Which Bible is the best for a beginner?

[stevehut]

I recomend the KJV and someone that cares enough to help them with it.

No matter the version, I believe that everyone needs a teacher. Even if you could produce a "perfect" translation on a first-grade reading level, people would still need help. It's not just a matter of understanding the words themselves. Spiritual concepts are too deep for any man to go it alone.

[ted]

Amen, Steve.

And that's just the point I was trying to convey.

We all need that special someone to help us in our walk.

Now, do we have the conviction to be that someone special??

Someone out there needs us.

t.

[jmwhalen]

Trinity writes:

"Look when you read the greek ill have to disagree with the 99% thing."

Tell me Trinity, what "the greek" are you referring to? You continually refer to "the Greek", "The Greek properly reads

[stevehut]

You deny that God has preserved His inspired word without error.  You are a bible corrector, not believer.

Well, I'm not sure that I can tell which part of that long post was from who. Could you go back and make it clearer?

I'm assuming that the part I quoted is from you, John. And I couldn't agree more. The Greek and Hebrew texts are, indeed, available to consult. And there are a great many reliable reference books out there for us who don't read or write the original languages.

[jmwhalen]

Stevehut writes:

"The Greek and Hebrew texts are, indeed, available to consult. And there are a great many reliable reference books out there for us who don't read or write the original languages."

___________________

No, Stevehut. Again, there is no such thing as "the Greek amd Hebrew texts".

There are easily 25/30 VERY DIFFERENT Greek texts in print, and 5000 plus manuscripts which differ from each other. The NASB,NIV, ESV,RSV, and most modern versions are based on a very different Greek text than those of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible, and the NKJV. It omits some 3000 words in the NT alone, and even these modern versions do not always follow the same Greek texts among themselves

You make the assumption that "the original Greek" or the "original Hebrew" can be found today all in one place. It cannot.

First of all, there is really no such thing as the "original Greek" or the "original Hebrew". The autographs("auto"=hand, "graphe"=writings)are gone, and even if we had them, which we don't, some of them would not even be "original".

Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals" were burned(Jer. 36:23). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jer. 36:28,32)! The "original" stone tablets were broken and had to be rewritten. Matthew and Hebrews were originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. And yet, there is no Hebrew copy of either book existing today.

The bottom line is that it ultimately boils down to recognizing God's hand throughout the inspiration and transmission history. We now have copies of copies.

However, when someone today talks of the "original Greek", or the "original Hebrew", that person is talking about a text that has been compiled by men from these copies.

For examples, we have a copy of the Greek Textus Receptus available, which is "the" Greek text underlying the KJV AV1611-well, "sort of".

That is, men put this Greek text together, just as men put bible translations together. And this Greek text has been compiled from Greek manuscripts, which are spread out worlwide. Men had to choose which readings to include into this Greek text, and which to reject. And these men were of recent centuries, not apostles from the time of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For example, the TR text contains a few readings that the 1611 AV translators did not follow-in several places, the 1611 AV translators followed different Greek manuscripts!

That is, the 1611 AV does not exactly match the Greek Textus Receptus.

The bottom line of this is quite simple-Men compiled every Greek and Hebrew text in existence, men determined which manuscipts to choose readings from and which to reject., and men determined which reading to follow and which reading not to follow in their compilation of the Greek and Hebrew texts!

In essence, the "original Greek", and the "original Hebrew" is no less the work of men than is any translation, for when people say the "original Greek" or the "original Hebrew", they are talking about texts that currently exist, such as the Textus Receptus, which was compiled together by men!

When the so-called "experts" want to "correct" the 1611 AV("A better rendering would be", " Some are better than others. What do I mean by 'better' Better translations are those transparent to the underlying Greek/Hebrew but still clearly communicating in the language of the reader")with "the Greek", or "the Hebrew", they are assuming that "the Greek", or "the Hebrew", that they are using is the same Greek and Hebrew that the 1611 AV is based on. Often it is not.

These people do not understand that their "Greek", their "Hebrew" was compiled by men, just like the readings that underlie the 1611 AV were compiled by men. As stated previously, but needs restating, the "Greek" and the "Hebrew" they want to correct the 1611 AV with was compiled together by men of recent history, not by the prophets or apostles. And thus their "Greek" and their "Hebrew" has no more claim to divine authority than the 1611 AV does, despite claims to the contrary, because both were chosen from a bigger universe, and all by men.

Thus when someone claims "All translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts are the Word of God", and "the manuscripts", this is in error. - there is no such thing as "THE Hebrew and THE Greek texts", "the manuscripts"!

Even if I were to obtain a "Greek text", it would do me no good. I do not speak Greek(less than 2% of the world does, vs. approximately 40% English), I don't know anyone who speaks it, and I have no desire to learn any Greek. I do speak pretty good English. Why not focus on English, and focus on mastering the AV 1611, the English Bible?

I find it amuzing that those who say that they cannot understand the AV 1611(using such words as it is "archaic", "old English", I cannot understand "Thee's" and "Ye's"), will at the same time say either we "must consult the Greek", when they do not even understand Greek, or say we need more "revisions" so as to make God's word in English "more understandable". Why not study English, not the Greek, which is a "dead" language, and instead of trying to "correct" "old English", which has resulted in 200 plus "revisions" WHICH DIFFER AMONG THEMSELVES in both English style and CONTENT(i.e., deletions, ommissions), focus on studying what God has preserved in the English language for almost 400 years? Cannot understand the AV 1611? It is far better to expand one's vocabulary than to re-write it continually(200 versions? Is this logical?) It is true that some English words have changed in their meaning, and others are no longer in common usage. But such words are comparatively few, and can easily be understood with the use of a dictionary(why is it that people will use a dictionary for other literature, but not the Bible?)

In Christ,

John Whalen

[stevehut]

1- You make the assumption that "the original Greek" or the "original Hebrew" can be found today all in one place.

2- The autographs("auto"=hand, "graphe"=writings)are gone,

3- Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals" were burned(Jer. 36:23).

1- Nope. I have never believed that.

2- Auto means "self", not "hand".

3- Yup. Again, I have never believed differently.

I will resist the temptation to counter your other statements directly. I think you're confused, John.

[Jacqueline]

I'm starting to understand that I do need someone to help me in my walk. I have the King James Version. Theres things that I understand, but so much that I don't. I'm even beginning to realize that a lot of what I think I understand I've only touched a small part of it's true meaning.

God Bless You

Jacqueline