I would like to get a new bible and wondered what you lovely people recommended i get? Thanks
Christian Bible. http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/the-christian-bible-(1991)/
Concordant Literal version. Free
Young's Literal translation. YLT. Free
Read reviews on Amazon before you buy anything. For example there are lot sof complaints about YLT with it microscopic print.
Personally I think the smartest move is to read them in electronic format (most are free) and then decide if you want a printed version.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/christian-life/list-of-useful-links/msg112440/#msg112440
Hey friend! :) I do all my Bible reading on my phone now (it's just more convenient for me, although I do prefer sitting down with a hard copy.) Anyhow, I have a free Bible app that comes with all kinds of different translations and the one I've found that I really like is the ESV. The reason I like it the best so far is that it is easy to read plus has many footnotes that many other translations don't have. For example they will tell you which Hebrew word a word is translated from, things like that. I love that, it's very informative. Of course, the best thing for study is an interlinear Bible. I love sitting down with my interlinear Bible but it's so hard to find time!
And I agree with WW, try them out electronically first and then pick one that way. :)
Hi,
Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but I have an opinion :2c:
This search has interested me for the last 30 years. Thanks to this site I found the Exegeses Companion Bible by Herb Jahn. I have found this to be awesome. I purchased the Exegeses Ready Research Bible on Amazon. For me, this is what I've been searching for.
I also purchased the Youngs Literal Translation as well. It's #2 for me.
Also, I have a copy of most of all the main translations available.
Honestly, it might be worth it for you to check out the Exegeses.
Warren
thanks for the suggestions, i have been reading alot of scriptures online but i think an actual book would be good for me to have as i seem to have an active mind and bounce around the net to much lol Ive done a search on our local auction site for the youngs bible and didnt find one but i did find a 1946 youngs analytical concordance which is only $1 (would that be good to get too?) i can get a youngs literal bible if i order one online tho. I will check those other two suggestions also, and have a try online now i have something to work with! i was using a NIV online mostly or kjv but i think its time for a change.
Quote from: imperialgal on June 23, 2012, 02:23:45 PM
thanks for the suggestions, i have been reading alot of scriptures online but i think an actual book would be good for me to have as i seem to have an active mind and bounce around the net to much lol
How about a e-reader (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_6?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=kindle&sprefix=kindle%2Cstripbooks%2C255)Display is good. Don't know about other things like searching and size.
The ereader costs more than a book but the advantage is that there are many free books for it.
QuoteIve done a search on our local auction site for the youngs bible and didnt
Click (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=young+literal+translation)
Quote from: Rev. Avery on June 23, 2012, 02:04:53 PM
Hi,
Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but I have an opinion :2c:
This search has interested me for the last 30 years. Thanks to this site I found the Exegeses Companion Bible by Herb Jahn. I have found this to be awesome. I purchased the Exegeses Ready Research Bible on Amazon. For me, this is what I've been searching for.
I also purchased the Youngs Literal Translation as well. It's #2 for me.
Also, I have a copy of most of all the main translations available.
Honestly, it might be worth it for you to check out the Exegeses.
Warren
Hi Rev.
I never heard of those books. The first one I can't find. The second one gives two books by the same title???
One costs $57 the other one $800
man i must be so out of touch with tech these days lol a e reader now thats a great idea! might just get one of those, i just seem to be on the computer alot and need to get off it and sit under a tree or somthing to read haha
If you get the Wings ereader it comes with a string, very handy tool. :)
whats a string? sorry im so not up with these things
Hahaha sorry imperialgal, was just poking fun at Whitewings. His string hasn't been patented yet. :icon_jokercolor:
'dahhh forgive me im a bit slow on the up take, wittyness is not my string point, i mean strong point! I was even gogling it too haha
Hahaha oh I'm so sorry imperialgal, I totally would've done the same thing hahaha so sorry!
But seriously, an e reader would be a sweet thing to get. :)
Quote from: lomarah on June 23, 2012, 03:29:16 PM
Hahaha sorry imperialgal, was just poking fun at Whitewings. His string hasn't been patented yet. :icon_jokercolor:
The world isn't ready yet :umnick:
WhiteWings,
I tried to copy and paste a link for you but couldn't paste it. Go to the site: VirtueInKnowledge.com
There you can select the Exegeses tab and it will tell you all about it.
It's almost impossible to find the other editions. What you saw on Amazon is the Ready Researh one. That's what I have. It's hard to find the Parallel or Companion versions. EBay has the Parallel for auction now.
Also, go to Studybible.info in Google. The first site to come up should be tha StudyBible Info site. Once there you can read the Exegeses Companion version. Also you can read the Youngs Translation.
Warren
Thanks Rev!
Bedtime for me now, so I'll look into it in more detail later.
http://www.virtueinknowledge.com/exegeses-bible.html
http://studybible.info/ECB/mat%203:3
Imperialgirl, I hav used and read most of the translations. I see things to like and things to be wary of in all of them- mainly because I started using E-SWORD in my regular bible reading and studying quite awhile ago. It allows me to have all of the translations I could want right there on my screen along with Greek and Hebrew interlinears, dictionaries(Strong's, Thayer's, and many others) I read from Youngs Literal, the Amplified, the NASB and King James, among others....set them up as parallel and checking discrepancies through the easily used applications available right on the page as I read.
This might not work for everyone, but it does for me. I can get both a consensus of the various translations and a specific meaning, or array of possible meanings, for any hebrew or greek word or phrase with fairly little effort and time expended to do so.
The program and most of the versions of the Bible and study helps are free. I think I paid a licensing fee for the NASB and its interlinear and lexicon/dictionary- but really you can do a lot with just the free stuff. Biblos.com and BibleGateway provide similar resources....but e-sword downloads and works on your computer or PDA without the need of an internet connection- I think it is the most user friendly.
http://www.e-sword.net/index.html (http://www.e-sword.net/index.html)
Quote from: eaglesway on June 25, 2012, 08:21:49 PM
Imperialgirl, I hav used and read most of the translations. I see things to like and things to be wary of in all of them- mainly because I started using E-SWORD in my regular bible reading and studying quite awhile ago. It allows me to have all of the translations I could want right there on my screen along with Greek and Hebrew interlinears, dictionaries(Strong's, Thayer's, and many others)
Try this (http://www.mediafire.com/?nefx8iqavldq5y2) one. I wrapped Thayer, BDB and Strong wrapped in one module.
Best used with KJV+TVM
For eSword and TheWord (http://www.theword.net/) (my favorite)
But all on your (imperialgal) PC and that's what you want to avoid....
Cool WW, Thanks!
gosh I never would have even thought there was Bible software, it will be interesting to have a look thanks EW and WW! To be honest I am not even sure how to study the bible, i just read scripture at random mostly and so to me bible study would be underlining in highlighter all the scriptures i like lol
Just reading doesn't work for me.
I just pick a subject and start searching. Often that covers many verse throughout the Bible. And to understand those verses sub-searches are needed.
I bet you find some realy interesting things WW! I am learning a bit about origen at the mo and the early christains but im not quite sure where to start with the bible other than reading!
That's easier than you think.
- Prove on which day First Fruits is.
- Prove baptism predates Jesus.
- Figure out on which day the "road to emenaus" was.
- What day is the first day of unleavened bread.
I guarantee you that you have read large part of the OT to answer those questions.
Quote from: imperialgal on June 27, 2012, 04:49:37 PM
I bet you find some realy interesting things WW! I am learning a bit about origen at the mo and the early christains but im not quite sure where to start with the bible other than reading!
He finds VERY interesting things! Just search around this site for a while and you'll see a lot of cool stuff!
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 27, 2012, 06:11:57 PM
That's easier than you think.
- Prove on which day First Fruits is.
- Prove baptism predates Jesus.
- Figure out on which day the "road to emenaus" was.
- What day is the first day of unleavened bread.
I guarantee you that you have read large part of the OT to answer those questions.
Or, she could just ask you. [easier yet]. :winkgrin:
HAHAHAHA touché!!
An interesting subject.
I don't know for sure how the bible (mostly the new testament) came to be.
My notion is that a group of early church fathers gathered together, all sorts of
early letters and manuscripts purported to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
They all came together in one place and decided the books of the bible.
Who were the men? Were there any woman involved?
When they read the various books and letters.
They could not read the material assuming they were Holy Spirit inspired.
They had to read them to decide whether they were Holy Spirit inspired.
I can imagine long discussions and arguments between and about which
were inspired books which weren't and why.
So all these men were reading scripture with an open mind that it might not be scripture.
Are we as an exercise able to look at scripture the same way.
For instance the book of James was apparently a hotly contested book .
The arguments for or against actually happened.
Could we allow ourselves the exercise of arguing the pros and cons of this book?
As a way of understanding the totality of scriptures.
Could we do this with every book.
A group of unnamed men already did.
I may get slammed for this opinion, but I will give it anyway. I do believe the Concordant is an excellent scholarly work with much to recommend as an additional viewpoint and resource, but I do not believe it is a superior translation.
Here are some examples why.
Look at the first chapter of Ephesians in the CLV. Why use the word "laud" instead of "praise". "Laud" is an 18th century word. It is no more accurate a rendering of the greek than a contemporary synonym for it, such as "praise".
The CLV is not rendering the original thoughts into readable language as well as some other translations and IMO it also injects theology into some of its renderings as many of them do.
For instance, rendering "katabole" as "disruption", may be a theological reflection. In the 11 times the word occurs in the NT there is only one instance where it is not coupled with "of the world"(as in "foundation of the world"), this one time is in Hebrews 11:11, speaking of Sarah and the miracle in which she "conceived seed"(kjv). Did she really "disrupt seed?"(see Heb. 11:11 CLV). If katabole must mean disruption, why is it used in relationship to the conception of Isaac in the womb of Sarah? I understand that such bias is inevitable, but I do not believe the CLV is any less in need of comparative analysis than the NASB or the KJV.
Another example....
In Eph 1 verse 10, translating "pleroma" into "complement" for "complement of eras" as opposed to "fulness" or "completion" of eras kind of baffles me. The other usages of the word "pleroma"(17, NT) all indicate fulness, filling, or perhaps secondarily, completion. The choice of wording, "complement" is unfortunate and confuses the original thought- IMO of course. Again in verse 23, I think the use of the word "complement" for "pleroma", is confusing, and actually inappropriate (being an errant translation) within the context of the original speakers thoughts.
which is His body, the complement(pleroma) of the One completing the all in all."
(Eph 1:23)CLV
which is His body, the fullness(pleroma) of Him who fills all in all.
(Eph 1:23)NASB
I think fulness is clearly a better translation, since it "conveys the meaning in the mind of the speaker" to "the mind of the contemporay reader". IMO this is the goal of all translation.
And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full(pleroma) of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
(Mar 8:20)KJV
And when I break the seven cakes of bread for the four thousand, how many hampers filled(pleroma) with fragments do you pick up?And they are saying to Him, "Seven."
(Mar 8:20)CLV
In Mark 8:20 "pleroma" is "filled" in the CLV. Why change it to "complement" in Ephesians 1:10 & 23?
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Rom 13:10)KJV
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(Rom 13:10)NASB
the love to the neighbour doth work no ill; the love, therefore, is the fulness of law.
(Rom 13:10)YLT
Love is not working evil to an associate. The complement, then, of law, is love."
(Rom 13:10)CLV
Which of these is the least effective translation? Clearly to me it is the CLV, which seems to use "associate" and "complement" for some reason like, 'just to be different".
Yet the second is like it: 'You shall be loving your associate as yourself.'
(Mat 22:39)
In contemporary English an associate is somebody you choose to be associated with. A neighbor is not someone you choose, they are surrounding you and they may be welcome as such or not, but we are to treat them as we would like to be treated.
For me, using "associate" accomplishes no informative purpose....is no more accurate a translation.... and unecessarily sacrifices BOTH literacy and literalness, making the reading unwieldy and strange. Nothing wrong with strangeness if it has a correct purpose. To me it smacks of scholarly self indulgence, and I don't mean that unkindly, I just mean it looks to me like this translation has not been subjected to enough objective criticism.
On the other hand, I love that they used the greek word "ecclesia"(vs 22) instead of translating it to church. I wish many other words were dealt with in this way- words like ecclessia that hav no proper english equivalent, are better just left and defined in context and liner notes.
IMO.... because it is more difficult to read, and sometimes unnecessarily so, I think there are some reasons besides spiritual darkness why the CLV will hav difficulty catching on. Literacy need not be totally sacrificed for literalness, and it should never be unnecessarily sacrificed. In my opinion the CLV has need of improvement on that level, if it is to become a "communicator" rather than an eclectic selection by scholars.
I have the Concordant, but find it cumbersome to read. I also wonder about the necessity to have used one exclusive/distinct English word matched up to each individual Greek word - which IMO, leads to the use of some obscure, even "odd" words. Given all that, it's still probably quite accurate in many ways.
On hard copy, I mostly read Modern Young's, Young's, and The Christian Bible. Online, I like "biblios" http://bible.cc/matthew/1-1.htm, and on there often read the NASB, Aramaic, New Living, English Standard, etc., as I like to check various translations against each other... :2c:
Actually James, they were not consistent in that application, as I was showing with the use of "pleroma"- where they used "filled" in some places and "complement" in others. Also, since Heb 11:11 is clearly speaking of "conception" rather than disruption, I wonder why they did not translate "conception of the world" rather than "disruption of the world". That seems to have been a theological decision to me........ all this only to say- We hav many translations to compare now, we can continue to encourage testing and sifting. If there could ever be an "arrival point" for a translation of the scriptures, I don't think the CLV is it, any more than the other primary translations. 2 more cents.
(http://home.online.nl/spamfree/EonChart.gif)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts
1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.
Conception can be seen as bursting forth of life.
???
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 28, 2012, 05:26:08 PM
(http://home.online.nl/spamfree/EonChart.gif)
tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts
1. To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.
Conception can be seen as bursting forth of life.
???
I actually thought about that too WW, but it is still a theological decision (along with your excellent chart) that requires an inconsistent interpretation of the word from Heb 11:11 to the other 10 verses. IMO translation should REDUCE the need for interpretation and be consistent in application. Personally, tho I am familiar with the interpretaions that result in the chart you hav posted, I disagree with that view and believe it is incorrect and asserts facts not in evidence based on a few verses that can reasonably be read another way- so I believe conception(whether that be out of the destruction of a previous "kosmos" or not) is the more appropriate word, because it can be consistently applied in EVERY USAGE.
To me it is clear that in ALL 11 CASES the aspect of thought being expressed is PRIMARILY "conception/creation/foundation" ...NOT PRIMARILY "disruption", because, in my opinion, the Lamb was "conceived" as a Son within the Father BEFORE ANY AGE EVER WAS (this is just my opinion but there is clear evidence in the Word to support it), so at least in 6 places(a majority) now you hav an intepretation (IMO)of the word katabole that does not support the expressed thought.
IMO translation ought to seek the clearest meaning of a word that can be consistently applied, not a meaning that "can be seen as" (in other words, must be interpreted).
In all the following verses "katabole" seem to go to BEFORE ANYTHING WAS CREATED, much less DISRUPTED
"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation(katabole) of the world.
(Joh 17:24)
Surely, since "all things were created through him and he is before all things" (john 1, hebrews 1, colossians 1) Jesus was loved by the Father before kosmos one or kosmos two. The thought expressed does not seem to me to intersect AT ALL with the disruption paradigm.
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation(katabole) of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
(Eph 1:4)
If we were chose IN HIM and He was 1)eternally existent or 2) the first conception within the Father- we were IN HIM before the supposed disruption at the CONCEPTION of ALL THINGS in the mind of God.For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation(katabole) of the world.
(Heb 4:3)
This verse could be
interpreted as God finishing His works after said disruption. The only problem I have with that is it REQUIRES AN INTERPRETATION/TRANSLATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER USAGES. This is the very problem CLV proposes to transcend.
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation(katabole) of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
(Heb 9:26)
The sacrifice Lamb's blood is on the altar for the reconciliation of all things IN ALL AGES FORWARD AND BACKWARD from His sacrifice(Colossians 1)- including BEFORE the disruption, if there was one.
By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive(katabole), even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.
(Heb 11:11)
This, imo, is the clearest example of course. If katabole means "conception" then what da ya kno! it fits IN EVERY USAGE WITHOUT THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION.
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
(1Pe 1:20)
Clearly Jesus was foreknown before ANYTHING/ANYONE ELSE angelic, primordial, ages before ages backwards forever.
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
(Rev 13:8)
Since we were "chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world" our names were written in the Lambs book of life(whatever that represents) BEFORE any disruption or creation subsequent to HIS BEING
"The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.
(Rev 17:8)
Same as above
To me it seems that "disruption" is a forced translation based on a systematic theology held by the translators and does not accurately and objectively render the "expressed thought" of the writers. Even tho life can spring forth from disruption, the need then is a forced understanding(IMO corrupted) that is unnecessarily "bent around" someones point of view. Conception neither "enforces" that theological skew not does it "deny" that theological skew. It allows for an objective, totally consistent rendering down to the individual word that works in EVERY THOUGHT EXPRESSED using katabole in the scriptures.
My point is not just to prove or disprove anything about this particular word. It is to show that people of honest intention and supportable scholarship may disagree on certain things and
it is hard to keep them out of the translation process, so we need to test and evaluate everything always and not accord a level of accomplishment that has not yet been achieved(and may not be achievable).
Quote from: eaglesway on June 28, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
I actually thought about that too WW, but it is still a theological decision (along with your excellent chart)
The reason I posted that chart is because it's the CLV view.
If not, I'm sure TonyN will correct me.
Quotethat requires an inconsistent interpretation of the word from Heb 11:11 to the other 10 verses. IMO translation should REDUCE the need for interpretation and be consistent in application.
Or it's in line with similar usage of words.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/christian-life/the-new-testament-was-written-in-hebrew-(not-greek)/msg136782/#msg136782 (Idiom #28) Alse sounds like voilence but means something different in Hebrew mindset.
QuoteIn all the following verses "katabole" seem to go to BEFORE ANYTHING WAS CREATED, much less DISRUPTED
It's strange word.
καταβολή
katabolē
Thayer Definition:
1) a throwing or laying down
1a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
1b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from G2598
Citing in TDNT: 3:620, 418
katabolḗ/καταβολή [foundation, beginning]
1. This word, which means "laying down," is used for, e.g., the casting of seed, human begetting, the sowing of war, and the establishment of government. In the NT the word means "foundation" of the world, either to denote time (Mt. 13:35; Lk. 11:50), or, more often, to denote the eternity of God's plan of salvation (Mt. 25:34; Rev. 13:8). With pró it is used for God's pretemporal love of the Son (Jn. 17:24), election of the Son (1 Pet. 1:20), and election of believers (Eph. 1:4). This concept is found in the rabbis.
2. A second meaning in Heb. 11:11 relates to the sexual function of the male. The verse might refer to Sarah, but the context, especially v. 12, suggests that Abraham is the subject and that kaí autḗ Sárra is due to textual corruption.
Cardinal wrote about it a while back. IIRC it's the opposite of quickening.
QuoteTo me it seems that "disruption" is a forced translation based on a systematic theology held by the translators and does not accurately and objectively render the "expressed thought" of the writers. Even tho life can spring forth from disruption, the need then is a forced understanding(IMO corrupted) that is unnecessarily "bent around" someones point of view. Conception neither "enforces" that theological skew not does it "deny" that theological skew. It allows for an objective, totally consistent rendering down to the individual word that works in EVERY THOUGHT EXPRESSED using katabole in the scriptures.
No perfection. Odd at times. But for a reason I think. Many translations don't translate but express what God means. In theory.... It often means carte blance for injecting doctrine.
My guess is that Knoch wanted to avoid that. And that came with some cost. Doe steh cost outweight the gains?
I think Knoch inadvertently on some occasions did what he was trying to prevent :o)
I have been a King James version advocate, as was my father, but he was more hard-core than me. I have come across people whose devotion to the KJV borders on idolatry. A KJV is prominent on my desk, but there is a Ferrar Fenton version right beside it [don't care for FF's New Testament]. I also have a NKJV and an RSV, which I don't use. I do like Andy Gaus' "The Unvarnished New Testament." I also like, and have been exploring, the King James II version, which is not well known, and I had to hunt around for a copy. The KJV II was a project of Jay P. Green and others, and they input every Bible source manuscript they could find into a supercomputer, if I recall well what Green said in the intro. The result is 100% modern English, but mostly in agreement with the KJV. Other than that, I am about to buy a copy of Ivan Panin's "Numerical New Testament," off eBay. Oh, my NASB went bye-bye somewhere along the line, as did my NIV.
Quote from: eaglesway on June 29, 2012, 06:48:01 AM
I think Knoch inadvertently on some occasions did what he was trying to prevent :o)
Well, at least his intentions were right.
That's far more as I dare to say about most translations.
If we were to rely upon intentions, we would error deeply, because as I have seen in my own life, my best intentions hav been often misdirected. Therefore I am thankful for the continual fire of the light of God, and the continual challenges of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and just as I would hav no one accept my statements based on my intentions, I believe it is fair to judge all things and hold fast that which is good. As flawed as the King James is, there are some places where the Word comes through well and I hold those- while challenging others that don't. I hav only expressed some concern that Knoch's work is in some places being given a pass where it ought to be tested by fire. In no place would I judge or challenge his intentions......nor would I approve my own intentions. I just reserve the right to put certain things to fire and see what comes of it. Sometimes what comes of it is my own instruction or correction. Praise God! Let's just keep looking into the light and regard no man after the flesh!
QuoteIf we were to rely upon intentions, we would error deeply
With bad intentions even more so.
Flawless, impossible. Even for God Himself I dare to say.
Not because of skills but because of diffrences between languages.