Joyfully Growing in Grace and Torah

Growing in Him
It is currently Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
I have an old NKJV wide margin bible that I've had for about 30 years. It's on its last legs as the covers are gone and the binding is falling apart. I like wide margins for note taking, but when I looked on Amazon for one, sigh...I didn't know which version to choose. I hate NIV and I'm not sure that I even want something so slanted as to deny the roots of our faith. I can let go of wide margins since it's the text which is most important.

What's your favorite bible version and why? What is the most accurate English translation..or Hebrew Plus english...

Thanks!
J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:57 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
Authorized King James. I love the "Shakespearean language" of it and the mystery surrounding it as a code for the Illuminati. Francis Bacon, King James, and the old, tattered William Tyndale Bible, along with many various other scrolls were considered from the "Textus Receptus" -- those stolen ancient scrolls that the Romans carried off with their plunder with the destruction of the Temple and Yarushalaim...

NIV and their ilk arise from the lesser Wescott / Hort additions. I believe these are not accurate, but I do compare the King James to theirs from time to time just out of curiosity.

I also have a Tyndale Greek New Testament that I use a lot, and Roth's Aramaic English New Testament is very interesting, although I do not agree with many of his footnotes. Biblehub.com is my go-to for side-by-side comparisons, Strong's, et al juxtaposed, along with the Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

:good:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
Thanks, TJ!

I do have Roth's AENT, I use it and I love it despite it's lack of wide margins lol! Wish he'd hurry up and come out with the OT. I still love having an actual book in my hands.

I'm just not sure who has the most accurate translation for OT, and I'd sure love one that retains YHVH's name rather than substitutions. Does such a book exist?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Judith1 wrote:
I have an old NKJV wide margin bible that I've had for about 30 years. It's on its last legs as the covers are gone and the binding is falling apart. I like wide margins for note taking, but when I looked on Amazon for one, sigh...I didn't know which version to choose. I hate NIV and I'm not sure that I even want something so slanted as to deny the roots of our faith. I can let go of wide margins since it's the text which is most important.

What's your favorite bible version and why? What is the most accurate English translation..or Hebrew Plus english...

Thanks!
J


I've learned it's impossible to have "just one Bible." Unfortunately, left unchecked, you'll find yourself in my shoes buried in shelves of Bibles..... :s_crazy


The NKJV isn't bad. I have an old one too which is, unfortunately, covered in a pig skin leather. Like, really? Even if you completely reject anything "old testament" I would still think that to be pretty sacrilegious....just saying. Anyway, it corrects a lot of the often times strangeness and awkwardness of the KJV. With that said, every verse I can quote in my mind is in the KJV language. The KJV has one knack and cadence for being easily memorized. Very intriguing. Only "mainstream" translation I've ever seen (with maybe the exceptions of the Catholic 'New Jerusalem Bible' and Holman Christian Standard Bible) that utilizes "Yah/Yahweh" in it's translation.

The original KJV, even a cheapo one, is good to have around though paired with a Strong's Concordance.

I use pretty much everything. Just recently picked up the "One New Man Bible"...got that idea from Paul Nison and I have to say, I'm really starting to like this one. Much easier read than any other translation I've ever read yet at the same time really puts major focus on the proper wording and meanings from the Hebrew/Aramaic to English reading mind. Like it a lot. Thinking of making it my everyday read. What's nice about it is that it's a more "looser" yet precise translation without coming off as "too loose" if that makes sense. Still maintains a literal feel to it as opposed to others that makes you forget you're reading Scripture. They balanced that well. Not the best choice though if you're trying to get into serious word for word study with a concordance but it's been awesome for an everyday read and also has some really good annotations and notes in the back without going overboard into full on Study Bible territory (which most study Bibles are worthless considering they all have the anti-Torah, dispensationalist, replacement, greasy grace, etc slants (like some Scofield Study Bibles) with the exception of a few agenda neutral ones like possibly the "Companion Bible"). Scofields are still good though as long as you know what to look for in terms of what's good and what's bad. Reading the KJV, NKJV, etc everyday can get tedious though...

I too have the AENT which the notes in the back alone are a treasure trove of awesomeness. Roth really did some serious studies. I think an AENT is mandatory and I am very blessed to have been sent one by a gracious friend. But as above, the AENT isn't exactly an everyday read. More for serious reference and study time.

As for Bibles with wide margins for notes you may want to check out ones like this:

http://www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-bibles/w ... bible.html

..and others on that same site. On the expensive side though. I would personally choose a KJV for a wide margins bible because it can be paired with a Strong's Concordance.

"Pastor Joe Fox" highly recommends "The Scriptures" Bible: http://www.amazon.com/Scriptures-Instit ... ures+bible

"Restores" the original Hebrew names and such. This one is yet another on my list as well. I agree, stay far away from the NIV...total garbage IMO and yet not so coincidentally the version of choice for many anti-Torah types out there, JGIG, being the first that comes to mind. That alone should be a "red flag." I've had NIV's in the past and it's probably the most obvious translation out there that had liberal, new age agendas in mind when translating many important key passages. It has it's shining moments but very, very few.

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Judith1 wrote:
.... What is the most accurate English translation..or Hebrew Plus english...

Thanks!
J


Sorry for all the rambling but to answer this specific question directly, IMO, for what I've seen so far, it's the "One New Man Bible" ( http://www.amazon.com/One-New-Man-Bible ... +man+bible ) for the best, literal translation from the original Hebrew to English but without sounding all choppy and convoluted. It stays literal without sounding literal. Probably the best reading Bible I've ever read to date. Here is a portion of it's preface:

Quote:
"The goal of the One New Man Bible is to bring a greater understanding of and appreciation for the power given to believers- the power in which we are all supposed to walk. The One New Man Bible also makes the Jewish Roots of Christianity come to life. This translation of the Hebrew Scriptures has been edited from a public domain English translation. The English has been brought up to date and many words previously translated according to tradition have been changed to the literal. Hebrew is a very expressive language, so this translation brings out much of the power that has commonly been omitted." ~One New Man Bible Preface


Go to the Amazon site link above and click on the "Look Inside" tab and you can read the entire preface yourself and the first parts of Genesis to get a feel for it. I think it's great.

I do not have the "Scriptures" Bible yet to compare with the One New Man so I can't say what's better between these two. "The Scriptures" Bible is next on the list but that may not be for another several months before I drop the green on that one. For now, the One New Man is probably my top favorite for a literal/correct translation from the Hebrew.

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Last edited by MountainRecluse on Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
...double post

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Just wanted to add, Judith, that I wouldn't go the One New Man Bible (or similar type translations) route for serious study though. While I really like reading the ONMB it can get.....strange sometimes. There are several places in the NT where things like Yeshua's parables come out sounding really awkward and sometimes completely opposite of what we're used to reading in the regular English translations. I don't know if that's really a good thing or not as I don't know Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek and can't verify if what's being translated is really something to trust in or not. At least with the more "mainstream" translations out there you know you're getting a fairly solid and accurate translation based off an agreement with a wide range and large majority of Biblical scholars out there. Now for folks "like us" that may not seem too attractive but at the same time you have to have that balance.

For example, I've been looking into maybe getting my hands on that "Hebraic Roots Bible" but the more research I've been doing on it the more many knowledgeable folks are calling it a bad and misleading translation (even parts that were apparently plagiarized from other Hebraic translations) ....even from Hebrew Roots people themselves. So it's hard to say.

For an everyday study and read Bible I'd go with a wide-margined KJV coupled with a Strong's Concordance, a NKJV, or NASB (many argue the NASB is the best, modern, literal English translation out there although the "flow" is a bit jerky at times....just what naturally comes with a literal translation). Keep Bibles like the AENT and ONMB in the backburner for reference and much deeper study on specific Hebraic teachings and topics. Hope all my rambling helped a little. ;)

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:19 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
Then again, we are relying upon a "canon" of works that the Romans stole from the Jews, themselves, who wrote them, and sometimes hid them in clay pots, i.e., the Qumran codices, and what about "pagan" texts? Do we ONLY go with the good'ole Bible and her variations? or can we diverge to other texts not "canonized" by the Romish priests? How about the Jewish translations of the Bible?

The original King James Bible had a lot more to it than 66 books, by the way...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Texas Jon wrote:
Then again, we are relying upon a "canon" of works that the Romans stole from the Jews, themselves, who wrote them, and sometimes hid them in clay pots, i.e., the Qumran codices, and what about "pagan" texts? Do we ONLY go with the good'ole Bible and her variations? or can we diverge to other texts not "canonized" by the Romish priests? How about the Jewish translations of the Bible?

The original King James Bible had a lot more to it than 66 books, by the way...


"How about the Jewish translations of the Bible?"

I'm not made out of money so I have to really pick and choose which Scriptures to go with and I hate to say this but I don't or won't really trust Jewish-specific translations of the Scriptures. Just as much as there are Christian oriented versions out there that have an underlying agenda and tweek and twist certain passages to lean the way they desire (think the NIV) I believe there are Jewish specific English translations that anti-Yeshua rabbinical types also commit the same kind of manipulation. Most Hebrew to English Bibles today are based off the Masoretic which I believe while mostly spot on....had some manipulation done to many Messianic prophesies after the fall of the Temple to specifically erase out Yeshua. I've mentioned this before, but I believe the Septuagint MAY be a SLIGHTLY more faithful translation of what the ancient Hebrew texts had into the Greek. So we're looking at the Roman Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims. I understand the "ick factor" there but it is what it is.

The ONMB Tanakh seems like a pretty faithful/balanced/fair Hebrew to English translation (which I believe does go off Masoretic...but I can deal with that). My personal collection is full of other books outside the "official canon" like the Book of Enoch. Unfortunately, it's just impractical to carry around 15 different bibles and books all day long and especially if you're an avid outdoorsman like myself who likes to keep Scriptures on me at all times. For that, right now, I have a small, military style pack Bible. It's the NKJV with a Multicam camo cover. It's not a waterproof Bible so I keep it in a Ziploc.

Just my opinion, but I believe Yah kept His promise to preserve the Scriptures, even in the hands of those whom would gain from altering or abolishing them throughout history. I think the Bible as we have it today is plenty sufficient and accurate. I lean more towards the Tanakh being what was promised to be preserved, not the NT writings. If the NT writings were that important, Yeshua would have written them Himself which He certainly didn't have any desire to do. Everything rests on the Torah/Prophets/Writings. The early church didn't have NT writings to go off of....it was all personal testimony, word of mouth, and of course, the Tanakh. The NT witness Scriptures are the icing on the cake and I think can be allowed some leeway in terms of "canon", scribal errors, seeming discrepancies....although, what many say are contradictions and discrepancies are usually pretty minor or not contradictions at all if you allow the full context of what's being discussed. Although I will add I still believe the NT writings to be inspired and Scripture recalling John's warning in Revelation not to add or take away from that book. Sorry if I sound flip-floppy on this issue....but I am. I just accept what we have and roll with it.

The only Christian Bible out there to retain most of the "apocrypha" writings in the Tanakh is of course the Roman Catholic one. You have to give some credit for that. It was the Protestants who were hell-bent on chopping it all up. I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims that retains all those other books. When things finally decide to turn south at a faster pace, I'll just simply rip those books out and shove them in the Bible I choose to take.

In the big picture...I believe if all you have is the Tanakh and some version of the NT writings....you're good to go. I've been guilty myself of getting too wrapped up in this version and that version...enough to drive you nuts. Like I said earlier, years of reading, I'd go with a KJV (as long as you're acutely aware of it's issues and where they are at), NKJV, or NASB. I've heard the KJV Companion Study Bible is good too. I'm getting really attached to the ONMB though and I couldn't chuck the AENT either so it's a tough call. These days I'm constantly cycling between the ONMB, AENT, and NKJV. Unfortunately, they all weigh a ton together. As long as I don't have to abandon my vehicle somewhere...they always come along for the ride.

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:05 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
Well, which Catholic Bible do you prefer, then, because Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the first if you go that route; but then of course is the EXALTED 4th century work of Emperor Constantine: The Codex Sinaiticus -- by the way, did I ever tell you that I think the little horn in Daniel 7 is "Constantine the Great?" -- thus, Wycliffe's Bible paraphrase, nor Luther's Bible, nor Tyndale's Bible were ever accepted by the Romish system, but they did accept the Authorized King James Bible because James was a Catholic...

I guess, my problem is, I no longer trust or accept ANY text, but I do take ALL of the available texts into consideration in my own personal library. When I take a little Bible with me on camping trips with my family, I always take the little pocket KJV that my wife got me a long time ago, and my daughter (a baby at the time) bit a chunk out of the names and birthdays page... I like the poetry of the King James, and as a British Lit teacher, I often compare the book with works of Francis Bacon and Shakespeare; I think there is an interesting connection...

But the fact that Yahshua expounded to them along the road that all the things that were written in the Tanakh were written ABOUT HIM, this forces me to wonder more what that ancient text says than any "new testament" that the Romans tampered with, the Flavians fabricating the real tale in the direction of Mithra/Saturnalia, etc...

So far in my readings of this old text, the central figure of the Tanakh is YHWH, and he has come to this earth many, many times in many forms, according to the text. YHWH is the Creator, Spirit, Angel, Archetype, and he is also described as the Sender of the Great Prophet, and then he is the One sent by the Mighty One... for example:

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

So, the prophet says, YHWH has always openly been the one who comes to save Israel, sent by himself and his Spirit. Therefore, the Savior of Israel is Yahuah the Mighty One, himself... How many often times does "Jesus Christ" testify that he came from the Father, by his Spirit, sent forth as the Bearer of the Name, and anyone who has seen him HAS SEEN THE FATHER, etc.,?

...the dilemma is separating the wheat from the chaff of all the additions/fabrications/mistranslations of the scholars of Rome who replaced Yod Hay Wow Hay with Iesus Christos -- which was basically the construct that the ancient Greeks declared hundreds of years before "Jesus Christ" in the form of "Hail Zeus MITHRA Christos" -- it simply baffles me how Christians just shrug it off and turn back to the egg bunny rabbit for which they cling... STRONG DELUSION.

Shabbat Shalom, brother.

:drinks:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Texas Jon wrote:
Well, which Catholic Bible do you prefer, then, because Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the first if you go that route; but then of course is the EXALTED 4th century work of Emperor Constantine: The Codex Sinaiticus -- by the way, did I ever tell you that I think the little horn in Daniel 7 is "Constantine the Great?" -- thus, Wycliffe's Bible paraphrase, nor Luther's Bible, nor Tyndale's Bible were ever accepted by the Romish system, but they did accept the Authorized King James Bible because James was a Catholic...



Growing up Catholic, I can tell you with absolute certainty the only English Roman Catholic Bible worth your time is the Douay-Rheims (which the later KJV pulled from) which is based off Jerome's Latin Vulgate. End of story. Look no further.

Texas Jon wrote:
I guess, my problem is, I no longer trust or accept ANY text, but I do take ALL of the available texts into consideration in my own personal library. When I take a little Bible with me on camping trips with my family, I always take the little pocket KJV that my wife got me a long time ago, and my daughter (a baby at the time) bit a chunk out of the names and birthdays page... I like the poetry of the King James, and as a British Lit teacher, I often compare the book with works of Francis Bacon and Shakespeare; I think there is an interesting connection...


For English speakers, even with all of it's flaws and obvious Christo-Pagan biases (like "Easter"), I believe to be the number one solid "go-to" paired with a Strong's Concordance. I agree with the Bacon-Shakespeare connection which I don't really know what to think about either way. When dealing with Freemasons....anything and everything is possible. Who knows. But I will say again the KJV is the only translation that I can commit entire passages to memory. Even years later I can quote whole passages word for word but only from the KJV.

Texas Jon wrote:
But the fact that Yahshua expounded to them along the road that all the things that were written in the Tanakh were written ABOUT HIM, this forces me to wonder more what that ancient text says than any "new testament" that the Romans tampered with, the Flavians fabricating the real tale in the direction of Mithra/Saturnalia, etc...


We can only trust the Father in His promise to preserve His Word and all we need to know.....in this earthly life at least for now.

Texas Jon wrote:
So far in my readings of this old text, the central figure of the Tanakh is YHWH, and he has come to this earth many, many times in many forms, according to the text. YHWH is the Creator, Spirit, Angel, Archetype, and he is also described as the Sender of the Great Prophet, and then he is the One sent by the Mighty One... for example:

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

So, the prophet says, YHWH has always openly been the one who comes to save Israel, sent by himself and his Spirit. Therefore, the Savior of Israel is Yahuah the Mighty One, himself... How many often times does "Jesus Christ" testify that he came from the Father, by his Spirit, sent forth as the Bearer of the Name, and anyone who has seen him HAS SEEN THE FATHER, etc.,?


Agreed.

Texas Jon wrote:
...the dilemma is separating the wheat from the chaff of all the additions/fabrications/mistranslations of the scholars of Rome who replaced Yod Hay Wow Hay with Iesus Christos -- which was basically the construct that the ancient Greeks declared hundreds of years before "Jesus Christ" in the form of "Hail Zeus MITHRA Christos" -- it simply baffles me how Christians just shrug it off and turn back to the egg bunny rabbit for which they cling... STRONG DELUSION.


I've come to see that any flavor of Christian outside the Hebraic Roots movement (or whatever you want to call us) are merely watered down Roman Catholics/Orthodox. You can't call yourself a "Protestant" and continue to celebrate Roman Catholic feasts, holidays, traditions, etc. The strong "hold" that these things have in people's minds is amazing to see when you're finally out of the box looking in. But then again when you're raised from birth in it and all of your most cherished childhood memories of family revolve around these pagan feasts as opposed to the true ones....it's a hard thing to let go. See this in my own family as well. It was the "church father" (when Rome feels like calling him a father) Tertullian, who stood back in amazement and shame when he observed his fellow, so-called pagan converts continuing to drag chopped down evergreen trees and bows into their homes. He said they were "still beholden to pagan gods." There's another term for "beholden"....possessed. But once Tertullian started raising righteous, Biblical hell upon the Catholic Church he was swiftly ejected from her and excommunicated.

Texas Jon wrote:
Shabbat Shalom, brother.

:drinks:


Shabbat Shalom! :s_thumbsup

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:20 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
Hey, man, I thought KJV was a translation of the earliest scrolls: Textus Receptus, and not a paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate??? I read that akin to Martin Luther, who used the same text, William Tyndale, himself a Roman Catholic "doctor of the text," translated it first into English, and King James simply stamped his name upon it after so many additions and changes, etc... :pardon:

Long ago I can remember my dad getting drunker than an old possum on the day--now I know it was because he had bankrupt himself trying to buy gifts for us all, I feel so ashamed that we even owned a Christmas tree, but we were avid churchies, and December the 25th, and its cut down tree were our prized idol. I used to lay underneath the thing with all its lights and colors and just adore it, perhaps worship it, or the particle of it, the time, the feeling that it represented... but I never forgot, either, that empty feeling that would come over me after "New Years" when I knew it was all over, and the feeling not be repeated for another year... growing up Southern Baptist, I remember how we used to claim we were different from Catholics, their doctrines, their worship of Mary, etc., until I realized that, at least, Catholics were openly and outwardly doing it without shame, whereas us Baptists were putting a good white-wash all over our paganism... daughter of the whore, perpetuator of heathen rituals, good ole pig-people-popping-pills, mmm mmmm, cuz you know, Jesus died for my sins, so I can eat all things against the law, being under grace and all...

I look back on that whole life like it was just a dream.

I am just so thankful that the Creator patiently taught me his real name, his Way, his Truth, his Life... Torah of the Hebrews... I don't feel empty when his moedim come and go... I can always look forward to his weekly Sabbath a little later! :biggrin:

--I totally dig what you're saying about committing whole passaged to memory from the KJ. Same here.

:drinks:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Texas Jon wrote:
Hey, man, I thought KJV was a translation of the earliest scrolls: Textus Receptus, and not a paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate??? I read that akin to Martin Luther, who used the same text, William Tyndale, himself a Roman Catholic "doctor of the text," translated it first into English, and King James simply stamped his name upon it after so many additions and changes, etc... :pardon:


I meant parts of the KJV pulled from the Douay-Rheims. But you're right....99% Textus Receptus

Texas Jon wrote:
Long ago I can remember my dad getting drunker than an old possum on the day--now I know it was because he had bankrupt himself trying to buy gifts for us all, I feel so ashamed that we even owned a Christmas tree, but we were avid churchies, and December the 25th, and its cut down tree were our prized idol. I used to lay underneath the thing with all its lights and colors and just adore it, perhaps worship it, or the particle of it, the time, the feeling that it represented... but I never forgot, either, that empty feeling that would come over me after "New Years" when I knew it was all over, and the feeling not be repeated for another year... growing up Southern Baptist, I remember how we used to claim we were different from Catholics, their doctrines, their worship of Mary, etc., until I realized that, at least, Catholics were openly and outwardly doing it without shame, whereas us Baptists were putting a good white-wash all over our paganism... daughter of the whore, perpetuator of heathen rituals, good ole pig-people-popping-pills, mmm mmmm, cuz you know, Jesus died for my sins, so I can eat all things against the law, being under grace and all...

I look back on that whole life like it was just a dream.


Yeah it's a bizarre thing the pagan crap we inherited from our fathers for generations....and still do it today. Just simply switch out those pagan holidays for Biblical Feasts and people loose their minds like you're asking them to sacrifice babies to Moloch (equating Torah with "doctrines of demons"...where have we heard that before...hmmm)..... :roll: "That's old testament stuff! Jeezus says we can do pagan stuff again!"

I will say I still have a thing for colored Christmas lights..... lol.

I guess it's really a testament to the Truth of the Scriptures how much our minds and flesh fight against it. Then when you finally give in and then experience true spiritual fulfillment and peace and wonder why you fought it for so long.

I have a family friend who him and his wife left the RCC and dove straight into the Fundamental Independent Baptist scene. They instantly dropped off the map. Didn't associate with anyone anymore. Gave up the Christmas stuff, make up, she only wore full length dresses all the time, bonnets, etc. He started selling almost everything he owned, etc. Then suddenly one day they just couldn't take it and left for a more mainstream Baptist church and the Christmas trees came back, Easter, etc. It's funny because they were initially on the BETTER path! But you can see the problem they ran into is that no matter how "fundamental" you get in Churchianity....what you're being taught will still contradict itself if you're rejecting Torah or only accepting parts of it. What's the point of throwing out the trees, presents, etc but still celebrating Christmas as Yeshua's birthday? So these folks go into self destruct mode then end right back under the traditions of Mother Rome. You have to get on board with TORAH...HIS TEACHINGS/LAWS/COMMANDMENTS otherwise the New Testament makes NO SENSE and you're forced to look to something OTHER than Torah which in it's place.....and always has been....the traditions of MEN.

Texas Jon wrote:
I am just so thankful that the Creator patiently taught me his real name, his Way, his Truth, his Life... Torah of the Hebrews... I don't feel empty when his moedim come and go... I can always look forward to his weekly Sabbath a little later! :biggrin:

--I totally dig what you're saying about committing whole passaged to memory from the KJ. Same here.

:drinks:


:drinks:

SHALOM

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
Excellent discussion, guys! Thankyou for that!

Mom died less than a week ago and I inherited her Bible, the one her father gave her when I was a teen. Low and behold, its a Catholic Bible lol!

This one doesn't say what the translation is, but it doesn't use the Thee's and thous. It's plain English and published by Good Council Publishers. It's big.

It's not only Big, but full of vatican 2 teachings, Italian pictures, Catholic prayers, and Eucharist Mass. Well, it WAS full of those things. I removed them and placed a notation in the front of the book as to what was removed, and why. Moses failed to include them in his version, therefore, it does't belong in this one, either. :)

I didn't know I was going to inherit the family bible lol! Mom had some writings in there about who should get this book, and it was nice to see my grandfather's signature as well.

At least this one has covers, my bible was so used up that the covers fell off. There are no wide margins...oh well. I'll just have to pack up my old bible in an effort to preserve it to the best of my ability. It was a NKJV.

From what I understand, the NKJV tries to keep abreast of discoveries in the dead sea scrolls, so they amend their translation to reflect clarifications as the scrolls reveal new meanings..or clarified meanings. I do prefer the NKJV over the old english version, though I read the old english version for years. I tend to remember the heart of a scripture as opposed to the exact wording.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
After submitting this, a question popped up in my mind. The Catholic bible has books not normally seen in the usual protestant bibles like Judith and Esdras for example.

Why is it that when we read the Torah portions, these books aren't included in there as well? Are they not valid Hebrew Scriptures?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Judith1 wrote:

Mom died less than a week ago.....


I'm sorry to hear that, Judith. My condolences. Everyone I know seems to be losing loved ones lately.... :s_sad

Judith1 wrote:
....and I inherited her Bible, the one her father gave her when I was a teen. Low and behold, its a Catholic Bible lol!

This one doesn't say what the translation is, but it doesn't use the Thee's and thous. It's plain English and published by Good Council Publishers. It's big.


May possibly be a "NAB"....New American Bible. That was a popular version used in Catholic family bibles decades ago. Different from the NASB, New American Standard Bible.

Judith1 wrote:
From what I understand, the NKJV tries to keep abreast of discoveries in the dead sea scrolls, so they amend their translation to reflect clarifications as the scrolls reveal new meanings..or clarified meanings. I do prefer the NKJV over the old english version, though I read the old english version for years. I tend to remember the heart of a scripture as opposed to the exact wording.


The NKJV is a pretty solid pick in my view and follows along with the KJV pretty closely in most cases. Obviously the KJV-Onlyist crowd have a lot to say against the NKJV:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp

But their critique is very childish IMO. Some of the comparisons they make between the KJV wording of certain passages vs the NKJV actually make the NKJV look like the BETTER of the two:

2 Corinthians 2:17

KJV:

"For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God"

NKJV:

"peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV)"

The KJV translators choice of "corrupt" actually doesn't make sense within the context of the passage. The proper rendering IS "peddling" and even the Strong's Concordance affirms this. The context is talking about people peddling the Word of God for some sort of financial or personal gain...out of insincerity. Paul was not trying to imply (at least not here) people intentionally corrupting and changing the Words of God which is what the KJV implies. And, of course, this is one of the "key" "evidences" for KJV onlyists use to shoot down any other translation...so, of course, they need the verse to mean what they want it to mean.

They also accuse translations like the NKJV of "removing verses" which is actually REQUIRED. There are tons of verses within the KJV that have spurious evidence of existing within the original texts. These were verses added in by accident (scribal errors) or intentionally added in by bias translators to push a certain theological view which the KJV makes no distinction of these verses. At least in most NKJV bibles, while those verses and passages have been removed, they FOOTNOTE those verses, passages, and alternate readings at the bottom of the page. It's translations like the NKJV that are actually more upfront and transparent than the KJV!

Let's also not forget that the KJV uses words like "unicorns", "Easter," etc

Psalm 68 (NKJV)

4
Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds,
By His name YAH,
And rejoice before Him.


This passage right here corrected from the KJV shows that the NKJV is more accurate. No "J" in Hebrew.

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Judith1 wrote:
After submitting this, a question popped up in my mind. The Catholic bible has books not normally seen in the usual protestant bibles like Judith and Esdras for example.

Why is it that when we read the Torah portions, these books aren't included in there as well? Are they not valid Hebrew Scriptures?


This is a loaded question. Hard to say depending on who you believe and what you read. These "apocrypha" books were once also included in the original KJV bibles as well but were then removed because the Protestants needed another finger in the eye towards the Catholics.

My position is they ARE important and SHOULD be kept in. First off, Yeshua and the Apostles themselves have quoted from some of these "apocrypha" in the NT. So that right there is proof enough for me that they should be kept around, read, and studied. Secondly, if you ever read through The Book of Wisdom you'll see there's a mind-blowing Messianic prophecy that describes what happens to Yeshua exactly written by Solomon himself!

Book of Wisdom

[12] Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. [13] He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. [14] He is become a censurer of our thoughts. [15] He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men' s, and his ways are very different.

[16] We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. [17] Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. [18] For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. [19] Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. [20] Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

[21] These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. [22] And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.



WHY REMOVE THIS!?

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Judith1 wrote:
After submitting this, a question popped up in my mind. The Catholic bible has books not normally seen in the usual protestant bibles like Judith and Esdras for example.

Why is it that when we read the Torah portions, these books aren't included in there as well? Are they not valid Hebrew Scriptures?



Let me also add that I believe from what I've read and studied that after the fall of the Temple (as Yeshua prophesied), a group of post-Temple, rabbinical Judaism scholars and scribes (all who were also rolled into Freemasonry. These are kabbalah magic, Yeshua rejecting Jew types who had many ties with the creators of the KJV who were Masons) put together the Hebrew Masoretic (which the KJV goes off of) which expressly was for the purpose of erasing as much of Yeshua from the Scriptures as possible. The Masoretic is an altered text. I believe it's the Greek Septuagint, the source for the Catholic Latin Vulgate and later Douay-Rheims, that more closely preserved what the original Hebrew stated during the time of the Prophets up until Yeshua. As another note, the Greek Septuagint matches almost 100% with what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic does not match as well at all. And the Dead Sea Scrolls are still locked up tight and highly censored.....hmmm...

There was a conspiracy to write out Yeshua from the Hebrew Scriptures and it's been covered up continuing to today. I can imagine why you'll never hear a reading from Solomon's Wisdom in a modern synagogue!

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
Judith1 wrote:
After submitting this, a question popped up in my mind. The Catholic bible has books not normally seen in the usual protestant bibles like Judith and Esdras for example.

Why is it that when we read the Torah portions, these books aren't included in there as well? Are they not valid Hebrew Scriptures?



The "canon" is Romish to the core. They stole them from the Jews in the first place, and carted away their treasures, menorahs, utensils, etc. That is why Jews hid the scrolls away in places like Qumran, and these Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot more in them than the good ole Catholic Bible...

For example, Christians claim that the "New Testament" was written in Greek, but even a cursory glance at the "original Greek" proves that it was a translation from the Hebrew... therefore, the whole of the text is essentially a Jewish text...

Of course, denominations arise and say, "Our text is superior to yours," and "Don't trust them Jews because they don't believe in Christ," etc., but Christ is a Romish invention, just like, "unless you believe in the dead man on the T hanging on the wall over there, you will burn in hell forever," etc., but the whole is out-in-out idolatry, sacrificing unto demons...

YHWH can and has taken on any form that he wants to, he is SPIRIT.. if he wants to come down here in the form of a man, I truly believe that is possible, as THE PROPHET that Moses spoke of that would save his people Israel, even be murdered by the Romans... but he came in his Father's name and IS the Father... YAHUSHUA... he is certainly not the Santa Claus Bunny Rabbit SUN GOD of modern day churchianity...

:dirol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 681
Texas Jon wrote:


The "canon" is Romish to the core.....



I disagree slightly. I believe Yah used the Catholic Church to legitimately preserve His Word through the centuries. But don't mistake that for any kind of praise and trust of the RCC itself. Now I'm sure there were many other books that were maybe destroyed or hidden. There are even references to other books in the Tanakh that not even the Jews were able to preserve. I believe Yah preserved (through whomever and whatever means) exactly the books we need to know about. There WAS a time, though short-lived, when the church at Rome was hand in hand with mother church headed by James/Jacob in Jerusalem. But I could be wrong....who knows..

_________________
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work TORAHLESS-NESS.

~ Matthew 7:22-23


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:30 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
I believe his word burst into flames of fire within the hearts and minds of the Romans at the time, and "unto the Romans" which were those Italians who wanted to become like the Jews, their ways, their religion, they were just like their predecessors, the Greeks, who were just attempting to find the immortal way, the Truth, and "what is Truth?" ... even as they translated the scrolls that they had taken, it burned into their minds and hearts, became them--and they have since attempted to become "more Jewish" than the Jews in their charity and faithfulness... even "the church of Thiatira" has this in her case,

"And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write ... I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee." (Revelation 2:18-20)

Nobody whips the Catholic church when it comes to community, charity, service... NOTWITHSTANDING!

She is the counterfeit. If not, then we are all the most wicked speakers... she counterfeits the true and faithful woman and her offspring which KEEP the commandments of YHWH.

YAH HOOOO WAAAHHH!! SHUAH!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
I meant to say that the pages removed from this book were NOT the written pages that have historically been part of the bible in one fashion or another, but ONLY the catholic stuff like pictures of the mass, or adoration of Mary, Catholic rites/prayers...that sort because that stuff all represents idolatry to me, part of Babylon the great.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:11 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
In my old Messianic congregation, the elders would pass the box around that housed the scrolls, and then, they would lay them on the altar table and open and read from the scrolls... and people would kiss the box, or touch it as if it were some magical item that bestowed blessing upon those who revered it... My first reaction was that they were practicing idolatry to view the box and the scrolls within as if it were the Arch of the Covenant itself... but then I let that go and realized that these congregants just appreciated the Word as the Word, and they were thankful for having this ancient text in their presence...

So I see it the same way as these ancient scrolls which the Romans carried off as loot... the heathen priests touching the parchment with unclean hands... they corrupted the scrolls from the very start, and historically, this has been going on, little by little unto the Word of YHWH... even when King Solomon wanted to build him a house, and YHWH's answer was, "If my people, who are called by MY NAME, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then shall I hear their prayer from heaven, and I will forgive their sins and heal their land..." it was not long before those ones called by his name were hiding the scrolls behind the walls, and taking up the false idols and rituals of heathens... YHWH told Moses this would happen, and Moses charged the people that this would end in curse if they added to or took away from YHWH's Word...

We are so ever saturated with the Jezebel in our midst, long before there was ever a draconian Rome. We have been primed and conditioned for this Laodicean moment...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
Identifying Idols in one's own life and heart isn't always an easy task, is it? :( identifying them, and than taking action to rid one's life of them is even harder.

I don't keep crosses or crucifixes, xmas cards etc, yet they get sent to me by well meaning family/friends. I ended up with prayer beads and those little felt pictures on strings, the catholic version of philactories but I can't think of the names of them right now. children used to be given them when they made their first communion.

I find myself touched emotionally by the sentimental, and well meaning of these loved people. Yet, I have to dispose of these items much like Rachel had to after taking her father's idols. Could she have been feeling a need for something tangible to remind her of her father that she had difficulty giving up, or was she seeking to salvage her father's soul by taking them?

The fact that my grandfather bought this book for my mother, and he was so staunchly catholic even if he wasn't an avid church-goer in his later years, he tried to be as faithful as he knew how in his raising of me. He bought this book...a very strange purchase actually. I never expected it to come to me, but then I am the keeper of the records in the family.

Mixing and mingling, not good. Now only the word is between the covers of that book. The apocrapha remains in there, only the idolatrous pictures and teachings of man, are gone.

It's just so coincidental that I posted this thread having no idea I'd be receiving this family book lol!

Should I burn and bury the idols? What is the proper disposition of these things?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 2177
I remember growing up in that old Jim Walters that my parents built, how dark and sinister it was full of strife and rebellion, it was full of churchianity: my mother had dolls galore, and angels, and little figurines everywhere, and one big Egyptian sphinx head atop our grandfather clock replete with masonic symbols full of ghosts... and I remember how haunted that house was, so many memories of demons and nightmares... it was when I moved out on my own and sought the Creator with all my heart that all those horrible experiences went away, and I renounced all the curses against my family name from my dad's title as a master mason of the lodge...

Set fire to the whole lot! a good ole fashioned bonfire!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which Bible version?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 420
Good response TJ! lol!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy