Bible- different versions

[SleepyWitch]

Hi all,
I'm an evil heathen atheist :) but I'd like to study the bible to better understand Christians.

I've ordered a King James Bible from amazon, but I noticed there are lots of different bibles.
´
in what ways do they differ? are they only different translations or do they differ in terms of the material that is included/excluded?
e.g. what's the diff. between King James' Bible and the New King James' Bible?
What's a Common Book of Prayer?


which version do you use?

No bashing, please. I don't care why the version you use is the best and only true one, I'm only interested in how it differs from other versions:D THANKS :)

[Pendragon]

Hi all,
I'm an evil heathen atheist :) but I'd like to study the bible to better understand Christians.

I've ordered a King James Bible from amazon, but I noticed there are lots of different bibles.
´
in what ways do they differ? are they only different translations or do they differ in terms of the material that is included/excluded?
e.g. what's the diff. between King James' Bible and the New King James' Bible?
What's a Common Book of Prayer?


which version do you use?

First of all, don't bash yourself. I am a Christian and I could not justly call you that and I don't feel you need to lable yourself in that manner. You have always been kind and polite to me, and that doesn't fit the discription you give of yourself.

I use a KJV. I also use several versions that are interlintal with Hebrew and Greek. Scofield Bibles are popular, because the numbered pages match, as they do not in a KJV, because it depends on who put it out. Some modern translations do remove some verses, some do not. I find some easier to understand, some harder than ever.

A book of common prayer is one published by the Catholic Church, or other churches, and has prayers for special occasions written in it, to be read aloud on those occasions. Here is a link to one for The Episcopal Church.
http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/

God Bless

Pen

[kilted exile]

The introduction of the book of common prayer, caused a large number of problems in the UK at the time of the uniting of the crowns. An interesting part of history.

[dzebra]

The biggest difference in English Bible translations that I know is that some Bibles are translated "word for word," while others are translated "thought for thought." Like translating any language to another, some phrases are very hard to understand when translated literally word for word. For example, there is a French phrase that, when translated to English word for word, is "he took his knees to his chin" (or something like that, I don't remember exactly. I learned it in French class.). This phrase in French, though, means the guy ran really fast, so it would be translated as that in "thought for thought." Differences like that are the most predominant differences in Bible translations.

A few word for word translations are: King James Version, New King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard

Thought for thought: New Century Version, New Living Version

To the best of my knowledge, the New International Version is a pretty good mix of both word for word and thought for thought.

Then there are paraphrases. Translations are created by a committee of scholars, paraphrases are created by a small handful of people, or by one person. These tend to be more biased translations based on personal beliefs merely because fewer people have to agree on how to translate things. Popular paraphrases are The Living Bible, The Message, and some others I can't remember off the top of my head.

I use a mix of New International Version, English Standard Version, and New Living Translation mostly. I like the King James because it uses "thee" and "thou" rather than "you" and "you," making things easier to understand, but KJV is so old that several reliable ancient manuscripts have been found since its publication, so there are a few places where it might not have the best translation.

[Dark Star]

The difference is primarily whether they're word for word or thought for thought or a bit of both, as mentioned above....or what texts were used in the translation. In the case of the King James, if I recall correctly, the Textus Recepticus (I'm tired right now so I imagine I spelled the second part wrong) was used which was a text that was rushed to print to get it out before another publisher, so there several editorial errors. There's also the additional problem that reading that is like reading Shakespeare; the meaning of some words have changed so you're likely to misunderstand a few things unless you have a Bible with footnotes. I'd recommend the NIV since it uses an earlier text with less interpolations in it.

Also:


I'm an evil heathen atheist:)

:lol: I predict a ten page thread and a lock due to this.:D

[Redzeppelin]

I agree with Dark - the KJV is a frustrating read - it is essentially like reading Shakespeare. Although it is magnificent to listen to (it was primarily designed to be heard rather than read), it will bog you down, big time. The NIV is a good bet, as is the Geneva translation. The Living Bible (a paraphrase) is good to get the most understanding - though it's good to balance that with a word-for-word because paraphrases dilute some of the force of the original ideas. The advantage to reading the KJV is that its version of many famous verses is the one that's entered popular culture.

Good luck with your reading :)

[bluevictim]

The biggest difference is probably what is and isn't included. The Protestant Bible includes less than the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes less than the Eastern Orthodox Bible. The Protestant Bible is basically the New Testament plus the Hebrew Bible. The Roman Catholic Bible also includes Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch. In addition to these, Eastern Orthodox churches include 1 (or 3) Esdras and 3 Maccabees (basically, Eastern Orthodox churches use everything in the Septuagint plus the New Testament). Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles have versions of Esther and Daniel that differ from the Protestant Bible.

As for the different translations, I would agree with the previous posters that the KJV is probably outdated (which is not to say that it is without literary merit) for your purpose (to understand modern Christians), although familiarity with the KJV might help in catching allusions to it in English literature. The New King James Version is an attempt to bring the KJV up to date. If you are willing to invest more time and money, you might want to get a Bible with some explanatory notes. If you do, you'll probably want to shop around to find one that is less sectarian, because many annotated Bibles have notes that are highly specific to a particular school of interpretation, and probably won't help you get a good idea of general Christian thought.

One last thing: you don't have to read the whole Bible unless you'd like to be able to one-up many Christians by saying that you have read the whole Bible. To get a better understanding of most modern Christians, you just have to read the parts that are most familiar. Christians find some parts of the Bible just as tedious as you do. Here are the books that I would consider less important (for your purpose): the books that aren't in the Protestant Bible, Leviticus, Numbers, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Philemon, 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude. I'm not discouraging you from reading these books, and I'm not trying to say that these books are inferior, I'm just hoping to help you prioritize your reading. You'll find that these books do get referenced, but you can just look up the references when you come across them (like most Christians do, if they even bother to do that).

[Redzeppelin]

I agree with much of what you've said - though I think there is significant value in both Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon.

It is good advice to avoid reading the Bible cover-to-cover in your first try. Rather, the books I would suggest beginning with would be these:

1. Genesis - sets up so many fundamental things about what Christians believe about the nature of creation, the character of God, marriage, family, etc.

2. Matthew and John - probably the two best portraits of the life of Jesus.

3. Romans - the most thorough rundown of Christian theology in terms of sin, grace, and Christ's sacrifice.

4. I Corinthians - more of what Romans offers, plus the definitive chapter on love (ch. 13)

5. Ephesians - covers how we relate to each other and the reality of the unseen spiritual world that is so much a part of Christain experience.

6. Proverbs - good reading and good advice for anybody - believer or not.

7. Psalms - ever felt like the world was against you? That nobody understood your pain? Loneliness? Joy? The desire for justice? It's all in here.

From there you may go where you wish, but I think those are the most important in terms of understanding where Christians come from in terms of their beliefs.

Hope you don't mind the suggestions. The prophecy books (many mentioned by bluevictim) are less meaningful without the context of the books I listed above.

[SleepyWitch]

I agree with Dark - the KJV is a frustrating read - it is essentially like reading Shakespeare. Although it is magnificent to listen to (it was primarily designed to be heard rather than read), it will bog you down, big time. The NIV is a good bet, as is the Geneva translation. The Living Bible (a paraphrase) is good to get the most understanding - though it's good to balance that with a word-for-word because paraphrases dilute some of the force of the original ideas. The advantage to reading the KJV is that its version of many famous verses is the one that's entered popular culture.

Good luck with your reading :)

hehe :) I like reading Shakespeare :) so far I've never got seriously bogged down when reading Shaky (..of course the annotations might have helped :D)
but let's see.. maybe it's different with the KJV... hope it will be delivered tomorrow.


The advantage to reading the KJV is that its version of many famous verses is the one that's entered popular culture.
yep, that's what makes a word for word translation sound appealing, because you get to read all those famous quotes that have entered every day language and I imagine they just sound better than a paraphrase

[SleepyWitch]

thanks bluevictim and Red..
I think I will read it cover to cover, though (except maybe the part where it says blabla begot whatshisname and whatshisname begot this-and-that and this -and-that begot such-and-such for 3 pages running :)
I'm not only interested in Christianity as such, but also how Judeo-Christian thought developed chronologically..

[Pendragon]

The biggest difference is probably what is and isn't included. The Protestant Bible includes less than the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes less than the Eastern Orthodox Bible. The Protestant Bible is basically the New Testament plus the Hebrew Bible. The Roman Catholic Bible also includes Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch. In addition to these, Eastern Orthodox churches include 1 (or 3) Esdras and 3 Maccabees (basically, Eastern Orthodox churches use everything in the Septuagint plus the New Testament). Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles have versions of Esther and Daniel that differ from the Protestant Bible.


One last thing: you don't have to read the whole Bible unless you'd like to be able to one-up many Christians by saying that you have read the whole Bible. Sadly, this is most likely true. Many who profess Christianity have not read any version of the Bible all the way through. That said, I am not certain that my having done so in all three of the above mentioned texts makes me have any advantage over one who has not. It may make me more answerable for what I know, but then again, I only know what I understand, that which I do not understand I may read forever and it doesn't make it any clearer any more that speaking a foreign language louder helps a person understand what they don't speak.

I would say this: Choose the version you can best understand, live a simple life of trying to be like Christ, pray, and love your neighbor and others. Avoid arguments over who is right or wrong, to God a person stands or falls, not to a man. If we really chose to be like Christ, we would have fewer arguements over which version of the Bible is correct and more helping each other.

I sincerely hope we can keep this thread from a lock-up. The wise one who said "Manners cost nothing." was indeed, wise.

God Bless.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[bluevictim]

thanks bluevictim and Red..
I think I will read it cover to cover, though (except maybe the part where it says blabla begot whatshisname and whatshisname begot this-and-that and this -and-that begot such-and-such for 3 pages running :)
I'm not only interested in Christianity as such, but also how Judeo-Christian thought developed chronologically..OK, have fun! I'd love to hear what you think from time to time as you read.


I sincerely hope we can keep this thread from a lock-up. The wise one who said "Manners cost nothing." was indeed, wise.Oops, I wasn't trying to offend anyone in my post; I'm sorry if it came off as rude. I'm not sure why what I posted was rude, but I'd be the first to admit that my manners are often lacking.

[MaryLupin]

I'm not only interested in Christianity as such, but also how Judeo-Christian thought developed chronologically..

You might want to look at this site (http://www.biblegateway.com/). It is an online searchable bible (in 50 different versions). You can easily check for different wordings of significant passages or just passages that you find interesting.

You might also try reading a couple of really good theorists that discuss Christianity and its development. From my own reading I think you might find Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels interesting. She talks about how the early church formed in a society that had many conflicting views and how those conflicts formed what became the biblical canon and what became the church. Her discussion of the role of women in this society and the early church is particularly interesting. Another writer, one that talks about the development of the concept of god from early Judaism through Christianity, is Karen Armstrong. She has quite a few books and is both a good researcher and a good writer. She has a book called The History of God that I would recommend.

One last text to tell you about...since you are a witch (nice to meet you and blessed be) you might also want to read more about women's spirituality during the time when Christianity is being created as a religion. There is a book called The Sacred Prostitute: Eternal Aspect of the Feminine by Nancy Qualls-Corbett that you might find interesting. There are a few summaries of it online, including a brief one on amazon.com.

I second what said above, I would welcome your thoughts on your reading.

[SleepyWitch]

You might want to look at this site (http://www.biblegateway.com/). It is an online searchable bible (in 50 different versions). You can easily check for different wordings of significant passages or just passages that you find interesting.

You might also try reading a couple of really good theorists that discuss Christianity and its development. From my own reading I think you might find Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels interesting. She talks about how the early church formed in a society that had many conflicting views and how those conflicts formed what became the biblical canon and what became the church. Her discussion of the role of women in this society and the early church is particularly interesting. Another writer, one that talks about the development of the concept of god from early Judaism through Christianity, is Karen Armstrong. She has quite a few books and is both a good researcher and a good writer. She has a book called The History of God that I would recommend.

One last text to tell you about...since you are a witch (nice to meet you and blessed be) you might also want to read more about women's spirituality during the time when Christianity is being created as a religion. There is a book called The Sacred Prostitute: Eternal Aspect of the Feminine by Nancy Qualls-Corbett that you might find interesting. There are a few summaries of it online, including a brief one on amazon.com.

I second what said above, I would welcome your thoughts on your reading.

thanks Mary, those books sound really interesting, especially the first one.
I'm not a witch, though :) that's just my nickname :) are you a witch? :)

Uncle Pen, thanks for all your advice :) about the evil heathen atheist, i wasn't bashing myself, only being ironic :) but thanks anyway :) hugs

[MaryLupin]

thanks Mary, those books sound really interesting, especially the first one.
I'm not a witch, though :) that's just my nickname :) are you a witch? :)

Have fun reading....and as to my designation...depends on who you ask. People call me lots of things. Partly, it also depends on what you include in the term "witch."

[Pendragon]

Oops, I wasn't trying to offend anyone in my post; I'm sorry if it came off as rude. I'm not sure why what I posted was rude, but I'd be the first to admit that my manners are often lacking.

No, no, mon ami! I found nothing offensive in your post! I just meant that we should try to be careful so that this thread doesn't lock up. You had good points and were quick to apologize even when you could find no reason for it. A true sign of a person of quality.

Pleased to meet you, I am Pendragon.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[SleepyWitch]

I'm on to Genesis 24.
so far it's a little confusing.. sometimes it's not quite clear to me why things get repeated so much, e.g. Genesis 1 and 2. are they two different versions of the same story or is Genesis 2 an elaboration of Gen. 1?
why doesn't it say "In the beginning there was the word" right at the start?

why do all those kings with weird names give Abraham camels and goats and let him settle on their territory?

[weepingforloman]

"In the beginning was the Word" comes in the gospel of John.

[bluevictim]

Pleased to meet you, I am Pendragon.Hi Pendragon, I'm bluevictim; nice to meet you. It's kind of surprising we haven't crossed paths before since I see you around here all the time. Thanks for the kind words; who would have thought such a nice compliment would come out of my own clumsy misunderstanding?


I'm on to Genesis 24.
so far it's a little confusing.. sometimes it's not quite clear to me why things get repeated so much, e.g. Genesis 1 and 2. are they two different versions of the same story or is Genesis 2 an elaboration of Gen. 1?
why doesn't it say "In the beginning there was the word" right at the start?

why do all those kings with weird names give Abraham camels and goats and let him settle on their territory?Regarding Genesis 1 and 2, many people think that they are the result of merging two originally separate creation myths, and accept that some aspects of the two passages conflict. There are many Christians who don't accept the possibility of contradiction in the Bible, and there are a number of approaches to try to harmonize the two accounts; the most common (that I have come across) harmonizations take Genesis 2 as a filling in of details complementary to Genesis 1 (it's not too hard to look these up on the good ol' internet).

The reason that Genesis gives for the kings treating Abraham well (at least on two occasions) was that they thought Sarah was pretty (and took her into their harems) and thought Abraham was her brother, and when they later on found out that Sarah was Abraham's wife by divine intervention, they were afraid.

I'm not sure what you're asking with respect to "in the beginning there was the word", unless, like weepingforloman suggests, you are thinking of the beginning of the gospel of John.

[SleepyWitch]

The reason that Genesis gives for the kings treating Abraham well (at least on two occasions) was that they thought Sarah was pretty (and took her into their harems) and thought Abraham was her brother, and when they later on found out that Sarah was Abraham's wife by divine intervention, they were afraid.

so those kings are scared God will punish them for abducting another man's wife? is it God or Abraham they are afraid of? Why does he pretend she's his sister in the first place?


I'm not sure what you're asking with respect to "in the beginning there was the word", unless, like weepingforloman suggests, you are thinking of the beginning of the gospel of John.
yep, that's what I meant... for some reason i thought it was at the beginning of the Bible

[Bookworm4Him]

The KJV was translated by King James (as well as other scholars) in the time of Shakespeare, so the language of it is with all the "thou"s, etc. and -est on the end of most words. This is the one I mostly use. Even though it is a little hard to understand at first, you become used to it. (And I have to say, it really helps your reading level...I had no problem reading Shakespeare when I was in school, b/c I had learned to understand the language :)

NKJV is pretty much the same, except some of the thee and thous were removed.

NIV is retranslated from the Hebrew and Greek (maybe the latin) but with modern vocabulary. I used to use this kind, when I was little. It's a great version too.

As for the rest, I'm not really sure, but as I was looking thru the bookstore at the Bibles, I noticed some eliminated any respect of persons, and instead of calling Jesus, and the disciples, and all other people "men" the addressed them by their name...not sure how reliable those are...

My suggestion is a KJV (or even a NKJ, or NIV) with a really great concordance, or a cross-reference btw two of the versions (probably KJV and NIV)

Btw, I think it's awesome that, even though you're an athiest, you're checking the Bible out, and investigating the different kinds. That's really cool. :)

[SleepyWitch]

The KJV was translated by King James (as well as other scholars) in the time of Shakespeare, so the language of it is with all the "thou"s, etc. and -est on the end of most words. This is the one I mostly use. Even though it is a little hard to understand at first, you become used to it. (And I have to say, it really helps your reading level...I had no problem reading Shakespeare when I was in school, b/c I had learned to understand the language :)

NKJV is pretty much the same, except some of the thee and thous were removed.

NIV is retranslated from the Hebrew and Greek (maybe the latin) but with modern vocabulary. I used to use this kind, when I was little. It's a great version too.

As for the rest, I'm not really sure, but as I was looking thru the bookstore at the Bibles, I noticed some eliminated any respect of persons, and instead of calling Jesus, and the disciples, and all other people "men" the addressed them by their name...not sure how reliable those are...

My suggestion is a KJV (or even a NKJ, or NIV) with a really great concordance, or a cross-reference btw two of the versions (probably KJV and NIV)

Btw, I think it's awesome that, even though you're an athiest, you're checking the Bible out, and investigating the different kinds. That's really cool. :)

thanks Bookworm :) I must admit I find it a bit abstract and slightly boring so far :( I suppose when you just look at the face of it and go word by word, it's not very impressive.. probably it takes a bit more thinking and interpreting than I've done so far to get at the "deeper meaning". I'll try harder when I go on reading

[Whifflingpin]

"The KJV was translated by King James (as well as other scholars) in the time of Shakespeare, "

Sorry to be a pedant, but - The KJV was translated by scholars, and authorised for church use by King James, in the time of Shakespeare.

[Pendragon]

"The KJV was translated by King James (as well as other scholars) in the time of Shakespeare, "

Sorry to be a pedant, but - The KJV was translated by scholars, and authorised for church use by King James, in the time of Shakespeare.Quite correct, the King would hardly be involved in the actual work of translation. It was common for Kings to be taught to read and even Latin and Greek, but if the Royal Child decided not to keep to his lessons, punishment of said Royal was forbidden, and it is doubtful that beating a "whipping boy" would help much. But King James could and did exercise his authority as King in ordering the translation to be made. The date is usually set as 1611.

God bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Bookworm4Him]

~sheepish grin~ sorry, didn't really think about that when I wrote it...knew it was authorized by him, didn't really consider if he did it himself...guess I better do my research next time. :)

[catharsis]

Is there such thing as the Bible of the Antichrist?

[Bookworm4Him]

I'm on to Genesis 24.
so far it's a little confusing.. sometimes it's not quite clear to me why things get repeated so much, e.g. Genesis 1 and 2. are they two different versions of the same story or is Genesis 2 an elaboration of Gen. 1?
why doesn't it say "In the beginning there was the word" right at the start?

why do all those kings with weird names give Abraham camels and goats and let him settle on their territory?

lol...you think that repeats a lot, wait until you read all four gospels in a row... but they're still pretty interesting. :) Well, every verse in the Bible has a purpose, so if it's said, it's important, and if it's repeated, you better pay attention. Besides, think of much much dissention there would be if all it said was 'And God made the world' People would argue so much over how it came into being, that they would focus on the main message of the Bible-God's love, sin, and Jesus' sacrifice.
As for the kings with weird names (wait til you get to the list of all of David and Solomons kids... :) ) they gave stuff to Abe the same reasons the Pharoahs, and everyone else gave to him. One, he was like a "celebrity" so to speak, plus, they knew that God was with him, and had promised him that he would be blessed, and bless others, and they wanted to be on his good side, or him on their land to bless them :)