Posted on 01/13/2020 7:29:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Catholic bible contains the apocrypha..books even the Jews don’t accept. Even the church admits that it is not inspired texts but historical. The catholic church only added them to after the reformation. They admit there are false teachings in them as well.
Don’t add to the bible
I don’t have an opinion on that. I was simply pointing out your faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise.
I have many Bible translations in my home, but some years ago I bought a Bible with the KJV on the left-hand page and the same text in the New Living Translation on the right-hand page. When I want to read a whole chapter(s) without having to look many things up, this volume satisfies my enjoyment of the beautiful and poetic KJV with an immediate source of clarity via the NLT's contemporary vernacular.
That said, there is even more to understanding the scriptures than being able to understand the language. For that, I have taken courses at churches and with the wonderful organization Community Bilble Studay, which has classes in many parts of the U.S. and abroad.
There were other translations before the Latin Vulgate.
Syrian Peshitta in 2nd Century AD.
Aramaic in 3rd Century, the Latin Vulgate came out also but was not used very much because of the Old Latin Bible.
The Old Latin Bible was in use by 200 AD.
All of these match very highly with the Textus Receptus, which is the primary source text for the KJV.
Good answer
I think a lot of times (not all of the time) but a lot..... when people develop theology by hinging on a word and which translation is accurate..... you know, they may be missing the big picture.
On www.biblegateway.com you can see about 50 English translations of a verse -- look up a verse and at the bottom is a link to "in all English translations".
BLB is good on the iPhone for interlinear and audio of the Greek/Hebrew words. On my laptop, I prefer www.biblehub.com interlinear and commentary.
Thanks.
I like the ESV as well.
Very easy to read but not dumbed down.
It also contains footnotes that make note of different translations of words and other possible meanings, along with notes of where the manuscripts vary. They tend to go with the oldest, most reliable manuscripts, which seems wise to me.
NOT *The Message*.
Nor am I a big fan of The Passion Translation, although a lot of people rave about it.
1. The correct name for the books of the Bible removed by Martin Luther is the deuterocanonical books.
2. The Jews also reject the New Testament books. The Jews do not determine the canon for Christians.
3. The Church recognized the current biblical canon since the fourth century. It was only reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in response to the “Reformers” removing them with no authority to do so.
4. The Church affirms the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books and does not “admit of false teaching in them” because there are none.
See post 24.
I use the Logos software. It is incredibly powerful. Unfortunately it has a steep learning curve but once mastered it’s awesome. It also has a mobile app for most platforms that is quite good.
The Catholic Church as a whole never accepted any formal canon in a full churchwide counsel until the counter-reformation. There we were some regional counsels in the 4th century that accepted the canon previously recognized; as recorded, for example, in Athanasius' 39th Festal letter.
That’s only partially correct. The councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century were regional, but were ratified by Rome. See post 24.
AV1611-period.
+1
Most important: Actually READ it.
Read several versions. Seriously.
Some are more accurate and then others can explain better in ways we understand.
After a while, it gets easy.
I start with KJV but will re-read in the Living Bible, NAS and ESB as well as others at times. Use a concordance!
I am at work, after spending a week in Guatemala participating in a conference teaching a room full of pastors the best ways to preach and present the Gospel.
When I was in charge of the Bible study programs at a Phoenix area homeless men’s shelter I was asked “which Bible should I read?” all the time.
One should remember that there were other dialects of Greek at the time the New Testament was written. Biblical scholars up until the late 1800’s noted that there are words in the New Testament which did not occur elsewhere in Greek literature. They assumed that the dialect of the New Testament was “Holy Spirit Greek” having been inspired by God. Then, the archeologists went to work and located many of these unknown words on street signs and informal letters of the day.
Thus, it turned out that the Greek of the New Testament was the Greek of the common man of the time. It has been known as Koine, or common, Greek ever since. I have heard it referred to as “street Greek”.
Out takeaway should be that God provided his Word in the language of the man on the street so that everyone could understand it. Thus, it behooves us to provide people with Bibles in the pews which are in the common language.
ESV and NASB fit the bill. However, they require a higher reading level than an NIV or even some of the more common paraphrase versions. My favorite paraphrase is the J.B. Phillips New Testament.
My advice to people who ask is always, read the Bible you will read. Choose the best translation, but make it one which you are comfortable reading and, thus, will take the time to open and visit with God on a regular basis! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.