Christ, because this science the writing was an undeveloped. That what is was described four thousand years ago, it has been talked about before, that's for sure. Who knows how many thousands of years that they spoke and after this is what they described four thousand years ago? In my opinion, there is no mystery, but there are regularities. The evolution of mankind is to be thought of as a small child when they grows up. First speak, this after read and write, then thinking later. No exact dates too.
No matter how long we discuss the matter, the result will be the same.

Your English is a bit confusing. I think I am getting the idea of what you are saying but I am not quite sure. If I understand you correctly, my response would be "yeah...I am fully aware." But I would advise you that you are talking WAY above the average USMB poster's head so you have to make it very basic for them or you will waste your time arguing "advanced physics to kindergarten students". Follow me?

Sorry for the confusing English.
I think (or to know) we understand each other. I do confess: if I should go in US, then I'm deaf and dumb there.
I now urgent my things to do, but I will return tomorrow. bye.

 

[danielpalos]

... the one that proclaims that there Is No protestant-ism nor Any renegade-ism to our supreme laws of the land.

 

[Maggdy]

The error: not always in the law. There are persons who misunderstood the law is, and they broadcast to wrongly. The law guidelines, never could cause trouble for the people. On the contrary: should be it help. Such as the weapon, should to learn of use. The priests (and many others) , wide off the mark (through thousands of years). This is how I explain? I think: the best of the parables.

 

[Abishai100]

The Argonaut Outlines


The Gideon's version of the King James Bible is the clearest and most personalizable version, in my estimation. It invites the reader to interpret a personalized implication of key themes as they pertain to the social impact of sentimentalism and spiritualism (a clarity-based approach highlighted in the King James version).

You can find Gideon's King James Bibles with various words in italicized format, which, it is nice to note, is congruous with our modern age of computer-enhanced fonts.

After all, what can really capture the magic and intrigue of 'personalized philosophy?'






Stencil Graffiti (Wikipedia)

Gideon's International

 

[danielpalos]

The King James version whenever I want to appeal to the authority of elder English.