Reading the Bible

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Just a quick update for those interested. I have spent some time today looking at all the versions of the Bible mentioned in this thread. Very unscientific, but I looked at the passages that I am most familiar with and compared. Thanks for the suggestions.

In the end, I have no reliable basis on which select according to accuracy of translation ( ...[text shortened]... the Bible - [reference to book/chapter/verse as appropriate.]

Thanks for all the comments.

Bon Voyage. I would be interested in hearing about things that surprise you or cause you to rethink your beliefs as you go along.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Just a quick update for those interested. I have spent some time today looking at all the versions of the Bible mentioned in this thread. Very unscientific, but I looked at the passages that I am most familiar with and compared. Thanks for the suggestions.

In the end, I have no reliable basis on which select according to accuracy of translation ( the Bible - [reference to book/chapter/verse as appropriate.]

Thanks for all the comments.

Yes, I think that may be a good choice. Just don't forget to compare the
translations or paraphrases of other versions on verses that you may have
trouble clearly understanding. That is sometimes very helpful. Good reading.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by nook7
The bible is a good read if you like fiction.

Minus Leviticus. 😕

At least, that was the hardest book for me when I first read it cover to cover.

Edit: It's OK to skip the "begats". 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Minus Leviticus. 😕

At least, that was the hardest book for me when I first read it cover to cover.

Edit: It's OK to skip the "begats". 😛

Yes, but he will have to come back to them later if he wants to understand everything well. Of course, I still have to go back and reread things I did not pick up on the first time around. I still don't understand a lot of it really, especially endtime prophecies. However, I understand enough to be a believer and that is what counts. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Just a quick update for those interested. I have spent some time today looking at all the versions of the Bible mentioned in this thread. Very unscientific, but I looked at the passages that I am most familiar with and compared. Thanks for the suggestions.

In the end, I have no reliable basis on which select according to accuracy of translation ( the Bible - [reference to book/chapter/verse as appropriate.]

Thanks for all the comments.

The King James edition is a version of a version, it was based on the Latin Vulgate,
ironic since you wanted to avoid this very thing. Its translators did an excellent job
with what they had, but there were at the time of its translation very few available
Greek manuscripts, since then, many more have come to light. The most accurate
translations are those based upon the Westcort and Hort base text or the Nestle
base text, yet even this does not guarantee accuracy of translation nor freedom
from bias.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, but he will have to come back to them later if he wants to understand everything well. Of course, I still have to go back and reread things I did not pick up on the first time around. I still don't understand a lot of it really, especially endtime prophecies. However, I understand enough to be a believer and that is what counts. HalleluYah !!!

no its not, even the demons believe,

(James 2:19-20) . . .You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well.
And yet the demons believe and shudder.  But do you care to know, O empty man,
that faith apart from works is inactive?

The King James version (KJV)

The King James version was based upon the best texts of the New Testament
available at the time, principally those published by Desidarious Erasmus between
1516 and 1535 and Theodore Beza between 1565 and 1604. But by the standards
of modern Biblical scholarship, the quality of those texts was dismal. Erasmus
based his text text editions on manuscripts from the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
He worked with only three manuscripts of the gospels, five of Pauls letters and four
of the rest of the New Testament. The improvements in text editions between
Erasmus and the production of the KJV were minor at best. The King James
scholars could have known fewer than twenty-five late manuscripts of the New
Testament and these were carelessly used. Today there are 5,358 known
manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. The superior text base used
today allows us to identify over a dozen verses included in the KJV that are not
authentic parts of the New Testament. Dozens of other words and phrases are
included in the KJV that have little or no basis in the Greek manuscripts: likewise
many words or phrases are missing from the KJV which are found in reliable Greek
manuscripts. Many of these differences have their basis is the Latin Vulgate, which
the King James translators turned to too often as their guide. Often the meaning is
changed dramatically.

Truth in translation - Accuracy and bias in English translations of the New testament ,
p.27 - Associate professor Jason David BeDuhn.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I think that may be a good choice. Just don't forget to compare the
translations or paraphrases of other versions on verses that you may have
trouble clearly understanding. That is sometimes very helpful. Good reading.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

I have add the websites of the versions mentioned in this thread to my favourites for easy reference if need be.

Thanks

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The King James version (KJV)

The King James version was based upon the best texts of the New Testament
available at the time, principally those published by Desidarious Erasmus between
1516 and 1535 and Theodore Beza between 1565 and 1604. But by the standards
of modern Biblical scholarship, the quality of those texts was dismal. Erasmus ...[text shortened]... in English translations of the New testament ,
p.27 - Associate professor Jason David BeDuhn.

Interesting posts. I would hope that God would make sure that the most important stuff would come through all the versions. Given my base point as an ignorant heathen, it's a start! There's nothing to stop me reading other versions later.

However, though it is not the text you would like me to read first, I am sure I will have you watching me like a hawk if I go astray too badly!

😉

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Interesting posts. I would hope that God would make sure that the most important stuff would come through all the versions. Given my base point as an ignorant heathen, it's a start! There's nothing to stop me reading other versions later.

However, though it is not the text you would like me to read first, I am sure I will have you watching me like a hawk if I go astray too badly!

😉

LOL, nah dude, i am not very Calvanistic in my thinking but rather more practical. I
am thinking that some type of schedule would surely aid you, progressive enough to let
you wade through the scriptures, but not burdensome enough to weigh you down and
dishearten you entirely. One would need to know how long you plan to take, perhaps a
year?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The King James version (KJV)

The King James version was based upon the best texts of the New Testament
available at the time, principally those published by Desidarious Erasmus between
1516 and 1535 and Theodore Beza between 1565 and 1604. But by the standards
of modern Biblical scholarship, the quality of those texts was dismal. Erasmus ...[text shortened]... in English translations of the New testament ,
p.27 - Associate professor Jason David BeDuhn.

Here is an idea, why not just learn to read Hebrew and Greek? 😕

Originally posted by whodey
Here is an idea, why not just learn to read Hebrew and Greek? 😕

indeed, because if you cannot you have no way of knowing how accurate your
translation is, do you.

Why don't we all shut up, get out of the way, and let the man read the Bible ?