Bible Editions

  • 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.
Oct 25, 2018
2,377
1,198
113
#61
How did Belshazzer get into heaven?
I will throw you a bone and walk you through that passage in Isaiah 14 and prove beyond any doubt Lucifer is not Satan.

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"

Right from the start here in verse 4, it shows it is referring to the king of Babylon.

"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee."

Look closely at verse 11. It says the worm is under him and over him. This is not describing Satan, but a corpse that has been laid in the ground for worms to feast on. This is a physical body, and Satan never had one. Or I can never read where he did have one.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."


Here we see the king of Babylon saying he is going to ascend into heaven and exalt himself above the God of Israel. Why would he make such a foolish statement as this? He was a pagan king who was mocking the Jews. He was mocking their God by saying that. He thought that since he defeated them(the Jews), that their God could not deliver them out of his hands. So he mocked them by saying that. Yet in verse 16 it shows he was cut down by the very God he mocked.

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned."

Is this the man who made the earth tremble? That is not referring to Satan at all, but the king of Babylon, who was a man. Satan was never buried.
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#62
The so-called Jews who compiled the Masoretic text (which the church didn't start using until around the time of the KJV) were children of the devil, and they didn't natively speak biblical Hebrew. They hated Jesus. Yes, they altered it. .
Baseless comment. One can say the Jews in Alexandria were heathen also and their translation of the text into Greek was not inspired because they were children of the devil corrupted by idolatry.



[/qoute] Even Jesus freely quoted from it, giving it the Lord's approval. Jesus never quoted the Masoretic (if for no other reason, that text didn't yet exist). (Some NT quotes of the OT do appear more similar to the Masoretic than to the LXX.)[/QUOTE]We don't know how Christ worded Himself or what languages he spoke. We only know how the Scribes transcribe what the Apostles interpreted what HE said and they wrote in the Greek. One can easily say that the NT was written in Greek so of coarse they used the LXX for most of their citations since it was readily available.

Oh BTW you don't honestly think that a LXX was being used in the Temple and in the the Synagogues do you?
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#63
The oldest New Testament manuscript fragment is P52, which dates to about 125 AD. However, the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (e.g. P46, P66). These manuscripts come from Egypt and are witnesses of the Alexandrian text-type. However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts werealready corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:

"...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."

(Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152).
Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father's own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted—within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse" (Online article: Did the Original New Testament Manuscripts still exist in the Second Century?). In other words, blindly preferring the "oldest" manuscripts does not ensure arriving at the correct readings. For the antiquity of a manuscript to be of intrinsic value, that manuscript must be from before 200 AD when the corruptions were already evident. This is not the case with any extant Alexandrian manuscript.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

Erasmus's textus receptus is considered to be a bad representative of the Majority text, he did not have good manuscripts.[/QUOTE]
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#65
Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.
Hello Merida and welcome to CC!

There are of course several versions to choose from. Here is a chart that shows a fairly accurate spectrum of the versions out there today:




Here is a link to the site where this chart is found with some discussion on versions.

http://www.chapter3min.org/bible-translations-comparison-charts/

I would look at the versions toward the left side of the chart, compare them online and make a decision. There are some things to avoid, if I may offer advice: Steer clear of any KJV controversies from what is known as King James Version Only. It is a sect with misinformation, sensationalist accusations &c. It gets deeper than that, but just some advice to steer clear of that. Of course there are some here of that camp, just so you know.

I'd also avoid the paraphrase versions as they are more of a personal interpretation than a statement of Scripture since you really want to get a pure rendering of what God said, not someone's interpretation thereof. For instance The Message (MSG) is an example of a paraphrase version which I would personally avoid. Once you get to know Scripture you will see what I am referring to about this version.

ESV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB (CSB identifies with Southern Baptists mostly, nonetheless is a good version, but not on the chart. HCSB is also a "Southern Baptist" version) are good versions written in our more common vernacular of the day which are accurate versions. (Nothing wrong with the Southern Baptist's, just notating that most will more than likely see you as one if you use that version.)

It probably won't be difficult as they are very good choices and all are very similar!

Psalm 119 and the book of John would be great places for you to read initially as you decide. God bless.
 

Quantrill

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2018
988
300
63
#66
Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.
I am curious as to what version you are reading now?

I believe the King James Version is the 'safest' Bible to have.

Quantrill
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#67
The oldest New Testament manuscript fragment is P52, which dates to about 125 AD. However, the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (e.g. P46, P66). These manuscripts come from Egypt and are witnesses of the Alexandrian text-type. However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts werealready corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:

"...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."

(Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152).
Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father's own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted—within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse" (Online article: Did the Original New Testament Manuscripts still exist in the Second Century?). In other words, blindly preferring the "oldest" manuscripts does not ensure arriving at the correct readings. For the antiquity of a manuscript to be of intrinsic value, that manuscript must be from before 200 AD when the corruptions were already evident. This is not the case with any extant Alexandrian manuscript.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

Erasmus's textus receptus is considered to be a bad representative of the Majority text, he did not have good manuscripts.
"kjvtoday.com" seems to be a very unbiased source :)

The "corruption" of Revelation is a known thing, this book was not considered canonical in first centurires, so was not copied too carefully.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#69
by your non christian response I can assume you are not a christian. Sorry to bother you. A lot of the so called evidence is subjective.
You really need to lose your combative loathing of others disposition, especially your penchant of calling others without grace/on their way to hell/lost/non-Christian.

Just because a person shows your error factually, challenges your false assumptions and offers correction and a rebuke doesn't make them "lost" which is your go to and asinine response.

Frankly speaking? Grow up.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
46
28
#71
ESV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB (CSB identifies with Southern Baptists mostly, nonetheless is a good version, but not on the chart. HCSB is also a "Southern Baptist" version)
The ESV is the best choice there. NKJV and NASB are good, but not as easy reading as the ESV. The CSB is the revised HCSB, and it is perverted. Opinions of perverts not withstanding.
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#72
"kjvtoday.com" seems to be a very unbiased source :)
The quote from Origen is what it is.

You quote Wallace. He is not always objective in his statements. Many biases can be found in his work; In the Historical and grammatical teachings.


Add to that the fact that his lively hood depends on him producing work for us to digest could mean that his work is corrupt because his intent is not being driven by the Spirit but by his wallet. That is subjectively being said of coarse.
 

Davenport

Active member
Oct 22, 2018
155
46
28
#73
by your non christian response I can assume you are not a christian. Sorry to bother you.
Your comment about Alexandrian Jews made no sense. You accusing me of a non-Christian response makes no sense.
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#74
You really need to lose your combative loathing of others disposition, especially your penchant of calling others without grace/on their way to hell/lost/non-Christian.

Just because a person shows your error factually, challenges your false assumptions and offers correction and a rebuke doesn't make them "lost" which is your go to and asinine response.

Frankly speaking? Grow up.
Likewise.
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#77
Your comment about Alexandrian Jews made no sense. You accusing me of a non-Christian response makes no sense.
LOL That is what you should of said. To say it makes no sense would not have been combative. But to say "your nonsense" is combative and unchrist like.
In context to your subjective comment in relation to the Jews who compiled the Masoretic it makes perfect sense.
The so-called Jews who compiled the Masoretic text (which the church didn't start using until around the time of the KJV) were children of the devil, and they didn't natively speak biblical Hebrew. They hated Jesus. Yes, they altered it. .
One can say the Jews in Alexandria were heathen also and their translation of the text into Greek was not inspired because they were children of the devil corrupted by idolatry.

For one the Book of the Law called for the Jews to be separate from all surrounding nations and not to go in among them to live due to the possibility of idolatry being integrated into Judaism.

Actually History proves in the OT that the Jews were influenced every time they integrated into other societies. The Alexandrian Jews were no different. It would be foolish to think that it were just the lower class and uneducated as the excerpt puts forth below.

.
The constant daily contact of the lower class of Jews with the pagans in Alexandria resulted in the absorption of many superstitions. Among the less intelligent, Jewish and pagan witchcraft joined hands, as did Jewish faith and Greek philosophy among the more enlightened (Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., iii. 294-304). This blending of religious ideas prevailedmore or less wherever Jews and Gentiles came into direct contact, but was especially strong and marked in Alexandria (Hadrian, "Letter to Servianus"; in Vopiscus, "Vita Saturnini," chap. viii.; in the "Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ," ed. Peter, 1865, ii. 209). In spite of all this, Judaism retained its peculiar characteristics even here. From Philo's intimation that because of the allegorical interpretation, many had failed to give due value to the literal meaning of the Law, it must not be concluded that large numbers of Jews habitually broke the Law. Philo himself affords proof that even those who most favored the allegorical interpretation still kept to the letter of Scripture ("De Migratione Abrahami," § 16; ed. Mangey, i. 450). A certain laxity may indeed have obtained in some quarters; but in its essential points, the law was everywhere observed by the Hellenizing Jews as long as they remained within the pale of the synagogue.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/a...omment_id=10150333018764191_10152911577094191
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
#78
No, not at all. Those who hold to King James Bible only use its longevity for proof its the only true word of God. If that's the case, the Quran is older. Of course its not the word of God.
You really need to stop quoting from The Mess and use a real translation, like say the ESV or NASB.

Either that, or I'll have to put you on ignore. :ROFL:


 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#79
The quote from Origen is what it is.
The quote as such, maybe, I did not check it in some neutral source. But the context, explanation and use will not be ;-)
You quote Wallace. He is not always objective in his statements. Many biases can be found in his work; In the Historical and grammatical teachings.


Add to that the fact that his lively hood depends on him producing work for us to digest could mean that his work is corrupt because his intent is not being driven by the Spirit but by his wallet. That is subjectively being said of coarse.


I did not quote Wallace, I just posted the source for the diagram showing how the byzantine and alexandrian texts developed in time to be minority/majority. Or do you want to say that the diagram is wrong?
 

lightbearer

Senior Member
Jun 17, 2017
2,375
504
113
57
HBG. Pa. USA
#80
Your posts are hard to understand, because you do not work with the "quote" tag properly.

.
Sorry that was a Typo that I did not catch. I can repost it.

The post has the response to you and what you wrote. You know what you wrote. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out though.
This judgement you said to davenport is absolutely wrong. Being a Christian depends on faith in Christ, not on not saying "I do not understand your nonsense"
Says you.

It is faith in Christ that the faith of Christ comes through. By their fruits you shall know them.