Which version of the Bible should I pick? Advise me.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

So King James was actually King IAMES. My fact was the English Language did have J.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NOTurTypical

So King James was actually King IAMES. My fact was the English Language did have J.

Why are you arguing with me? Google it, the J didn't appear in the 1611 KJV, it appeared first in the 1769 edition of the KJV.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

would love too. Astrotheology is the theory that all the characters in the bible are metaphors for stars, planets and constellations. The bible is a symbolic story of a thing called the precession of the equinoxes a cycle that spans about 25,900 years.

Briefly it says Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, Mary Magdelene is the moon, Peter is Jupiter (Jew Peter), the 12 disciples are symbolic for the 12 constellations, saturn is satan, etc.

it is considered an ancient Holy Science and the Catholic Church imprisoned or killed people for teaching this throughout our history.

If you youtube Santos Bonacci a lot of videos will come up. He has tons of very interesesting lectures on the subject.

Heres a video to start with i recommend watching the whole thing and probably part 2 as well.




I wil say Santos Bonacci explains this subject the best. But you have to watch out, I think the flat earth theory was revived to specifically trap him and to throw him off track from the truth. So don't bother with any of his flat earth videos, up until then he was onto something. He has tons of really good info before his whole flat earth BS.

a reply to: Necrose

I would go to a comfortable book store -- you know, the kind that doesn't mind if you sit down and read a spell. Maybe one with coffee and such. Pull up to the obligatory scarred formica table and read a few of them. Buy the one that speaks to you.

a reply to: Necrose

Oxford annotated and NRSV are good.

NIV is highly corrupt I pretty much would recommend the 2 above.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I prefer this one.

Sir Francis Bacon edited the New King James version, and he was like the original Freemason. Go figure.

Sir Francis Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626. The New King James translation (published by Harper Collins) also called the "Revised Authorized Version" was finished in 1982 after seven years of work. Francis Bacon could never have edited it. He was alive when the original 1611 KJV was published but Bacon is not listed among the 53 people who contributed to the translation.

Yet he did...odd how history works huh?

originally posted by: Muffenstuff

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I prefer this one.

Sir Francis Bacon edited the New King James version, and he was like the original Freemason. Go figure.

Sir Francis Bacon lived from 1561 to 1626. The New King James translation (published by Harper Collins) also called the "Revised Authorized Version" was finished in 1982 after seven years of work. Francis Bacon could never have edited it. He was alive when the original 1611 KJV was published but Bacon is not listed among the 53 people who contributed to the translation.

Yet he did...odd how history works huh?

History has no record of Sir Francis Bacon editing the King James Version of the Bible.

But history does record that Francis Bacon was removed from the office of Lord Chancellor by King James I in 1621 for recieving a bribe. One of the alleged founders of Fremasonry was provably corrupt and therefore the Freemasons have a "thing" against King James I and the projects he endorsed.

The origin of this urban legend that Sir Francis Bacon edited the KJV was probably Manly Palmer Hall, who died in 1990, 364 years after Bacon.

The alleged 'proof' of Bacon editing the KJV is supposed to be that one of the Psalms has the words "shake" towards the start and "spear" much later in the passage (the assumption being it was the name, Shakespeare, encoded in the text). This also takes from the historically incorrect idea that Shakespeare was actually a pseudonym for Bacon. It wasn't, they were two separate people, with different birth and death dates, with different works, lived in separate towns and were buried at separate sites.

It is one untruth built upon another, not history.

The historically recorded names of the writers and editors of the 1611 KJV are:
Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell, Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing, John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne, Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten, William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson, John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson and Richard Bancroft.

Sir Francis Bacon and his particular beliefs were known to some of these devout and godly scholars. There is no way any Christian scholar would allow a non-Christian occultist like Bacon anywhere near the text.

Similarly, the KJV is a translation based on the ancient Textus Receptus. It wasn't edited to say something different. We still have the original Textus Receptus to compare with. The only 'edits' have been to translate more accurately as the English language changed.

History and 'Internet urban legends' are different ... odd how that works, huh?

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, there are 5,500 copies of the Textus Receptus manuscript that exists today, which is 10 times more copies than the next rival from antiquity, Homer's Illiad which there are only 500. The TR is the most preserved ancient manuscript in the world.

a reply to: Necrose

A good vid to watch and contemplate is the 10 myths about the Bible by Micheal Heiser . One of the strange things I had discovered was that despite being raised in a family without the Bible and any Church I had some assumptions I must have picked up from TV or school ..not sure how I had got them but know that I had to unlearn a few things to understand the Bible better ...any how have at it .

originally posted by: Necrose
I was thinking about buying a Bible for myself, even though I don't believe in God I may read it just for the so-called Educational purposes.
Which version of the bible is the best one?
Is King James Version considered to be the best one, or is it the most corrupt one (as some say)?

(Not really interested in American translations though)

So how is it? Any advice?

Get software called BibleWorks it has them all especially Hebrew and Greek earliest versions.

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Lazarus Short

would love too. Astrotheology is the theory that all the characters in the bible are metaphors for stars, planets and constellations. The bible is a symbolic story of a thing called the precession of the equinoxes a cycle that spans about 25,900 years.

Briefly it says Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, Mary Magdelene is the moon, Peter is Jupiter (Jew Peter), the 12 disciples are symbolic for the 12 constellations, saturn is satan, etc.

it is considered an ancient Holy Science and the Catholic Church imprisoned or killed people for teaching this throughout our history.

If you youtube Santos Bonacci a lot of videos will come up. He has tons of very interesesting lectures on the subject.

Heres a video to start with i recommend watching the whole thing and probably part 2 as well.

I wil say Santos Bonacci explains this subject the best. But you have to watch out, I think the flat earth theory was revived to specifically trap him and to throw him off track from the truth. So don't bother with any of his flat earth videos, up until then he was onto something. He has tons of really good info before his whole flat earth BS.

I have done a bit of digging on my own, and I don't think I want to go where this fellow goes. Thanks anyway!

OTOH, I do subscribe to a little book called "The Glory of the Stars," by E. Raymond Capt, which is a Christian interpretation of the Zodiac.

TheWord software is worderful for Bible study which comes with the KJV,
also dozens of other Bible versions, Dictionaries, Concordances,
Commentaries, Bible Maps, etc etc.

Best of all, it's FREE.

www.theword.net...

originally posted by: Necrose
I was thinking about buying a Bible for myself, even though I don't believe in God I may read it just for the so-called Educational purposes.

Which is a good place to start. Kudos.

Which version of the bible is the best one?
Is King James Version considered to be the best one, or is it the most corrupt one (as some say)?

(Not really interested in American translations though)

So how is it? Any advice?

Since you mention KJV, you should know that it was a good translation in its time, but that was in 1611, more than 400 years ago. KJV relies almost entirely on Textus Receptus, put together some 100 years earlier, recorded in at times rather odd Greek. At the time KJV was written (as well as the other great English and German bibles of the era) very few Greek documents were available. Compared with what we have available today, it's actually quite amazing that they managed to make bibles of such accuracy as they did. KJV is a literary gem, written in the pen of Francis Bacon on behalf of the Scottish troublemaker James I and the protestant Church of England.

I would recommend you rather find a good modern bible, like ESV (English Standard Version). Whenever you figure you'd notch up, you could upgrade your ESV with a critical apparatus and a bunch of study material made to fit ESV. A modern text-critical bible is put together from a patchwork of more than 12 000 manuscripts, codices, fragments and papyri. And you can retrieve every variant of every letter and word if you like, from the internet or in the library, using your study bible, piercing into the very fabric of these ancient books and fragments, that these old bookes are built from.

a reply to: Necrose


NKJV,. New King James Version. Closest to the original, readable in plain English.

a reply to: Necrose

If you would like to read about God, check out the Urantia Book. It's a book about God, the universe and your place in it.

A little more informtion.

The Received Text which is the basis for the KJV is based on only about six
manuscripts, and those six manuscripts represent the majority of the
ancient manuscripts and those primarily used by the church through the ages.

While the New Age bibles are based on The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

So, is there any difference?

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which make up less than one
percent of the existing ancient manuscripts, differ significantly from the
Received Text. Vaticanus omits at least 2,877 words; it adds 536 words;
it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies 1,132
words; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences from the Received Text.

Sinaiticus is an even worse corruption, having almost 9,000 divergences
from the Received Text. 169 In addition, the new bible versions use a
method of translation known as dynamic equivalence, rather than the
formal equivalence used in the Authorized Version (AV), which is also
known as the King James Version (KJV).

Formal equivalence is a word for word translation, whereas dynamic
equivalence is a thought for thought translation. A translator using
dynamic equivalence is less a translator and more an interpreter.
Thus, the new versions of bibles should more accurately be called
interpretations, rather than translations.

The dynamic equivalent interpreters of the new bible versions have
often made unfounded assumptions as to the meaning of particular
passage. Rather than translate what God wrote, they have, with
some frequency, twisted passages by injecting their own personal bias.
Some of these interpreters have displayed malicious intent and caused
great mischief. For evidence of mischief view the verses below.


A few verses comparing the KJV with one of the New Age Bibles.

Mat 18:11
(KJV) "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mat 23:14
(KJV) "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark 7:16
(KJV) "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark 11:26
(KJV) "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

John 5:4
(KJV) "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Act's 8:37
(KJV) "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Act 28:29
(KJV) "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

(NIV) (whole verse omitted)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I think one should still purchase one of the New Age Bibles just in case
he/she is in a public restroom and notices the place has run out
of toilet paper.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
A little more informtion.

The Received Text which is the basis for the KJV is based on only about six
manuscripts, and those six manuscripts represent the majority of the
ancient manuscripts and those primarily used by the church through the ages.

I suggest you go back to your study and look up exactly what «majority text» means in this regard. Hint: Five of the incomplete MSS Erasmus had access to were of Byzantine origin (12th century incomplete texts). The Byzantine type text is referred to as the majority text (as compared to the Alexandrian type text). Textus Receptus differs in about 2000 readings from the standard majority text type.

While the New Age bibles are based on The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Not so. OT is typically BHS and Leningrad Codex, while NT is typically according to tradition rendered with Septuagint type OT readings. Erasmus also made his own workarounds to produce readings similar to the Septuagint texts traditionally used, but he had no LXX available. For Revelation half the book is translated into Greek from Jerome's Vulgate.

Another interesting tidbit was that in his second edition of the Textus Receptus text, Erasmus added the Comma Johanneum since they had just recovered a 16th c. Greek text that contained it. Textus Receptus was and is lefthanded work, it was full of typos and errors, it would include marginalia as proper text and would add things that simply weren't there. The typos and errors were slowly corrected, but it went this and that direction, something for the better others for worse.

Edit: The Textus Receptus text is sometimes called Satan's Bible, since it says «And I stood upon the sand by the shore» and not «And the Dragon stood upon the sand by the shore». Also Erasmus' text wasn't nicknamed Textus Receptus until after the 1633 edition made by the Elzevir brothers, who in the foreword say in Latin: «Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum», or, «So you hold the text, received by everybody». Textum and receptum was transferred from accusative case into nominative giving the text its misnomered name Textus Receptus. Its nickname doesnot reflect that the text is somehow God's gift to the humans to receive, it means that you who hold the text, has received it one way or another

So, is there any difference?

KJV was written based on six incomplete manuscripts
ESV is written based on more than 12 000 manuscripts

So, yes, there is a difference. G R E A T difference.

I've found the NIV to be pretty accurate. Whatever gets you the most accurate OT translation is what I'd go with. I used the NIV in seminary, if that helps you any.

originally posted by: Marky83
I've found the NIV to be pretty accurate. Whatever gets you the most accurate OT translation is what I'd go with. I used the NIV in seminary, if that helps you any.

It's not such a bad translation, except for what it leaves out. I got rid of my copy.

Before someone picks anything, you may want to consider the following:

Or consider the following (caveat: the NAS quotation and translation of 1 Corinthians 8:4,5 is quite inaccurate regarding what the Greek actually says, I hope it's not confusing and doesn't distract from the rest of the video; if it is, see this video especially from 3:08-6:30):

So that you can pick bible translations that help you understand the following chapter in Isaiah: