[redgolum]

Which is a perfect example of why you should, when really getting into what different Bible verses say, have a couple of different translations from different strains of thought.

What has become (by default) the American Protestant canon and Bible came from the KJV. Now, I love reading the KJV aloud. Many of my Christmas memories are of my father and grandfather reading the Gospel stories of Jesus's birth. But the KJV has problems. All translations have problems. If you know, or have an idea, of what they are and how different versions compare, they can understood relatively easily. The book "Whose Bible Is It Anyway?" is a great intro to this.

Interesting thing about the LXX. For a long time, it was said that the LXX did not follow any Hebrew texts. Which is why if you read an English translation of the Torah today, the prophecies of Christ in, say, Isaiah, are not there. But when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, something rather shocking was seen. The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, but they follow more the LXX than the Masoretic Text. It was one of the more controversial finds in the scrolls, and was why some have called them fakes.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

…when really getting into what different Bible verses say, have a couple of different translations from different strains of thought.

It would seem the selection of translations would be important also, somewhere along the line someone needs to be trusted to understand the languages and the context, and then, as Kosta points out, there are differences between original selections before one worries about the correct translation into English.

I can't see most, or many, Sola Scriptura adherents doing this - each for his or her self. It seems to me, obvious to me, that the system of transmitting the Gospel by this means is far from practical and even further from the commission from Jesus.