To discuss Bible Translations, Study Bibles & commentaries.
Hello,
Is anyone interested in discussing various Bible translations, Study Bible, and Commentaries?
Please share your preference and what are your reason(s).
I understand some Christians prefer only King James Version (KJV)
and I respect the choice made.
I wish this thread could be open as a general discussion for the above.
Let us respect each other in the body of Christ and have a civil discussion and sharing.
Thank you very much :)
@FreemanMG Warm greetings! I'd love to discuss anything about the Bible with you. Different translations show just how different our language is from other parts of the world or from centuries past. I, personally, prefer the KJV due to finding other versions missing certain verses but I do understand that the KJV is harder to read/understand if you're starting out. Everyone has their preferences which is completely fine. The main goal is to serve The Lord and to love him with all of our hearts while loving our neighbors just as much.
God Bless!
Thank you for your warm greetings.
I am aware of the missing verses including for example 1 John 5:7.
The Johannine Comma phrase is still a theological debate
about whether it should be quoted as a basis for the Trinity discussion.
See also Matthew 28:19 & 2 Corinthians 13:14
The verse was not found in Erasmus' first & second Greek New Testament.
It is also pointed out that the Johannine Comma
was found in some Latin manuscripts between the 5th & 7th centuries
and was not in older Greek manuscripts.
Whether the verse was removed by subsequent translations or
it was actually an add-on to justify as a basis to quote for the Trinity debate/discussion;
it is a highly contentious topic.
It can be true that some whose first language is not English
may find the King James Version (KJV) challenging to use.
But I doubt many today really use the original 1611 authorised version,
most modern printings are probably based on 1769 so-called "standard text".
Many probably do not even realise there are
variant readings published by Oxford and Cambridge.
E.g. 2 Chronicles 33:19 sin vs sins & Nahum 3:16 flieth vs fleeth
There is a verse in Isaiah 45:7 in KJV;
the Hebrew word רע (ra‛, Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Number H7451)
was translated as "evil" which is not wrong but may create certain misunderstandings.
Hence, KJ2000 revised it with the word "calamity" instead.
The International Standard Version (ISV) uses the word "disaster".
The Tree of Life Version (TLV) uses the word "calamity".
The Expanded Bible provides both options such as "disaster" and "calamity".
If you read both Isaiah 45:7 with Jeremiah 32:30 side by side,
I believe some may find it hard to reconcile both verses.
For your reference.
@AnalystINTJ hello I love talking Bible you sound like you have been to seminary.
Most of those differences I see your points; however there are no key concepts hanging on any of them.
Trinity is so amply supported it really needs no splitting of even a comma; all throughout John, Romans 8, 1 John 1 in the NT alone. In OT many mentions: Genesis, Isaiah, Exodus on and on.
I do like reading interlinear and talking about Jesus and Word with my greatly beloved husband H, as well as frequent prayers.
Hello @RogueOne1983 :)
Trinity is not easily comprehended by many and
some in faith struggle to understand as well as explain it to nonbelievers,
we also see new believers in faith struggle with it as well.
I had an opportunity to present the theological concept of the Trinity
to a group of LDS elders in a room by myself.
The feedback was they were not aware Trinity
could be explained in a manner like my presentation.
They agreed that it creates awareness for them.
Hopefully, it helps to enhance their understanding.
The reason I brought up Trinity is because
some bible users are "upset" with certain translations
either omit the verse 1 John 5:7 in the main text
and place it under a footnote or
put the verse in the bracket within the main text.
Thinking this is an important & only verse to support Trinity.
Actually, Matthew 28:19 & 2 Corinthians 13:14 and others
that you shared in both OT & NT also support the Trinity.
It is just a matter of where to look for the verses.
But Trinity is another topic for another day :)
Trinity discussion can be very engaging at times :)
Certainly reading interlinear can help believers to understand
both the source (i.e. Hebrew & Greek) languages & target language (e.g. English) better.
For example, quoting the one above,
the Hebrew word רע (ra‛, Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Number H7451)
can be translated as "evil" which is not wrong but
in other contexts could also mean calamity or disaster.
Thank you and look forward to your sharing :)
@AnalystINTJ Hello! I'm not very well versed in this subject, but I find it fascinating! Eager to learn more!
My experience is that I was raised with a non-English Bible (the version published by my local bishop conference of the Roman Catholic Church). Later on, for my studies, I started using the KJV, which is very different and excludes full books that are part of the Catholic canon (like Machabees 2, where praying for the benefit of the dead is described). Ultimately, my studies led me back to a more Catholic version of the Bible, the DRV, which I used as aid while I was working on medieval literature, and which is now my preferred version.
(Personally, I can't part with some passages that were read aloud to me as a child, especially from Wisdom and the Ecclesiasticus. My studies have made me familiar with the Challoner DRV, although with a lot of caveats and revisions when it comes to applying it for medievalism. I have found it good to read and I think it happily joins my early experience of scripture with my current preference for English. I'm still glad I've handled the KJV also and sometimes read passages from it, although mostly for academic purposes)
Hello @rhodawoolf :)
Welcome to the discussion and let us learn together :)
Similarly to you, I am not well-versed on the subject,
I am a layperson in Theology simply having an interest.
Speaking of the King James Version (KJV),
The initial version in 1611 actually contains
80 books instead of what we usually see 66 books.
The usual 39 books in OT, 27 books in NT & 14 books of Apocrypha.
Some years ago,
Hendrickson Publishers printed a facsimile copy
of the 1611 original authorised version of KJV
which contains the Apocrypha.
The current printed copies in circulation that are in use
are probably based on 1769 "standard text" &
the Apocrypha section is excluded or sold separately.
The reason is due to theological differences &
many non-Catholic traditional churches do not quote the extra books.
Another interesting point is the Luther Bible in German
contains the entire OT, NT as well as the Apocrypha. :)
I have an electronic copy of The Douay–Rheims Version (DRV),
a printed copy is very rare to be found in my country.
Similar to the KJV,
the printed ones I found are usually based on Challoner Revision.
Although I am a non-Catholic,
I do keep various Catholic Bibles for study reasons.
E.g. New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE),
Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) &
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE).
And I do read The Early Apostolic Fathers' Writings
such as Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and Clement etc.
Concerning the canon :)
many believers in faith probably are also not aware that
the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have different canon as well.
E.g. Psalm 151 & Prayer of Manasseh etc.
Last but not least,
The Roman Catholic Church is based on the Latin Vulgate for its OT
and Eastern Orthodox uses Greek Septuagint instead.
To complicate the subject matter,
there is the recent Dead Sea Scrolls that were found &
as well as Masoretic Text (MT) are always compared with
Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate etc.
There is a lot to pick up and be updated on the subject matter.
It is both challenging and fun to learn :)
For your reference.
And thanks for sharing with us/me. :)
@AnalystINTJ wow, very interesting!
Hello @yssah,
I believe the term "Hebrew Scripture" can mean different things.
A fellow Jew in faith considers there are 24 books
instead of 39 books found in the Old Testament (OT).
The way that the books are grouped together is different.
And fellow Jews in faith will not consider
the 27 books in the New Testament (NT) as canon.
The Messianic Jews will be an exception;
they generally consider the entire Christian Bible
consisting of the 66 (i.e. 39 + 27) books to be sacred Scripture.
I do not remember seeing many academic
books published on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
maybe I need to be updated.
These are some titles that I have:
- The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
- The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls
- The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English Revised Edition
Well, I am not a Catholic or Orthodox,
I am from a fundamental Conservative denomination,
but I do not consider myself a Protestant.
I only consider the 66 (i.e. 39 + 27) books as canon.
Welcome back :)
@AnalystINTJ you do not consider yourself protestant. That is interesting. Rebelling against the beginnings of the movement? He was pretty bad huh.
Hello @yssah,
Who was pretty bad? Martin Luther? Zwingli? King Henry VIII?
What should all non-Catholics and/or non-Orthodox be categorised as Protestants?
The Reformation is one part of the Church's History,
not all believers-in-faith have their origin from the Reformation.
> Many Messianics also do not like to use labels?
I believe it is the traditional Jewish that object to that label.
But that's another topic for another day,
This thread is not about different sects within Judaism.
For your reference. :)
