Choosing a Bible

[Iryssa]

NIV Study Bible is the one I use, but I think it's important to look at at least two other versions when you're really studying the text.

Why a Study Bible?

1. Because the notes provide important historical-cultural context that you would otherwise not pick up.

2. Because the notes can point you to other scriptures that discuss the same issue, or suchlike.

3. Because I think it's important to learn from others who have studied the scriptures, especially well-informed scholars. (Come on, I can't just call on my Theology professor at 1am to ask him what the cultural context was of such-and-such a place in scripture. Sure, he'd prolly be nice about telling me to call during office hours, but I wouldn't want to be rude enough to put him in a position where he would need to tell me that at all).

Seriously, I've often found that the study notes in my Study Bible coincide perfectly with lectures in Theology classes at my Bible College. I most certainly wouldn't put the study notes at the same level as the scriptures themselves, but I still think they have a lot to offer.

[Akabu]

I have my personal KJV red letter, leather bound Bible. I also have the e-sword program on my laptop. I have KJV, NAS, Strong's, and a few other Bibles on my laptop now. I try out new ones every so often as well.

Personally I like the e-sword computer Bible software since I can load many Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries and maps and have them all at hand. Gives me a chance to easily comare all of the versions. The comentaries are a blessing as well.

Blessings

Edited November 20, 2006 by Akabu

[Guest Cephas]

Cephas, listing all those supposed "errors" like you did does not prove anything EXCEPT you don't know what you're talking about. Doing internet research does not make you a scholar. You obviously have still missed the real point.

Do your homework. Only then will you, or anyone else, be qualified to discuss this topic.

You're right, Internet research doesn't make one a qualified scholar, and were that the criteria I based my thoughts on I wouldn't have replied at all. Nor is listening to unqualified people presenting opinions or book authors who don't know Greek from Russian, or those who do research on one side of the issue only, the side that happens to fit what they have already chosen to believe. I merely gave that site as a quick answer to the man's question, since I'm quite away from home and it was quicker and easier than sending for all my notes and sources. By the way, I have looked at both sides, and continue to do so. If the KJVo crowd ever comes up with something new and solid, something that hasn't already been proven wrong, I will be happy to examine that too.

And just what is this "Real Point" I supposedly missed? That the human translators of the King James, borrowing from previous English translations AND working with the Erasmus text that was compiled from 6 or 7 incomplete and conflicting copies of Byzantium family texts, AND filled in with passages from a corrupt Latin Vulgate AND passages that the church fathers of the day forced him to add, against his wishes and beliefs is somehow error free? Or that maybe God has been asleep the last 400+ years and in the meantime Satan has inspired lots of easy to understand versions to confuse and mislead the public? If you choose to believe so, believe it.

Whatever you wish to believe my friend. But let's move this to another thread, and let this one return to it's original purpose.

[firehill]

Am laughing rounds here 'christians'...can you together determine anything???

[firehill]

Cephas, listing all those supposed "errors" like you did does not prove anything EXCEPT you don't know what you're talking about. Doing internet research does not make you a scholar. You obviously have still missed the real point.

Do your homework. Only then will you, or anyone else, be qualified to discuss this topic.

You're right, Internet research doesn't make one a qualified scholar, and were that the criteria I based my thoughts on I wouldn't have replied at all. Nor is listening to unqualified people presenting opinions or book authors who don't know Greek from Russian, or those who do research on one side of the issue only, the side that happens to fit what they have already chosen to believe. I merely gave that site as a quick answer to the man's question, since I'm quite away from home and it was quicker and easier than sending for all my notes and sources. By the way, I have looked at both sides, and continue to do so. If the KJVo crowd ever comes up with something new and solid, something that hasn't already been proven wrong, I will be happy to examine that too.

And just what is this "Real Point" I supposedly missed? That the human translators of the King James, borrowing from previous English translations AND working with the Erasmus text that was compiled from 6 or 7 incomplete and conflicting copies of Byzantium family texts, AND filled in with passages from a corrupt Latin Vulgate AND passages that the church fathers of the day forced him to add, against his wishes and beliefs is somehow error free? Or that maybe God has been asleep the last 400+ years and in the meantime Satan has inspired lots of easy to understand versions to confuse and mislead the public? If you choose to believe so, believe it.

Whatever you wish to believe my friend. But let's move this to another thread, and let this one return to it's original purpose.

[ray]

Well This KJV version sounds really interesting but if it causes this much argument it must not be for me. IF i were to read and speak KJV I think would sound funny because no one talks like the KJV today. Thou beest the wonderfulest therfores and thous and thees I get lost in the message. Maybe after I get enough of the other versions I might be able to get past all those thees and thous whatfores and therefores and who do think I be? the butcher the baker or the candle stick maker. OR who doth thinketh thou beeth? the meat slayer, the bread winner, or your guiding light. Thanketh for all your helpeth.

[anitarose]

Choosing a Bible, What's right for you? There are so many Bibles out there today how do you choose a Bible that is right for you? There are study Bibles, Mens Bibles, womens Bibles, students Bibles, Recovery Bibles, Pastoral versions and than come in different versions like the King James, New International Version, The Living, Todays English, and more........ How do I even know where to begin to look?

Well because I am in Bible school I have to use the one they recommend, which is the KJV....but I have the NKJV, have had the NIV, the NASB and the Amplified.....personally I do recommend the KJV...it's been around the longest...

Anita

[ray]

Well This KJV version sounds really interesting but if it causes this much argument it must not be for me. IF i were to read and speak KJV I think would sound funny because no one talks like the KJV today. Thou beest the wonderfulest therfores and thous and thees I get lost in the message. Maybe after I get enough of the other versions I might be able to get past all those thees and thous whatfores and therefores and who do think I be? the butcher the baker or the candle stick maker. OR who doth thinketh thou beeth? the meat slayer, the bread winner, or your guiding light. Thanketh for all your helpeth.

Ray, I have seen this argument used over and over, and have a hard time believing that it is that difficult for people to pick up on the King James language. I was reading the King James Bible as a teenager with no problem, and didn't have to read other versions first before I was able to understand words like thee or thou. To me, this argument is completely dissengenuous. I mean, if you don't understand the meaning of thee or thou, simply ask and I am sure someone will be glad to tell you what they mean.

By the way, your other argument doesn't work either, because it takes two sides to keep an argument going. Yes, there are those on my side of the issue that have been downright mean in their presentation, but there are many on the other side that are just a vicious. If you go back and read some of the other threads at Worthy where this was discussed, you will find some very hateful posts from those who like the many translations out there.

I did not realize that I made 2 points to arugue about. I did not mean for this thread to be an argument about one version vs another version. However that is what it has turned into. I really just wanted know what version of Bible to choose for someone who does not have any knowledge of what the Bible is about. I really did not want this turn into arugument about KJV vs. every other version out there and I'm sorry for making continues battle.

So how do you go about choosing a Bible? so many versions but really no one has given any good sugestion accept to avoid this argument about what version.

Growing up most children start with a picture Bible and it is put in children langauge. Some where along the when we grow up do we realize that there are other versions out there. From the picture Bible we progress to teen Bible to an Adult Bible.

I was just what techniques people use in chosing a bible that would be right for them? but this thread did not go that way and for that I'm sorry.

[Guest Cephas]

I did not realize that I made 2 points to arugue about. I did not mean for this thread to be an argument about one version vs another version. However that is what it has turned into. I really just wanted know what version of Bible to choose for someone who does not have any knowledge of what the Bible is about. I really did not want this turn into arugument about KJV vs. every other version out there and I'm sorry for making continues battle.

So how do you go about choosing a Bible? so many versions but really no one has given any good sugestion accept to avoid this argument about what version.

Growing up most children start with a picture Bible and it is put in children langauge. Some where along the when we grow up do we realize that there are other versions out there. From the picture Bible we progress to teen Bible to an Adult Bible.

I was just what techniques people use in chosing a bible that would be right for them? but this thread did not go that way and for that I'm sorry.

It is very hard to avoid that battle, someone always has to say "mine is the only real Bible" and the battle begins. I wouldn't let it bother you too much. It's a pretty heated debate, with diehard soldiers on both sides, and seems to be an unending war (at least until Jesus comes again). Personally, I'd like it if the King James Only people (or any Onlyist) would just recommend their version and some good reasons for their preference without all the "all others are from Satan" attitude. We each are convinced for our own reasons and it just breeds hate and discontent to get all up in the air over it. (yes, like Butero said, there are extremists in the Multiple Translation Camp too. In fact, I'm sure he thinks I'm one of them.)

Personally, if you can afford it, I'd recommend buying the best version of Quickverse you can afford (Quickverse.com). It's electronic, but it has several translations and lots of dictionaries, commentaries, study aids, etc. It even has the 'esteemed' King James, though it's not the 1611 KJV that some purists desire. From there you can compare the Translations and see which one fits you best. That will help you get an idea of whether a Study Bible, a Life Application Bible or just a bare bones Bible is best for your Paper and Ink version. If you can't afford Quickverse, www.e-sword.net has a free Bible Software program that is very good. The only weakness there is that the Bibles are generally older ones or lesser accepted ones. On the "UP" side, for the KJV purists, it does have the 1611 version of the KJV available, FREE. You can also buy the NASB and AMPlified Bibles for $20 each (if memory serves). I have both Quickverse and E-Sword and use them both regularly. Both have strong points. I just bought Logos Bible Software, but haven't even had time to install it yet, so can't give you an evaluation. It is a bit more expensive than Quickverse (www.Logos.com). If you can't afford electronic, or it's not right for you, then I'd recommend a good Study Bible based on a Translation that speaks to you. I believe the Nelson Study Bible comes well recommended, and I believe is available for several translations.

There have been several here that have listed versions they like and use. I like the NIV, the NASB and the NLT. I'm currently looking into the ESV, but until I finish evaluating it, I will continue using the NASB as my main study Bible.

I hope that helps in some way. ALSO, PRAY for Guidance. God WILL guide you to the Best Bible for you. The one that lets Him speak clearest to you.

Blessings

[Adarian]

KJV is my favorite because of the clarity of the English in it. Because of the consistency of the symbolism in it, and because of the consistency of the metaphor in it, although you need a pretty good command of the English language for it, but a good dictionary helps a lot. If you are interested in having a bible that is truly its own encyclopeadia, this is the one.

I used to be in love with the NIV, but had to do too much research and "other translation" reading to get meaning out of a lot of the text, as it falls into ambiguity in many places. The English is of a poorer quality.

The NIV is partly responsible for some people thinking that the Catholic Church is "Babylon the Great", also known as the mother of harlots spiritually speaking. The idea is utterly false. I have over time come to quite dislike the NIV. It irritates me.

NASB is okay, and the Catholics have a couple of really good bibles. (RSV and Douay-Rheims are popular among the Catholics) Note that the Catholic bibles contain the septuagint, which are seven books that the protestant reformers cut out of the bible during the sixteen hundreds because it was felt that they could not be supported as the Word of God, also called canonical scripture. The first editions of the KJV authorized version contained the septuagint, but these books were removed early on.

One thing that bothers me about study bibles, is that many of the comments are not necessarily what the bible teaches. If you were to become seriously knowledgeable from reading the text of the bible over time instead of study bible comments, and after having gained the proper knowledge in study and prayer, you will read the study comments in the study bibles and wonder what the authors were thinking. Read God's word, and pray for the Holy Spirit to give you understanding. Take the Berean approach in all things purported to be scriptural.

From the book of Acts, chapter 17:

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the scriptures, not the comments in the half pages of a study bible.

You might wish to use the term Apocrypha instead of Septuagint, since the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament done before Jesus was born. The Apocrypha were the unofficial extra books that neither the Hebrews, nor currently the Protestants take as inspired works.

The comparison of Babylon the Great to the Roman Catholic Church predates the NIV by some time and, as I recall is a product of John Darby's Dispensalist interpretations. The church I used to believe in preached it heavily and also preached King James ONLY real heavy. ALL the references I've ever seen equating the two have always been KJV Only churches, or cults using their own translations, like the JW's, so I would beg to differ with you about the NIV being the Bible responsible for that particular belief.

Hi Cephas: Some people out there use the NIV verse from Revelation 17:9 which uses the phrase "seven hills" on which the woman sits. The only literal city on earth which fits the desription is Rome. So of course by this it is sometimes thought that the Vatican City is the one which rules over the kings of the earth. I find that absurd. The NIV is not the beginning of the thing, but is sometimes used as a propagator, hence the phrase "partly responsible".

You are quite right about "apochrypha" vs "septuagint". Wires crossed: