favourite bible version?

[Sand Dancer]

As an ex-Christian and a fairly liberal person, I like New Revised Standard Version, with or without the Apocrypha.

 

[PruePhillip]

Mormons use primarily the KVJ -- the whole thing, cover to cover. We rely heavily on its teachings and study it constantly. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that states that God is through talking, so it doesn't really matter how you happen to "feel" about it. In response to the question posed by the OP, the New English Bible is my personal favorite as I find it easiest to understand, and to me, understanding it is pretty important.

I watched a video recently where Mormon's were asked what holy book they read. They mentioned
the Pearl, Doctrines, Mormon and Bible. The ratio is interesting - I didn't think to count them but it seems
about 3/4 of the reading concerned the first three. At face value you might say that's reasonable given
there are four books - but if 3/4 of your reading is on alternative holy books then there's a Problem.

And... why do you need another bible? Or, three bibles? Mormon books are heavily redacted versions of
the bible. I have two personal issues:
1 - they are lies
2 - they point believers back to the Old Testament.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Sure, we believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." If certain passages were found to be translated incorrectly, would you still believe them? The Bible has been translated a myriad of times. Which translation is perfect down to the last letter? Oh, and with respect the Book of Mormon also being the word of God, even on the cover page of the book, Joseph Smith acknowledges that it was translated by human hands and is therefore subject to error. Only a completely clueless individual would believe that any of the Bibles we have today have been translated exactly as the original words came from the mouth of God.

Oh, so there are errors in the Bible due to translation. Such as?
Every Bible version we have today has a manuscript from where it was translated.
You might use the argument that there are differences between the different manuscripts such as the Texus Receptus and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Sure, I agree.
But even this argument will never stick as evidence that the Bible has wholesale errors and corruptions.
The differences in manuscripts are counted into tens of thousands.
Why, because of different words used for the same explanation, differences between time periods where better words were used etc.
However, Never will you find wholesale corruptions and changes that will allow Mormons to claim the Bible is correct as far as it is translated correctly, and this will allow Joseph Smith to write his own holy book to surplant the Bible.

But look at your accusation that the Bible can not be somehow correct, because the original words came from the Mouth of God!
How can you claim this?
The Bible is a book that contains the Words of God, the Words of God through prophets, the words of humans, such as kings, messengers, normal people, the words of historians telling us what God did etc.
To try to use this as an excuse to allow Joseph Smith to give a revelation that he will one day be God himself is absurd!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Jesus Christ alone is "the Word of God." The "words of God" may be found in many different places and may be spoken by many different individuals, both within my church and outside of it. I have never been asked to accept anything as truth that has not been confirmed to me personally by the Holy Ghost as having come from God. If I use that as a guideline, I don't believe I can go wrong, because the Holy Ghost does not speak anything but the truth.

So, now you use the claim that you were guided by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon are God's word?
Even the fact that there was never any Israelites in the Americas in 600 BC to 1400 AD.
The Book of Mormons say so.
Even the fact that there was no horses, sheep, cattle, iron in the Americas, but the book of Mormon say so.
Even the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas are all DNA related to Mongolians, and not to Semites.
Even the fact that there were no christian churches and jewish temples found in archaeology in the Americas, but the book of mormon say they were numerous and large.
Who is this holy ghost you were speaking too?
Will you please clarify these archaeological contradictions with him, and tell me how it is possible that this holy ghost that spoke to Joseph Smith did not know History at all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It probably shouldn't be, but it clearly has been on countless occasions since the original manuscripts were written. If you want to take the time to actually learn how the canon has changed since the earliest days of the Church after Christ's death, you'll come to see what I mean.

Well, lets go for it.
It seems as if you have a lot of evidence that might prove to the entire educational world on scripual critisizm, that we can dump the bible.
Please bring me your facts one by one so I can see where the NT was corrupted so much that we had to get another book 1800 years after Jesus.
greetings pal.

Oh, and what do you say about Muhammad who also received a revelation through the Holy Ghost, he called Gibriel, because of his claim that the Quran will be a clear and last revelation.
Sounds to me like the same Spirit spoke to him, Joseph Smith, and perhaps he is the sme one you call the holy ghost too.
I call him Legion.

 

[paarsurrey]

favourite bible version?

None, as none of them was written by Jesus or dictated by Jesus to those who wrote.

Regards

 

[Katzpur]

I watched a video recently where Mormon's were asked what holy book they read. They mentioned
the Pearl, Doctrines, Mormon and Bible. The ratio is interesting - I didn't think to count them but it seems
about 3/4 of the reading concerned the first three. At face value you might say that's reasonable given
there are four books - but if 3/4 of your reading is on alternative holy books then there's a Problem.

Oh, dear. I wish I knew where to start in addressing this kind of convoluted logic. My KJV Bible is 1590 pages long. The Book of Mormon is 531 pages long. The Doctrine & Covenants is 294 pages long. The Pearl of Great Price is 61 pages long. Together these total 2476 pages. According to your own logic, this means that 64.2% of our reading comes from the Bible and that 35.7% comes from the other three books combined. See, that kind of reasoning simply gets you nowhere. And if they are all indeed "holy books," why does it matter what it says on the cover?

And... why do you need another bible? Or, three bibles? Mormon books are heavily redacted versions of
the bible.

So now all four books are "the Bible"? Why do we need Matthew when we have Luke, or John when we have Mark? After all, these four are simply heavily redacted versions of one another. Again, your logic is just flat out illogical.

I have two personal issues:
1 - they are lies

Wow. What a heavily documented statement. Thanks for the effort you put into that one.

2 - they point believers back to the Old Testament.

Okay? So what? Every Christian I know studies and values the Old Testament. If you've got issues with the Old Testament, that's another matter entirely.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh, so there are errors in the Bible due to translation. Such as?
Every Bible version we have today has a manuscript from where it was translated.
You might use the argument that there are differences between the different manuscripts such as the Texus Receptus and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Sure, I agree.

That's good to hear. I'm glad to see that you recognize that fact.

But even this argument will never stick as evidence that the Bible has wholesale errors and corruptions.

I couldn't agree more. You are apparently of the opinion that this is how we view the Bible. You couldn't be more wrong. We love the Bible! We study its words all the time -- to learn from them, not to pick them apart.

The differences in manuscripts are counted into tens of thousands.
Why, because of different words used for the same explanation, differences between time periods where better words were used etc.

I agree 100%

However, Never will you find wholesale corruptions and changes that will allow Mormons to claim the Bible is correct as far as it is translated correctly, and this will allow Joseph Smith to write his own holy book to surplant the Bible.

Since nothing Joseph Smith ever wrote supplants the Bible, there's really nothing I can say to address this statement.

But look at your accusation that the Bible can not be somehow correct, because the original words came from the Mouth of God!
How can you claim this?

Again, I didn't.

The Bible is a book that contains the Words of God, the Words of God through prophets, the words of humans, such as kings, messengers, normal people, the words of historians telling us what God did etc.

That's a very good explanation. I couldn't have said it better myself.

To try to use this as an excuse to allow Joseph Smith to give a revelation that he will one day be God himself is absurd!

Oh boy. It's statements like this that make me wonder why I even try to have a dialogue with someone like you. You know, you and I haven't had much interaction on the forum yet, but you will quickly learn that I tend to respond to the tone of people's posts by taking on a similar tone in my replies. You will find me to be the most civil, congenial, respectful person you've ever encountered on this forum if you treat me as a decent, intelligent human being, and if you can tone down the contempt for my beliefs, the sarcasm and the tendency to embellish the facts, we might be able to have a productive dialogue. Otherwise, I can tell you right now that I simply won't be responding to your posts at all. I'm fine with differences of opinion, but I just refuse to deal with people who can't discuss these differences without the insults. You've replied to two more posts of mine and I'll get back to you later on them, but once I've done that, I will not waste my time trying to have a conversation with someone who has such unmitigated contempt for my perspective.

 

[PruePhillip]

Oh, dear. I wish I knew where to start in addressing this kind of convoluted logic. My KJV Bible is 1590 pages long. The Book of Mormon is 531 pages long. The Doctrine & Covenants is 294 pages long. The Pearl of Great Price is 61 pages long. Together these total 2476 pages. According to your own logic, this means that 64.2% of our reading comes from the Bible and that 35.7% comes from the other three books combined. See, that kind of reasoning simply gets you nowhere. And if they are all indeed "holy books," why does it matter what it says on the cover?

So now all four books are "the Bible"? Why do we need Matthew when we have Luke, or John when we have Mark? After all, these four are simply heavily redacted versions of one another. Again, your logic is just flat out illogical.

Wow. What a heavily documented statement. Thanks for the effort you put into that one.
Okay? So what? Every Christian I know studies and values the Old Testament. If you've got issues with the Old Testament, that's another matter entirely.

Tried to find that video. I am sure the two Mormons interviewed had read Book of Mormon about half a dozen times, the bible twice, Pearl about three and
Doctrines & Covenants once or twice. Jesus gave us ONE bible. He sealed it in Revelations. Nothing to be added, nothing deleted. Period.
But now we get peace bibles, inclusive feminist bibles, LOL cat bibles, Mormon bibles, JW bibles and Muslim bibles.
I feel like writing my own. Instead of Jesus' itinerant ministry I will have a priesthood. Instead of God not dwelling in temples made with hands I will build the
biggest temple in the world. Instead of Jesus ending the earthly sanctuary and its altar I will create one in pure marble. Instead of being led by the spirit and
not the law I will write laws like you wont' believe. And I will say that Jesus came to preach to the aborigines in Australia - and I found out when an angel
show me some rock carvings (which are not longer extant.)

 

[Katzpur]

Tried to find that video. I am sure the two Mormons interviewed had read Book of Mormon about half a dozen times, the bible twice, Pearl about three and
Doctrines & Covenants once or twice.

Whatever. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove or why you think that the experiences of two Mormons would be particularly representative of the experiences of 16 million other Mormons.

Jesus gave us ONE bible. He sealed it in Revelations. Nothing to be added, nothing deleted. Period.

Jesus didn't actually give us a Bible at all. God has communicated with mankind for thousands of years and mankind has done a fairly decent job of recording what He has told us. I would be delighted to see where in Revelation (there is no 's' by the way) Jesus "sealed" the Bible and where He said He was done talking to us.

But now we get peace bibles, inclusive feminist bibles, LOL cat bibles, Mormon bibles, JW bibles and Muslim bibles.
I feel like writing my own. Instead of Jesus' itinerant ministry I will have a priesthood. Instead of God not dwelling in temples made with hands I will build the
biggest temple in the world. Instead of Jesus ending the earthly sanctuary and its altar I will create one in pure marble. Instead of being led by the spirit and
not the law I will write laws like you wont' believe. And I will say that Jesus came to preach to the aborigines in Australia - and I found out when an angel
show me some rock carvings (which are not longer extant.)

Be my guest. I don't think anyone will try to stop you, and maybe in the process, you'll work off some of that hatred that's seething inside of you. Good luck.

 

[Katzpur]

So, now you use the claim that you were guided by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon are God's word?
Even the fact that there was never any Israelites in the Americas in 600 BC to 1400 AD.
The Book of Mormons say so.
Even the fact that there was no horses, sheep, cattle, iron in the Americas, but the book of Mormon say so.
Even the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas are all DNA related to Mongolians, and not to Semites.
Even the fact that there were no christian churches and jewish temples found in archaeology in the Americas, but the book of mormon say they were numerous and large.
Who is this holy ghost you were speaking too?
Will you please clarify these archaeological contradictions with him, and tell me how it is possible that this holy ghost that spoke to Joseph Smith did not know History at all.

Well, for starters, your time line was about 1000 years off, which to me is a pretty good indicator that accuracy is unimportant to you. And none of the "facts" you have listed are actually "facts" at all. Seriously, perhaps it's time for you to take a break from this forum. You seem to be overly worked up over this issue. Nobody is asking you to accept the Book of Mormon, so why don't you just move on to a topic that is less stressful for you.

 

[paarsurrey]

favourite bible version?

1.None, as none of them was written by Jesus or dictated by Jesus to those who wrote.

2.None of them is reliable enough to mention in a straightforward and unequivocal manner that Jesus did not die on the Cross, and Jesus survived a cursed death on the Cross, it only gives clues to that effect. Right, please?

Regards

 

[SA Huguenot]

favourite bible version?

None, as none of them was written by Jesus or dictated by Jesus to those who wrote.

Regards

So, to you God should be a writer?
Thank heavens mine is not one, but a God who acted in His creation, and there was other people who recorded what He did.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, to you God should be a writer?
Thank heavens mine is not one, but a God who acted in His creation, and there was other people who recorded what He did.

"God"

Jesus was son of Mary. Neither Mary was G-d nor her son.
Regards

 

[SalixIncendium]

What’s your favourite translation of The Holy Bible, and why?

The LOLCat translation...because I like to laugh.

LOLCat Bible Translation Project - Wikipedia

Unfortunately, the free version has been taken down, but it's published and available for purchase at Amazon.

 

[PruePhillip]

Whatever. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove or why you think that the experiences of two Mormons would be particularly representative of the experiences of 16 million other Mormons.

Jesus didn't actually give us a Bible at all. God has communicated with mankind for thousands of years and mankind has done a fairly decent job of recording what He has told us. I would be delighted to see where in Revelation (there is no 's' by the way) Jesus "sealed" the Bible and where He said He was done talking to us.

Be my guest. I don't think anyone will try to stop you, and maybe in the process, you'll work off some of that hatred that's seething inside of you. Good luck.

In His Gospels Jesus spoke often of His word going into the world. And of the important of The Word.
And in Revelations He told John to write down what he was saying. And this message wasn't just to
the seven churches - it was an international document.
"It is written" was one of Jesus' favorite sayings, meaning of course that the written word would transcend
the generations - not word of mouth.

 

[PruePhillip]

.... work off some of that hatred that's seething inside of you. Good luck.

You are trying to make it sound as if it is I who have a problem.
I respect Mormons, just as I respect JW's and other groups. I
have attended Mormon services.
But I hold, and it is widely understood, that the founder of Mormonism
was a con-man who literally talked through his hat. He's not alone -
there's Miller, Russel, Rutheford, Anne Lee in the 18th Century and
Applewhite, Jim Jones and David Koresh in the 20th. To name just a
few.
I am not bitter about such people. Nor do I seethe in anger.

 

[Katzpur]

You are trying to make it sound as if it is I who have a problem.
I respect Mormons, just as I respect JW's and other groups. I
have attended Mormon services.
But I hold, and it is widely understood, that the founder of Mormonism
was a con-man who literally talked through his hat. He's not alone -
there's Miller, Russel, Rutheford, Anne Lee in the 18th Century and
Applewhite, Jim Jones and David Koresh in the 20th. To name just a
few.
I am not bitter about such people. Nor do I seethe in anger.

Honestly, you could fool me. Your contempt for Mormonism is as clear as can be. People don't generally go around making slanderous claims about individuals they have neutral opinions of. I see no reason to continue this particular discussion. Perhaps in the future we may find something we can agree on, but for now, I'm out of here.

 

[PruePhillip]

Honestly, you could fool me. Your contempt for Mormonism is as clear as can be. People don't generally go around making slanderous claims about individuals they have neutral opinions of. I see no reason to continue this particular discussion. Perhaps in the future we may find something we can agree on, but for now, I'm out of here.

The reference to the "literal" with the hat refers to a custom back then of
people who would interpret a seer stone inside a hat. Joseph Smith did
this too in interpreting the angel's text.

 

[paarsurrey]

favourite bible version?

One may like to read my post #41 in another thread that has some relevance to the topic of the thread, please.

Regards