[godfather dust]

I'm a King James man going way back (like the dramatic prose.)

What is the most faithful to the original material though?

If there are better Old and New Testaments list them. Break it down even further (this is the best Gospel, these are the best versions of Paul's writing etc) if necessary.

I've also heard the Orthodox use more than 66 books. Thoughts?

[Paracelsus]

PM AnonymousBosch, he reckons he spent the last 6 months looking into different Biblical versions and who influenced them.

[Spectrumwalker]

Stick with the KJV. If ya start readin' other versions your liable to start wearing scarves, Moby glasses, and drinking soy lattes.

[Super_Fire]

(04-15-2018 11:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

PM AnonymousBosch, he reckons he spent the last 6 months looking into different Biblical versions and who influenced them.

Please post publicly if you do.

[Mage]

If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.

[Super_Fire]

(04-16-2018 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  

If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

[Tex Cruise]

(04-16-2018 02:54 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 11:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

PM AnonymousBosch, he reckons he spent the last 6 months looking into different Biblical versions and who influenced them.

Please post publicly if you do.

Don't post PMs publicly without permission.

I've been reading World English Bible online lately. I find it nice and easy to read. Is it reasonably accurate though? I've been meaning to try and get a paperback copy just for ease of reading (outside, in bed etc).

[Super_Fire]

(04-16-2018 03:47 AM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  

Don't post PMs publicly without permission.

Post the Bible in question, not the PM.

[Spectrumwalker]

(04-16-2018 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  

If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.

Totally false, and I would go so far as to illogical. This is the same argument Muslims put forth saying "in order to truly understand the Qur'an you must learn Arabic."

If God wanted his message to be exclusive to one people, one region of the world and in only one language, he wouldn't have dispersed people into nations and confounding their languages. The Gospel would be difficult to give and follow God's order to spread it to the world if at first you had to sit people down and say "oh but first you need to learn ancient Hebrew and be a part of our elite linguistic club."

God can do everything but somehow couldnt successfully get his message to the people of the world in each of their respective languages? I don't think so.

Someone above mentioned God controls everything as if we're puppets. People do some pretty sick and twisted shit. Is God controlling a cracked out mother who throws her baby onto the freeway? If God controls everything he's one sick son of a bitch. We have free will. But thats off topic.

[heavy]

My dad was a preacher, and a pretty obsessed one about historical integrity (he nerded out on it, his only hobby).

He always said, while we all had NIV bibles because they were the most common, the NASB was the most accurate when referenced to all his concordances and dictionaries.

[YoungBlade]

(04-16-2018 10:04 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  

If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.

If God wanted his message to be exclusive to one people, one region of the world and in only one language, he wouldn't have dispersed people into nations and confounding their languages. The Gospel would be difficult to give and follow God's order to spread it to the world if at first you had to sit people down and say "oh but first you need to learn ancient Hebrew and be a part of our elite linguistic club."

Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."

Matthew 15:24

[rotekz]

I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.

[debeguiled]

If God wanted to, he could reach you with fortune cookies and candy hearts.

His spirit reaches men in many ways and can flow through any Bible as long as it isn't designed to deceive.

On person connects with the grandeur of the language of the King James.

Another might need the accessibility of the New Living Bible.

It is easy to get into the mindset of the Bible as just another text to read and debate about.

Or to nitpick over phrasings and definitions of specific words.

Spectrumwalker is on the right track.

God is for everybody, Jesus is for everybody, the Bible is for everybody.

The muscular Christianity of the people saying you have to know Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek is not in line with the spirit of Jesus at all. It is more of a way to discourage people or make them doubt themselves and the veracity of their spiritual experiences.

I have read accounts, long ago, sorry no references, of missionaries who had translate the Bible for aboriginal people who had never even seen a sheep. So how do you describe the Lamb of God?

Many problems like this crop up when you try to communicate spiritual truths to different people of the world. These missionaries made many changes and paraphrases in order to reach the people they were ministering to in language and metaphor they could understand.

According to an academic Biblical scholar, these Bibles are highly inaccurate and to be dismissed.

According to the spreading of the good news of the gospels, a long way from home, in trial and sacrifice, leaving all that you know to reach out to an alien people and share with them the most important thing you know, these translations of the Bible are more valuable than a million translations worked out in comfy reading rooms of respected universities by dusty scholars who don't like their routines interrupted.

These translations are more valuable than a perfect Greek gospel written down a day after the Ascension which no one can read.

Jesus said, "Follow me."

He also made the point of describing the kingdom of God with many different metaphors and similies, and sometimes he would even say, as if having exhausted his creativity, in Mark 30:

Quote:

What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?

That was NIV.

Would it be better with the New Living Translation?

Quote:

How can I describe the Kingdom of God? What story should I use to illustrate it?

Or the English Standard Version?

Quote:

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?

Are these differences really worth being concerned with? Jesus was trying out all sorts of different ways of communicating an overarching truth so he could connect with the different sensibilities of different people, not so we could argue over whether faith is a mustard seed or the ability to calm the waves and walk on water.

Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up in the minutia of textual analysis that the miss the forest, the forest being Jesus, and the spiritual concepts he is trying to convey, the personal connection he is trying to make.

My favorite Bible is a paraphrase Bible, and it is my favorite because when I was a teenager who didn't feel like anyone cared about him, a local youth pastor took me aside before a meeting and gave me a copy of the Bible telling me how special it was for him.

Which is more important? The accuracy or the connection with a person who in turn connects another person to Jesus?

Knowing Hebrew or making a pimply kid feel noticed?

What is the spirit of this whole enterprise, and what is really important?

[Mage]

(04-16-2018 03:07 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  

If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

I admit I can't read that, but I don't hold Bible as the highest or only source of truth. If I decided to bet my everlasting life on Bible holding a truth not found anywhere else I would learn original languages. I actually plan to learn some Hebrew in future when I have more free time. Not interested in Greek parts of Bible that much.

(04-16-2018 10:04 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

Totally false, and I would go so far as to illogical. This is the same argument Muslims put forth saying "in order to truly understand the Qur'an you must learn Arabic."

If God wanted his message to be exclusive to one people, one region of the world and in only one language, he wouldn't have dispersed people into nations and confounding their languages. The Gospel would be difficult to give and follow God's order to spread it to the world if at first you had to sit people down and say "oh but first you need to learn ancient Hebrew and be a part of our elite linguistic club."

God can do everything but somehow couldnt successfully get his message to the people of the world in each of their respective languages? I don't think so.

Someone above mentioned God controls everything as if we're puppets. People do some pretty sick and twisted shit. Is God controlling a cracked out mother who throws her baby onto the freeway? If God controls everything he's one sick son of a bitch. We have free will. But thats off topic.

I also believe that God can reach everyone, regardless of language, but that only means that the truth is found outside religions that rely on single book. So we both have the same theses but arrive to different conclusions. We both understand the limitations on scripture based religion, but while you double down on it - I seek broader alternatives.

Both Christianity and Islam uses the language argument for the same purpose. Muslims want the power center of their faith to remain in Arabia, while Catholics trough Latin and Orthodox trough Church-Slavonic want to retain the source of power within Rome and Constantinople/Moscow respectively.

Bible certainly holds deep insights and truths, but much is lost in translation and much is twisted in traditional as well as modern translations. I believe that all of these truths can be learned trough other spiritual practices as well and religions interpreting books don't have monopoly.

[godfather dust]

(04-16-2018 10:16 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.

The Schofield Bible is a satanic Zionist trick Bible. It is the reason many "Christians" believe we exist to serve Jews and should start WW3 on Israel's behalf.

[debeguiled]

(04-16-2018 01:09 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 10:16 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.

The Schofield Bible is a satanic Zionist trick Bible. It is the reason many "Christians" believe we exist to serve Jews and should start WW3 on Israel's behalf.

I have heard this before. Any links?

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-16-2018 10:10 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."

Matthew 15:24

Also Mark 23:30.

This is a selective interpretation, taken completely out of context from the text around it. Keep reading.

Note the woman in question is identified as both Greek and Canaanite, a tribe previously-marked in the Old Testament for extermination by the Jews. Jesus has retired into the Gentile Territory of Tyre and Sidon after challenging the Pharisees, where his safety is not guaranteed due to the Canaanites being known by readers of the era as being bitter enemies with the Jews.

A conflict is expected by readers, and inevitable.

Seemingly out of character, Jesus calls her a 'Dog' when she begs for a demon to be cast out of her daughter. Note that this was a Jewish Insult, for the animals were thought of as being 'unclean'. Also note, that this incident happens directly after Jesus challenges the Scribes and Pharisees on matters of ritual 'cleanliness' at the start of the Chapter, leading to the teaching of Verse 11:

"Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, that defileth a man".

So, with this context already in place, and the reader understanding this, he dismisses the woman as 'unclean', and therefore, not worthy of his care.

But, there's a twist.

Due to the doggedness of the woman's faith; her humility (where wisdom grows as promised by the Holy Spirit); her lack of anger in being denied in her hour of need; and her quick wit, she - not Jesus for once - gets the last word, which similarly offers him enlightenment. Understanding that she speaks the Truth, he is humbled (and, with that, wiser), so he expels the demon from her daughter.

She has, in her humble way and knowing not the former context, reminded him to practice what he just preached so as not to be a Hypocrite. (I've often noticed the Father has a way of setting these kind of incidents up to humble us soon after any admissions of our own virtue).

An important point to remember, seeded throughout other points in the Old Testament: the Lord can change his mind due to the pleas and arguments of the Faithful. Remember also, that Jesus' Wounds in his hands and his side continue to exist even in Heaven, as an enduring plea for mercy on our behalf to the Father.

Understanding all of this, this incident with the Woman seems to be a key turning point in the Ministry of Jesus. Note how the Chapter ends: he feeds the Multitudes.

Do you see the logic now in why these three incidents, in progression, form a complete Chapter?

Later, he similarly heals the Centurions son for his great faith, to the concern of his Apostles, since the Romans wee oppressing the Jews; then, with his Passion close at hand, tells the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in the Temple to the Pharisees, saying that their consistent rejection of their Lord's Prophets and now, the Son - understand that 'stone' also meant 'Son' in Hebrew - means the Kingdom will now be taken from them and given to others; creates a New Covenant at the Last Supper for all men who believe in him and 'signs' it with his Passion, (as the Blood Sacrifice); and then, after his resurrection, enlightens his Apostles with the Holy Spirit and dispatches them to the four corners of the earth to preach the good news to all nations.

All of this follows logically from the words of the Canaanite Woman.

Understand one sentence is just part of the whole. It's important to note the patterns and progression of events.

----

Give me some time, I'll write up the Bible research I can remember, including the Scofield, the Westcott-Hort, and the dangers of any 'multi-faith' interpretation. It's hard though, in that it's not just a question of WHICH, it's the progression of experience that lead me to the WHY.

[debeguiled]

This all operates on many levels.

Jesus wasn't being taught not to be a hypocrite, he was providing an opportunity for a person to display great faith.

He was also shaming his fellow Jews by showing that outsiders had more faith than they.

He was also taking away bullshit excuses later down the road for the Jews. They couldn't say he never gave them a chance because in several places he says that he has come specifically for them.

He is also setting up the ultimate meaning of his parable of the banquet where the guests don't come so he goes out into the streets and invites whoever is out there.

There is just so much going on with any single verse, including ways that we aren't even aware of, that trying to contradict someone else's argument by quoting a single verse at them almost never works, tempting thought it is.

[rotekz]

(04-16-2018 01:09 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 10:16 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.

The Schofield Bible is a satanic Zionist trick Bible. It is the reason many "Christians" believe we exist to serve Jews and should start WW3 on Israel's behalf.

I didn't know that before I bought it but after seeing Brother Nathaniel slate it I bought the Orthodox Study Bible instead.

[rotekz]

(04-16-2018 03:58 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:09 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 10:16 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

I didn't know which to get so started out with the C.S.Lewis NRSV, then acquired an Oxford NIV Schofield Study Bible and now have The Orthodox Study Bible as I'm leaning that way.

The Schofield Bible is a satanic Zionist trick Bible. It is the reason many "Christians" believe we exist to serve Jews and should start WW3 on Israel's behalf.

I have heard this before. Any links?

[Garuda]

I'm not sure if there is a "best" English language bible.

Maybe find a copy of the Douay-Rheims. It's the English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was compiled mostly by St. Jerome. The Vulgate was declared to be the official Latin Bible of the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and was used from 1592-1979.

If you want to compare English wording to the original Greek and Hebrew, there's the Interlinear Bible. It has all of the original Greek and Hebrew texts with a direct English wording below them. Then there's numbers above that key into Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, lexicons and etc.

[AnonymousBosch]

Debeguiled Wrote:

Are these differences really worth being concerned with?

Yes.

Particularly when important concepts that contradict the personal doctrines of the translators have been deliberately-obscured, rewritten or removed entirely.

Note this accusation, from 1582, particularly that Heretics are pretending to translate the Greek Text, but, in actuality, are corrupting it:



Intentional corruption seems to be cyclical, which each newly-corrupted version condemned by those who have allegiance to older versions, that were previously-condemned as being newly-corrupted at the time.

Here's an example of Westcott-Hort pretending to translate the Greek, a few hundred years later. Their version on the left, the Greek texts on the right. I've highlighted the words in question. What's with all the additions?



Note there's roughly 6000 instances where they've changed the Greek, based upon their personal beliefs.

Since their translation is the basis for multiple bibles, (the English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and 1952, the New American Standard Version of 1960 and 1971 - particularly popular with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists at the time - and the World English Bible) you can see the damage that could have been done.

Note that Westcott and Howe have well-documented Spiritualist Interests, believed in Darwin, and had ties to the Hermetic Society and the Golden Dawn, so there's a Crowley influence.

http://www.bibleready.org/Westcott_and_Hort.html

What many modern translations seem to do - and I consider every 20th century translation deliberate attacks on faith, for reasons I'll go into later - is to carefully excise key doctrinal concepts from the text.

Have you ever read the New International Version? Skip ahead to 2:54 and note the changes to the text itself, and exactly which concepts are being removed.

As of 2011, it's even worse. It's now Gender-Neutral.

Faith is being deliberately-attacked, and the Word corrupted. Christians were warned this attack on the Church would happen in the 20th Century. The solution of this particular video - the 'trusty King James Bible' - is ironic, because it's comes out of the Jewish Influence on the Reformation. They don't understand that what they're decrying in the NIV already-happened to the KJV.

For example, does John the Baptist say "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," or does he say, as in the Latin, "Do penance..." Does Matthew speak of giving us our 'daily' bread, or 'supersubstantial' bread, confirming the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Are we asking God to not lead us into temptation, or tentatio, which has multiple meanings?

You need to research who and what forces are behind each translation to understand motivation.

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-16-2018 04:56 PM)Garuda Wrote:  

Maybe find a copy of the Douay-Rheims. It's the English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was compiled mostly by St. Jerome. The Vulgate was declared to be the official Latin Bible of the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and was used from 1592-1979.

I got caught out here with this. I'll go into this in more detail later, but note what is currently-sold as the Douay-Rheims is not the original Douay-Rheims. They're either the Challoner Revisions from around 1750 or the American Revision from 1899. The former was created to fall more in step with Protestant belief so anyone owning a copy in England wouldn't be put to death for possessing one, and the translation defers to the King James as often as it defers to the original Douay-Rheims. All the original footnotes were removed and Challoner's new ones added. As such, it was considered by certain clergy members to be an entirely New Translation, that should have had its own name. Sharing the name effectively-obscured the original work.

As such, Roman Catholics think this is 'their' bible, and closest to the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome, and they're mistaken, though you have to really research to discover this information.

See how complicated finding the Word actually is? Almost as if things are being deliberately-obscured.

[debeguiled]

Your point is well taken.

However you are looking at it from the point of view of an intellectual.

My point is that God can reach a sincere heart.

There are many many Christians who have no concept of any of the stuff that we discuss on this forum.

Do they follow the main rules?

Yes, probably better than you or I. Loving God and loving their brother.

Is salvation denied to the mentally retarded?

I go to a sola scriptura Bible study group even though I don't think they can understand the message without tradition.

Am I denied heaven because I see it differently than my fellow men in the group?

Are they?

Immersion baptisms. Priest baptisms. Baptisms of Holy Spirit. Look at all these things that each church thinks is necessary.

What about being born again? Many churches think that unless you are willfully and consciously born again, you cannot be saved.

Yet many of these people who are sure they are saved do not celebrate the Lord's Supper in their services while the Catholics, who they see as idolaters and near devil worshipers do.

Is one of these practices more relevant than the other? Is it based on this kind of legalism, or is it based on loving God and your neighbor.

It is not the intellectuals that are leading this charge and there are people who have never been 'born again' consciously whose lives have changed so much that in spirit, they have. And there are people who are so reverent and thankful that every action is a Lord's supper.

I appreciate your intense desire to get things right, and to get to the bottom of things, and to avoid being misled.

I just think you aren't giving God enough credit.

He can work with anything.

The old promise of the Old Testament still stands. Seek God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and you will find him, even in a gender neutral church.

(Though it might lead you to leave that church. Heh.)

God is big picture, and if you are sincerely giving it a go he won't let you be misled fatally or permanently.

These people who try to mislead are like the Appointment in Samarra guy. They think they are so clever.

God's got this.

[YoungBlade]

(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 10:10 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."

Matthew 15:24

Also Mark 23:30.

This is a selective interpretation, taken completely out of context from the text around it. Keep reading.

Note the woman in question is identified as both Greek and Canaanite, a tribe previously-marked in the Old Testament for extermination by the Jews. Jesus has retired into the Gentile Territory of Tyre and Sidon after challenging the Pharisees, where his safety is not guaranteed due to the Canaanites being known by readers of the era as being bitter enemies with the Jews.

A conflict is expected by readers, and inevitable.

Seemingly out of character, Jesus calls her a 'Dog' when she begs for a demon to be cast out of her daughter. Note that this was a Jewish Insult, for the animals were thought of as being 'unclean'. Also note, that this incident happens directly after Jesus challenges the Scribes and Pharisees on matters of ritual 'cleanliness' at the start of the Chapter, leading to the teaching of Verse 11:

"Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, that defileth a man".

So, with this context already in place, and the reader understanding this, he dismisses the woman as 'unclean', and therefore, not worthy of his care.

But, there's a twist.

Due to the doggedness of the woman's faith; her humility (where wisdom grows as promised by the Holy Spirit); her lack of anger in being denied in her hour of need; and her quick wit, she - not Jesus for once - gets the last word, which similarly offers him enlightenment. Understanding that she speaks the Truth, he is humbled (and, with that, wiser), so he expels the demon from her daughter.

She has, in her humble way and knowing not the former context, reminded him to practice what he just preached so as not to be a Hypocrite. (I've often noticed the Father has a way of setting these kind of incidents up to humble us soon after any admissions of our own virtue).

An important point to remember, seeded throughout other points in the Old Testament: the Lord can change his mind due to the pleas and arguments of the Faithful. Remember also, that Jesus' Wounds in his hands and his side continue to exist even in Heaven, as an enduring plea for mercy on our behalf to the Father.

Understanding all of this, this incident with the Woman seems to be a key turning point in the Ministry of Jesus. Note how the Chapter ends: he feeds the Multitudes.

Do you see the logic now in why these three incidents, in progression, form a complete Chapter?

Later, he similarly heals the Centurions son for his great faith, to the concern of his Apostles, since the Romans wee oppressing the Jews; then, with his Passion close at hand, tells the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in the Temple to the Pharisees, saying that their consistent rejection of their Lord's Prophets and now, the Son - understand that 'stone' also meant 'Son' in Hebrew - means the Kingdom will now be taken from them and given to others; creates a New Covenant at the Last Supper for all men who believe in him and 'signs' it with his Passion, (as the Blood Sacrifice); and then, after his resurrection, enlightens his Apostles with the Holy Spirit and dispatches them to the four corners of the earth to preach the good news to all nations.

All of this follows logically from the words of the Canaanite Woman.

Understand one sentence is just part of the whole. It's important to note the patterns and progression of events.

----

Give me some time, I'll write up the Bible research I can remember, including the Scofield, the Westcott-Hort, and the dangers of any 'multi-faith' interpretation. It's hard though, in that it's not just a question of WHICH, it's the progression of experience that lead me to the WHY.

Or, rather than mental masturbation as to why Gentiles should worship a Jew, Occam's razor determines he was getting a mouthy shiksa off his ass.

Food for thought.