-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which English edition of the Bible is the best?
- Thread starter pgd
- Start date
Djamila
Bosnjakinja
You can purchase literal translations that provide every possible meaning for every possible word in the Hebrew and Greek texts. It can be cumbersome to read. You can also buy literal translations that provide every possible meaning only for the verbs and nouns in the Hebrew and Greek texts.
These Bibles don't contain any of the additions that have crept in over the years, most notably with King Jame's translation. You'll notice many verses are a lot of shorter, but the missing lines are simply not found anywhere in the original texts.
For example... I wish I had a less controversial example, because there are additions that are seemingly meaningless... but this is the only one that comes immediately to mind: The verse that condemns homosexuality, in most English bibles, reads something like:
Do not lie with another man as you would with a woman; it is detestable
Do not lie with another man as you would with a woman; it is an abomination
While the original texts read:
Do not lie with another man in the bedclothes of a woman
The whole second phrase doesn't exist at all, it was added somewhere along the line of translations.
These Bibles don't contain any of the additions that have crept in over the years, most notably with King Jame's translation. You'll notice many verses are a lot of shorter, but the missing lines are simply not found anywhere in the original texts.
For example... I wish I had a less controversial example, because there are additions that are seemingly meaningless... but this is the only one that comes immediately to mind: The verse that condemns homosexuality, in most English bibles, reads something like:
Do not lie with another man as you would with a woman; it is detestable
Do not lie with another man as you would with a woman; it is an abomination
While the original texts read:
Do not lie with another man in the bedclothes of a woman
The whole second phrase doesn't exist at all, it was added somewhere along the line of translations.
NetDoc said:
This post is allthat, amen etc.
I always like to have the words of Christ in red, sturdy leather binding and "tabbed browsing" :angel2:.
As to translations: I love the Young's Literal Translation installed with my e-Sword. I wish I could read Greek and Hebrew, if I could I would stick only with those. Sometimes it's a matter of what you are looking for, like some come with daily reading schedules and devotions, etc. others seem made for more scholarly studies. Personally for me it's in no particular order the NetBible, NKJ Life Application Study Bible, the NASB Life Application Study Bible, the KJV, the NIV, but for the life of me I can't seem to trust The Message - and when reading it becomes distracting to have to stop and contrast it with another version.
We went out and got the NKJ and NASB's after talking to our pastor about it, those were his recommendations.
Like NetDoc I would recommend the one you can read and stick with the most.
49 getting back to the original meanings is what a good translation is all about.
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Translation abuv's good except for last 2 words. "a" is absent from the Greek and's ill-fitting, to say the least, in the context. The context both of John 1, and the entire NT + O.
Lower case "god" is odd (to say the least) since the translator put upper case "God"
immediately preceding. And following! As shown below.
Which means the deliberately inaccurate "a god" must be a deliberate distortion. To match the Jehovah Witness, Arian, religion. That of attempting to separate Jesus from His Father. As if God eternally could be Father without eternally having a Son (cf Isa 9:6; etc).
The "New World Translation," hence, is done without the intent of "getting back to original meanings" in all cases. But rather w/ intent of spreading JWism's particular deceit, denial, and heretical opinion
This one was in [the] beginning with God. (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
Yikes. I avoid (and politely recommend others do) 'Jehovah Witnessism' like the plague.
I used to equate it w/ Islam and Judaism in Judaism's rejection of their Messiah. But now mebbe i could lump it w/ Mormonism, Hinduism, Paganism as polytheistic. On the basis of its New World Translation's "only begotten god" and "a god."
Unless, unlike Mormonism, these are to be lesser than the one Great god or God.
Which'd make JWism more resemble, then, Greek, Roman, pantheons. W/ Zeus, Jupiter, abuv all his children, brothers, and/or fornicating relatives.
But even, they said, Jupiter came from Chronos. So he was an "only begotten god" sometime in their myth?
To the contrary o' all this: the OT and NT revelation is of God who's eternally 3-1, Plural-Singular, Gen 1:26-27; 1:1-3. Who was, and is, and will be, eternally, without end or beginning: Word, God, and Spirit.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Never separate, inseparable, indivisible, but always relating
(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
That's right. God is Spirit (Jn 4:24). God has a Form (Son). And God, with His Form, has Spirit (Gen 1:2; Gal 4:6). God's 3-1. And the "Second" of the Godhead, His Son, His Form, His Embodiment; took on flesh, became man, and humbled Himself unto death, for the accomplishment of His, the Triune God,'s eternal purpose and His redemption
(Isaiah 9:6) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Wonderful. Jesus Christ is Wonderful. He is the "God-Man." Permanently
YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. John 14;28
The Father, like His Son says, is "greater than I." In order and source, within the 3-1.
Not that They're separate. "I'm in the Father and the Father's in Me" 14:10.
They can't be sep'rate. Never were, never will b.
They're equally God. God's One. There's only, and ever will be, only one God (Deut 6:4; Mt 28:19; Jn 14:10; 10:38; etc).
Additionally, the Father's greater than His Son as a human. Since the Word, the Son, the Second, specifically, became flesh (Jn 1:14; Philip 2:7; Heb 2:6-14; Isa 7:14-9:7; etc). Altho His Father never left Him inside of Him. They're inseparable. Even mingled might be an appropriate word.
Indeed, one couldn't have, or be, eternal Father, without an eternal (Heb 7:3) Son.
In that way They're equal. As John rightly recorded:
"Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" Jn 5:18
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Translation abuv's good except for last 2 words. "a" is absent from the Greek and's ill-fitting, to say the least, in the context. The context both of John 1, and the entire NT + O.
Lower case "god" is odd (to say the least) since the translator put upper case "God"
immediately preceding. And following! As shown below.
Which means the deliberately inaccurate "a god" must be a deliberate distortion. To match the Jehovah Witness, Arian, religion. That of attempting to separate Jesus from His Father. As if God eternally could be Father without eternally having a Son (cf Isa 9:6; etc).
The "New World Translation," hence, is done without the intent of "getting back to original meanings" in all cases. But rather w/ intent of spreading JWism's particular deceit, denial, and heretical opinion
This one was in [the] beginning with God. (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
Yikes. I avoid (and politely recommend others do) 'Jehovah Witnessism' like the plague.
I used to equate it w/ Islam and Judaism in Judaism's rejection of their Messiah. But now mebbe i could lump it w/ Mormonism, Hinduism, Paganism as polytheistic. On the basis of its New World Translation's "only begotten god" and "a god."
Unless, unlike Mormonism, these are to be lesser than the one Great god or God.
Which'd make JWism more resemble, then, Greek, Roman, pantheons. W/ Zeus, Jupiter, abuv all his children, brothers, and/or fornicating relatives.
But even, they said, Jupiter came from Chronos. So he was an "only begotten god" sometime in their myth?
To the contrary o' all this: the OT and NT revelation is of God who's eternally 3-1, Plural-Singular, Gen 1:26-27; 1:1-3. Who was, and is, and will be, eternally, without end or beginning: Word, God, and Spirit.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Never separate, inseparable, indivisible, but always relating
(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
That's right. God is Spirit (Jn 4:24). God has a Form (Son). And God, with His Form, has Spirit (Gen 1:2; Gal 4:6). God's 3-1. And the "Second" of the Godhead, His Son, His Form, His Embodiment; took on flesh, became man, and humbled Himself unto death, for the accomplishment of His, the Triune God,'s eternal purpose and His redemption
(Isaiah 9:6) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Wonderful. Jesus Christ is Wonderful. He is the "God-Man." Permanently
YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. John 14;28
The Father, like His Son says, is "greater than I." In order and source, within the 3-1.
Not that They're separate. "I'm in the Father and the Father's in Me" 14:10.
They can't be sep'rate. Never were, never will b.
They're equally God. God's One. There's only, and ever will be, only one God (Deut 6:4; Mt 28:19; Jn 14:10; 10:38; etc).
Additionally, the Father's greater than His Son as a human. Since the Word, the Son, the Second, specifically, became flesh (Jn 1:14; Philip 2:7; Heb 2:6-14; Isa 7:14-9:7; etc). Altho His Father never left Him inside of Him. They're inseparable. Even mingled might be an appropriate word.
Indeed, one couldn't have, or be, eternal Father, without an eternal (Heb 7:3) Son.
In that way They're equal. As John rightly recorded:
"Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" Jn 5:18
Exo 3:2 And the malak of YAH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exo 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of YAH before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:11 And YAH spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Yahshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Things that make some go "Hmmmmmmmmm".
It really isn't much to see that the malak spoke unto Moshe' in person but with Moshe' not looking upon the face of the malak.
We all have, and do, speak to others that are right beside us without having to look at them. I have no doubt that the malak was looking at Moshe' but with the physical makeup of a malak, with the intensity of the blinding light from the bright fire that is its makeup, I do not see Moshe' being able to look upon the face of said malak. Least not that one.
I prefer the KJV but do have others which render a more Hebraic feeling to verify certain contexts.
Exo 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of YAH before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:11 And YAH spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Yahshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Things that make some go "Hmmmmmmmmm".
It really isn't much to see that the malak spoke unto Moshe' in person but with Moshe' not looking upon the face of the malak.
We all have, and do, speak to others that are right beside us without having to look at them. I have no doubt that the malak was looking at Moshe' but with the physical makeup of a malak, with the intensity of the blinding light from the bright fire that is its makeup, I do not see Moshe' being able to look upon the face of said malak. Least not that one.
I prefer the KJV but do have others which render a more Hebraic feeling to verify certain contexts.