How to Study the Bible
- Thread starter Angela53510
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I
Well if it is not the King James Version or anything BEFORE King James then your not reading the inspired preserved true word of God.
They say "oh well we don't like the thee and the thou and prefer "todays" language. Well the same people sing "How great THOU ART". If you ask them to change that song they say "OH NO YOUR NOT CHANGING THAT!!" Satan knows that by dumbing down the masses then less of them will be able to read the King James Version and understand it. High Fructose corn syrup and other chemicals in the food is all part of that same plan.
As far and changing words, leaving out entire verses and even chapters in some versions here is what the King James Version says
Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (if your not using a KJV, see if your "bible" even has that verse)
and
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
They say "oh well we don't like the thee and the thou and prefer "todays" language. Well the same people sing "How great THOU ART". If you ask them to change that song they say "OH NO YOUR NOT CHANGING THAT!!" Satan knows that by dumbing down the masses then less of them will be able to read the King James Version and understand it. High Fructose corn syrup and other chemicals in the food is all part of that same plan.
As far and changing words, leaving out entire verses and even chapters in some versions here is what the King James Version says
Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (if your not using a KJV, see if your "bible" even has that verse)
and
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
R
here are my thoughts...
planning your personal bible study can be a good thing...but ironically my most successful and significant bible studies were the ones i -hadn't- planned...
study bibles are ok but i prefer commentaries...they tend to go into more detail...there are lots of free commentaries available with esword for those who want them...
i would not say to -avoid- the king james version...though i would suggest that most readers should be looking up every other noun or verb or adjective or adverb from the KJV in the 1828 webster's dictionary to make sure the meanings haven't changed in the past 400 years without their knowing it... one big benefit of the KJV is that the classic word study references are keyed to the KJV... still i would not make the KJV my 'base' study bible...
i don't know what the author means by 'moses did not cross the red sea'...unless they are referring to the 'sea of reeds' explanation which is really just a theory that liberal scholars have suggested to do away with the miracle...
i am surprised that the article doesn't recommend the new american standard bible...so i am going to recommend it myself
also i should say that the NRSV has been criticized for some liberal translation choices...
i would prefer the new living translation over the contemporary english version...the CEV takes quite a bit of liberty in paraphrasing...
i definitely agree on the importance of prayer in bible study... i remember reading about a method that luther suggested for combining bible study with prayer...he would study a text of scripture and then say a prayer based on what he learned from the text...
focusing on the new testament first may work for a lot of people...but in my case it didn't work for me at all...i was totally confused...the new testament assumes 4,000 years of prior events and revelations that i was not familiar with...
similarly starting with john may work for a lot of people...but to me john is conceptually the most -difficult- of the four gospels...i would say mark or luke are the easiest...
also i notice that the article neglected to mention acts...acts is the easiest transition from the gospels to the epistles...
and about revelation...personally i believe 90% of the prerequisite knowledge for understanding revelation is in the new testament... while i would not go as far as to say someone -shouldn't- read the old testament prophets before reading revelation...i will say that i have known people to arrive at mistaken eschatologies based on a misguided obsession with old testament prophecy...
topical studies can be fun...i especially like to choose a really random topic like 'colors in the bible' or 'dust in the bible' and looking up all the relevant passages... a concordance or a bible search engine can help with that...i have found that the topic indexes in study bibles are usually pretty generic...
i don't have a bible notebook or journal but i probably should make one...
i don't use a highlighter or write in my bible because it just feels weird to mark up a book...
if you like footnotes...you will love the NET bible...the footnotes discuss the textual and translation issues in detail...so that you can see -why- the translators made their choices...
chain references can be useful...though i am not entirely in agreement with the 'principle of first use' that i think this article is getting at...i tend to follow what i call a 'rule of proximity'...where you prioritize other references that are closer in time or in authorship to the text you are trying to figure out...
planning your personal bible study can be a good thing...but ironically my most successful and significant bible studies were the ones i -hadn't- planned...
study bibles are ok but i prefer commentaries...they tend to go into more detail...there are lots of free commentaries available with esword for those who want them...
i would not say to -avoid- the king james version...though i would suggest that most readers should be looking up every other noun or verb or adjective or adverb from the KJV in the 1828 webster's dictionary to make sure the meanings haven't changed in the past 400 years without their knowing it... one big benefit of the KJV is that the classic word study references are keyed to the KJV... still i would not make the KJV my 'base' study bible...
i don't know what the author means by 'moses did not cross the red sea'...unless they are referring to the 'sea of reeds' explanation which is really just a theory that liberal scholars have suggested to do away with the miracle...
i am surprised that the article doesn't recommend the new american standard bible...so i am going to recommend it myself
also i should say that the NRSV has been criticized for some liberal translation choices...
i would prefer the new living translation over the contemporary english version...the CEV takes quite a bit of liberty in paraphrasing...
i definitely agree on the importance of prayer in bible study... i remember reading about a method that luther suggested for combining bible study with prayer...he would study a text of scripture and then say a prayer based on what he learned from the text...
focusing on the new testament first may work for a lot of people...but in my case it didn't work for me at all...i was totally confused...the new testament assumes 4,000 years of prior events and revelations that i was not familiar with...
similarly starting with john may work for a lot of people...but to me john is conceptually the most -difficult- of the four gospels...i would say mark or luke are the easiest...
also i notice that the article neglected to mention acts...acts is the easiest transition from the gospels to the epistles...
and about revelation...personally i believe 90% of the prerequisite knowledge for understanding revelation is in the new testament... while i would not go as far as to say someone -shouldn't- read the old testament prophets before reading revelation...i will say that i have known people to arrive at mistaken eschatologies based on a misguided obsession with old testament prophecy...
topical studies can be fun...i especially like to choose a really random topic like 'colors in the bible' or 'dust in the bible' and looking up all the relevant passages... a concordance or a bible search engine can help with that...i have found that the topic indexes in study bibles are usually pretty generic...
i don't have a bible notebook or journal but i probably should make one...
i don't use a highlighter or write in my bible because it just feels weird to mark up a book...
if you like footnotes...you will love the NET bible...the footnotes discuss the textual and translation issues in detail...so that you can see -why- the translators made their choices...
chain references can be useful...though i am not entirely in agreement with the 'principle of first use' that i think this article is getting at...i tend to follow what i call a 'rule of proximity'...where you prioritize other references that are closer in time or in authorship to the text you are trying to figure out...
(sorry to bomb this thread but this information is imperative.)
Two Categories of New Testament Manuscripts
There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.
The Minority Text
There are only a few bibles that are based on the Majority Text, such as the King James Bible and the Gideon's Bible. But almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".
The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Majority Text, they were called "better" than the Majority Text. This is not so. These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly. The reader is reminded that the Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6). Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Two Categories of New Testament Manuscripts
There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.
1) Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, which was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text. 2) Minority Text (Alexandrian Text) - is based mainly on just two manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph"). These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, but they disagree with each other!
The Minority Text
There are only a few bibles that are based on the Majority Text, such as the King James Bible and the Gideon's Bible. But almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".
The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be older than the 5000 manuscripts that support the Majority Text, they were called "better" than the Majority Text. This is not so. These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.
The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors. Thus they would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly. The reader is reminded that the Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6). Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
