WHAT ARE SOME EXCELLENT BIBLES?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Molearner

I would recommend multiple bibles. Among the many I have are 2 that have not been mentioned....The Message and the Lamsa bible. Sometimes reading different bibles and comparing them is a way to see things in a different light and help bring better understanding.

Think about this: Why the synoptic Gospels? Essentially 3 gospels telling the same story. But each one can give a slightly different viewpoint and thereby help to explain each other. We could all give examples.

The Lamsa Bible has a lot of potential. Lamsa believed the New Testament was written in Aramaic before it was written in Greek. Virtually all authorities believe the New Testament was written in Greek first. Lamsa provides a different, fresh insight on the Bible that should be looked at if not studied. Molearner, I thank you for sharing with us this information.

As for the Message Bible, it has potential but I personally am not into paraphrase Bibles.

As for the Lamsa Bible, do you personally own a copy of that Bible? Hardcover or softcover?

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

The Lamsa Bible has a lot of potential. Lamsa believed the New Testament was written in Aramaic before it was written in Greek. Virtually all authorities believe the New Testament was written in Greek first. Lamsa provides a different, fresh insight on the Bible that should be looked at if not studied. Molearner, I thank you for sharing with us this information.

As for the Message Bible, it has potential but I personally am not into paraphrase Bibles.

As for the Lamsa Bible, do you personally own a copy of that Bible? Hardcover or softcover?

BigJohn,

Glad that you made the effort to learn about the Lamsa Bible and it does offer new insights at times. I own the softcover edition.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Molearner

BigJohn,

Glad that you made the effort to learn about the Lamsa Bible and it does offer new insights at times. I own the softcover edition.

I never heard of this translation. When I have time, i would like to know more about Lamsa himself and the source text he used.

I almost bought the softcover edition last night. The hardcover version is prohibitive in price.

[BigJohn]

Some claim the King James of 1611 is the ideal translation.

It is hard to find the original King James of 1611, because a lot of the translations claim 1611, but the English has been 'modernized'. Here is an example of what the King James of 1611 looked like.

EXODUS 6:3:

And I appeared vnto Abraham, vnto Isaac, and vnto Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty, but by my name IEHOVAH was I not knowen to them.

Genesis 1:1 has her own flavor:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

John 1:27 takes on a new meaning all by it self.

He it is, who comming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to vnloose.

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Some claim the King James of 1611 is the ideal translation.

It is hard to find the original King James of 1611, because a lot of the translations claim 1611, but the English has been 'modernized'. Here is an example of what the King James of 1611 looked like.

EXODUS 6:3:

And I appeared vnto Abraham, vnto Isaac, and vnto Iacob, by the Name of God Almighty, but by my name IEHOVAH was I not knowen to them.

Genesis 1:1 has her own flavor:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

John 1:27 takes on a new meaning all by it self.

He it is, who comming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to vnloose.

There are over 200 KJV early copies floating around and we have the ' Original Draft '.
A First Edition was found in 2015 in a Church cupboard...

[BigJohn]

Newer Bibles, based on the Nestle-Aland critical text and/or newer critical texts that do not render 1 John 5:7-8 (in this case copied from the King James Version (KJV)) something like this:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This scripture was lifted from a writing from a late fourth century heretic called Priscillian of Avila. Priscillian wrote, from Tractate 1, Sections 46-48:

"John says there are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are one, and there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ,"

Translations that render 1 John 5:7-8 something like

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

provide a translation that is more in aligned with older manuscripts, etc. that have been found in recent times.

[sky]

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news...mbridge-004217

[BigJohn]

A Bible that is rarely if ever mentioned is the Inspired Version of the Bible written by Joseph Smith, Jr. (1833).

In the PREFACE to this translation, insight was provided as to why this translation was needed. An excerpt reads:

"Several early Christian writers gave evidence that changes had been made in the Bible at a very early day. Justin Martyr, who wrote about a century after Christ, claimed that the Jews "have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translation [the Septuagint] effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man [Jesus] who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and as man, and as being crucified, and as dying" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71).

Origen, who spent his life collecting and comparing the different translations and editions, also testified that the Jews removed parts of the Old Testament. He wrote, "Our copies are very much fuller than the Hebrew" (Origen, Origen to Africanus).

Gnostic heretics in the early Christian church also corrupted copies of the scriptures, as documented by Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Christian historian Eusebius quoted an unknown author, "So it was that they laid hands unblushingly on the Holy Scriptures, claiming to have corrected them" ("A Polemic Against Artemon," quoted by Eusebius in The History of the Church, Book 5, Chapter 28)."

The translation appears to be more of a paraphrase but this Bible claims it is revelatory.

Genesis starts out reading as:

"1. And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.
2. I am the Beginning and the End; the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.
3. Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest."

It is apparent the text has been completely changed; changed into a fashion many of us might resonate with.

[Morpheus]

Big John, I believe your "conspiracy" claims are disputed by the Dead Sea Scrolls findings, and the thorough research thereof.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

Big John, I believe your "conspiracy" claims are disputed by the Dead Sea Scrolls findings, and the thorough research thereof.

I am lost at what you are talking about.

What "conspiracy" claims?