Bible question.

Originally posted by valkeryie

Actually I have read(more than once) these;
1.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apcrypha.
2. The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible.
3. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
4. The Lost Books of the Bible (translated from the original tongues) by Gramercy.
5. The Lost Books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden by LB Press.

And you?

I haven't read them & wanted to know what you thought. Did they have a lot to add? Did it give you a bigger picture? Do you have any thoughts as to why they were not included? Would you recommend any? Feel free to answer any questions I may have missed too . I can say I've read the New Oxford Study Bible but felt the translation was weak compared to New International Verson and the like. Hook me up please

[edit on 20-10-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ImAlreadyPsycho
One of my biggest problems with the bible and my family trying to push it on me is this problem here. My take is this.

Many men over the course of over 400 years wrote the bible. Not one person. All claimed that this was told to them by a man named god, whom they never saw, just heard. Over they centuries it took to write, many people believed these men were telling the truth. These men also said god would talk to many more in the future and they need but to listen.

Many centuries later, no one has added to the bible. Those who "god speaks to" are labeled insane by shrinks and "normal" folks.

The question now becomes, if people who hear gods voice today are insane, what keeps those from centuries ago from being insane? In other words, why believe some guys from over 1000 years ago that you have never seen or heard on TV or radio (credability) who wrote a book claiming it was god who told them what to write, but not believe someone that wanted to add to it today who you may actually be able to see or hear on TV or radio that could help you determine their credability?

I have many other issues with the bible, but this is one thought that has plagued me for some time.

This has been an issue for me as well. I am bipolar, and if I go into a manic cycle I hear a voice which I believe to be God and I have hallucinated lights in the sky. This voice tells me what to do, what to write, etc. I can't help but see the similarities in the prophets of the OT. I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I consider that centuries of history and countless lives may have been based on the ravings of some people with mental illness.

There IS more. There are other books not included in the bible. Many Christians don't believe you may add to because Revelations says not to add to this book - however, that was meant not to add to Revelations. Many take the bible too literally.

Why do we need more? WE changed, not God.



Actually, there are 3 references to not adding or taking away from the book (meaning the whole Bible, not just the book of revelations). One is in the Old Testament, the other is somewhere in the New, and of course there is the statement in Revelations. I can get the actual scriptures for you, if you'd like.

Originally posted by bet555

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi again Valkeryie:

Then can you explain what you mean when you said, "The Word of God is Perfect, nothing needs to be added" because you have not explained what you mean exactly by the "Word of God", since there are so many conflicting collections of books which different groups call the "Bible..."

Presumably something that is "Perfect" is something that is a "Complete Unity" that has an internal consistency, like for example, a perfect diamond, etc. but and the conflicting morass of jumbled manuscripts that go to make up what some people call the "bible" is not a unity at all, let alone something perfect.

Presumably you would have been able to sense some of this if you have taken a closer look at your English text commentaries?

I'm still waiting for your answer....what do you consider "the bible" and why on earth would you claim it is perfect?

I hate people like this they just ask BUT What if... but What if... Then why this ... Why this. Why this... What if this ... Then why this .. then why this ... well if that then explain this to me... Why in the Dictionary are there words that have definitions that have words that if you go look up that word in that definition it refers back to the other word making an endless cycle to a word that noone really can put into words. Why is the wind not visable by man but fire sees it and moves around it when it comes. ??? Is fire living it dances as if it were.

Seems like a perfectly logical question, - which one is the "perfect" one referred to? Considering one can take the same verse from 2 different Bibles, and they have no similarity whatsoever !!

One can hardly take 'different Bibles' to 'definitions of a word in a dictionary' as any kind of an analogy.

Misfit

I have a question to add to this thread. Is there a bible that has the literal translation of the original text? I dont mean like the King James version. I mean one that translates the script word for word with no ones interpritations. If there is, could you please let me know what its called, and maybe where I can find it?

Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages don't translate to English perfectly but the translation attempts to stay as close to the originally written word as best it can. In a lot of modern study bibles if a word doesn�t exactly match the English equivalent it is referenced and the reader is shown the alternative meaning of the original text.

We have a couple different Translation Philosophies:


Formal Correspondence Translations

Tries to stick as closely as possible to the original wording and word-order of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Thus they may seem more accurate or "literal," but often require detailed explanations in footnotes to avoid being misinterpreted by modern readers. They are good for in-depth academic study of the Bible, but may be less suited for public proclamation, since they can be difficult to understand when heard or read aloud.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations

Attempts to put the sense of the original text into the best modern English, remaining close to the ideas expressed but not always following the exact wording or word-order of the Hebrew or Greek originals. Thus they may seem less "literal" than the formal correspondence translations, but can be just as "faithful" to the original text, and are therefore generally better suited for public proclamation or liturgical use.

www.zondervanbibles.com...

The NIV Bible (the most recent translation) was translated not by one individual but by 115 different biblical scholars and published in 1978. Translation Philosophy is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

Thanks King Lizard I knew about the not so literal translation, but I didnt know about the other one. Looks like Ill be going book hunting later today

Originally posted by kinglizard

The NIV Bible (the most recent translation) was translated not by one individual but by 115 different biblical scholars and published in 1978. Translation Philosophy is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.

Wohoo! Two points for my favorite version. Thank God I don't have to spend years learning Hebrew & Aramaic (although I know I should).

I don't know a thing about this bible code stuff -

I can tell you this:

You can argue the text of the bible and people will always. People have totally missed the main point of scripture.

You have the old testament which is based upon the law; then the new testament which is based basically on love, then the law will come naturally. Jesus was sent as not just a savor, but as an example. If you love your neighbor as you love your self (which is hard because we are ALL selfish and self-centered) and love God with all your heart (put Him first in your life, prayer, thoughts, etc.) then you will want to try and live by "the law". Sure there are things in between, but one thing stands out very clear - you can not live a life like the Pharisee's and judge other people without first looking at yourself; we are not holy, God is Holy. If you stand by your beliefs - that is good. I do not expect to change anybody's mind about what they believe in, I just stand by what I believe in and live the life of constantly trying to do better and serve God the best possible way. I don't sit on the pew and criticize people; I reach out to the homeless, etc. I don't put my faith in man, because man will fall. I put my faith in God. But this bible code thing - what ever. I am just living my life and loving it and take every day for what it is and have hope and faith for the future.