Bible Editions

Your word was not found in the King James Bible; therefore you have been identified as a blasphemer and an heretick.

So the CSB is "perverted?" Explain that...

And, invite you to defend the CSB's perversion? One example is that it teaches that the devil's children, Jews, are God's people. E.g. Deuteronomy 32:5 in the CSB reads, "His people... are not His children." This blatant contradiction is introduced by the CSB inserting "His people" to refer to Jews.

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 had no idea about the corn issue. lol

Be careful in this issue....MANY on this site worship versions over the God of the version.......serious.....

And, invite you to defend the CSB's perversion?

And there are some of us who actually believe the God who gave us His words and commanded us to live by them, preserved them for us today. You mock and call bible believers version worshipers. Why? If we had the actual "originals" would you worship them or the Savior they proclaim? Come on brother...

That's awesome. I'm not sure why I never thought to just google and find a website like that. We live in such a digital age, and I use the internet all day long for my job. You'd think I would have clued in. haha. I guess I'm just old-school, and when I think of the Bible, I think of the actual physical copy in my hand.

I think we all have those moments, unless you grew up with a phone in your hand like some younger haha.

Yeah, that's so true. I was at the doctor's office a few days ago. Looking around in the waiting room, every single person there except for a few seniors and myself, had their faces in their phones or tablets. One woman had a tablet/keyboard and had pretty much claimed the corner of the waiting room as her office. lol I sometimes feel I'm living in the twilight zone.

Yes, I've seen those mobile office types too. They especially love bookstore coffee cafes and other locations that have food and drink.
I have my face buried in a phone at a doc office for sure. Or at least have music on with my earbuds.
As far as seniors go. Some of them can be pretty tech savvy too. I'm part of a group on fb for 35+ for a video game. It's a very full group and there are people in there 70s and I think a couple in their 80s, playing video games.
Aand my own dad, 84, is a fb troll.

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV. Which, is the only translation I have never been able to read cover to cover, although I will admit I learned a lot of verses in Baptist Sunday School back in the early 60s. Which did well, coming back to me, when I needed them!

I was actually saved using NAB, which is a very good translation, a Catholic Bible. Just don't read the footnotes, which are basically excuses for Catholic doctrine contradicted by the Bible itself.

God can use whatever version he wants to reach and teach people! I read the NASB fore 25 years, till it was worn out. It was a bit stilted, but I learned a lot, reading it. Then I went to an ESV study Bible, then a Holman's HCSB study Bible, and currently a New English Translation Study bible. It has 60,000 notes and translational comments, which truly are fantastic! But, a hard read. The comments take twice the amount of time to read as the Bible. Plus, I had to slow down the pace.

I also read Greek and Hebrew, and I have read the NT completely in Greek, and some of the OT in Hebrew. I have also read the Bible completely in French, and I am currently reading it in German. I love that the grammar of German is so close to Greek. So much easier to read and compare to the Greek.

I would personally go for the HCSB Study Bible. It is advanced, but not too much. I learned a lot. NIV is pretty good, too. It is more dynamic in translation, more thought for thought. As for the totally functional Bibles like the KJV, that claim to be word for word, I have to say never! You simply cannot translate word for word from Greek, except some places in John, although Hebrew is a bit closer to 'English in word order.

ESV is very complementarian, which is why I stopped reading it. (However, I still can't find that word "role" in any Bible translation, including the KJV! LOL). As I said, I'm reading NET, but sometimes I don't agree with their word choices. I will say, sometimes the poetry of the KJV is amazing. That is, when I can get all those 400 year old words updated to the English I speak.

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV. Which, is the only translation I have never been able to read cover to cover, although I will admit I learned a lot of verses in Baptist Sunday School back in the early 60s. Which did well, coming back to me, when I needed them!

I was actually saved using NAB, which is a very good translation, a Catholic Bible. Just don't read the footnotes, which are basically excuses for Catholic doctrine contradicted by the Bible itself.

God can use whatever version he wants to reach and teach people! I read the NASB fore 25 years, till it was worn out. It was a bit stilted, but I learned a lot, reading it. Then I went to an ESV study Bible, then a Holman's HCSB study Bible, and currently a New English Translation Study bible. It has 60,000 notes and translational comments, which truly are fantastic! But, a hard read. The comments take twice the amount of time to read as the Bible. Plus, I had to slow down the pace.

I also read Greek and Hebrew, and I have read the NT completely in Greek, and some of the OT in Hebrew. I have also read the Bible completely in French, and I am currently reading it in German. I love that the grammar of German is so close to Greek. So much easier to read and compare to the Greek.

I would personally go for the HCSB Study Bible. It is advanced, but not too much. I learned a lot. NIV is pretty good, too. It is more dynamic in translation, more thought for thought. As for the totally functional Bibles like the KJV, that claim to be word for word, I have to say never! You simply cannot translate word for word from Greek, except some places in John, although Hebrew is a bit closer to 'English in word order.

ESV is very complementarian, which is why I stopped reading it. (However, I still can't find that word "role" in any Bible translation, including the KJV! LOL). As I said, I'm reading NET, but sometimes I don't agree with their word choices. I will say, sometimes the poetry of the KJV is amazing. That is, when I can get all those 400 year old words updated to the English I speak.

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV.

This boils down to which do you prefer, the Critical Text(CT from here on out) or the Textus Receptus(TR or received text from here on out). In 1881, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort compiled a text that used two 4th century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaicitus. The Codex Sinaicitus was found 1859 by Count Tischendorf in a monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It was traced back to the 4th century by compating it to other known writings of that day(4th century). They trace it to 325-350 AD.

Desiderius Erasmus was the one who took and translated the NT into Greek. He then did 4 revisions of it later on. He never had access to Codex Vaticanus, either. Those who translated the Greek into English in the 1611 King James Bible had the 5 manuscripts of Erasmus(1 original and the 4 updated revisions), Theodore Beza's manuscript and Stephanus' 1550 editon.

The newest manuscript they had to use was from around 1000-1200 AD. The modern versions use the CT, and they used ~5,600 manuscripts, with them tracing back to 325-350 AD.

If you use a manuscript that is 700-1,200 years newer, you know the likelihood of error increases. The manuscripts the modern version use is closer to the days when the originals were penned.

Remember, the way the copied manuscripts back in those days was by coping them by hand. There is a huge question mark to the validity of the longer ending of Mark 15(verses 9-20 are not in a lot of the older manuscripts). Then the woman caught in the act of adultery has some concerns as well(John 7:53-8:11).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The longer ending of Mark 15 is where those who handle snakes and drink strychnine get their belief from. Also, some Baptists use it to prove that unless you are baptized, you are not saved. Jesus never advocated that, so for that to be in the longer ending is questionable.

I think people need to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel bad that it has triggered some people.

@Merida I owe you an apology my friend. That is Mark 16, not Mark 15. My apology again, my friend.