What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[McBell]

It will get you a lot further than a simplistic reading of the King James Version will.

A simplistic reading of every version of the Bible side by side will not get you very far if you do not take into consideration the culture at the time of writing.

For example, I have seen people taking verses from the Bible to "support" that life begins at conception.
This is just plain flat out wishful thinking.
Why?
Because back when the Bible was written, they believed that the man planted a seed into the woman and that the woman was merely an incubator.
They had no concept of conception.

 

[Kathryn]

A simplistic reading of every version of the Bible side by side will not get you very far if you do not take into consideration the culture at the time of writing.

For example, I have seen people taking verses from the Bible to "support" that life begins at conception.
This is just plain flat out wishful thinking.
Why?
Because back when the Bible was written, they believed that the man planted a seed into the woman and that the woman was merely an incubator.
They had no concept of conception.

Couple of points -

First of all, if you have read many of my posts on this topic, it should be obvious that I do not condone simplistic reading of the Bible and calling it serious study of the bible. I make it very clear that you must consider historical context, the intended audience, and the original language. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with picking up a Bible and casually reading it.

Secondly - most people that believe that life begins at conception don't believe that based on some verse in the bible. They believe that because at the moment of conception, every ingredient for a human life is present and growing - from both the man and the woman.

Many non Christians who have never even picked up a bible believe that life begins at conception.

 

[Oberon]

It will get you a lot further than a simplistic reading of the King James Version will.

Not necessarily. If you look up a greek word found in the NT in a lexicon, you will get a semantic range. On the other hand, the translation will have already narrowed that range. If you don't know the language, a translation is better than a lexicon for a language you don't know.

 

[McBell]

First of all, if you have read many of my posts on this topic, it should be obvious that I do not condone simplistic reading of the Bible and calling it serious study of the bible.

When did I even hint that you did?

Secondly - most people that believe that life begins at conception don't believe that based on some verse in the bible

When did I say that they did?
Seems to me that you really should go back and actually read what I said.
But this time, try to do so without assuming I have some "hidden" message....

. They believe that because at the moment of conception, every ingredient for a human life is present and growing - from both the man and the woman

.
Yep, yet some of them still try to twistverses around to fit their belief.
Which is what I said.

Many non Christians who have never even picked up a bible believe that life begins at conception.

nice red herring.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For example, I have seen people taking verses from the Bible to "support" ...

Any argument with this as preamble is vapid at best.

 

[McBell]

Any argument with this as preamble is vapid at best.

It is not an argument, it is an example.
Though I would have thought that the words "for example" would have been enough to clarify that.....

 

[Muffled]

Gee, how about your post where you pretty much said that you take your own private interpretation over that of any interpretation that disagrees with your own private interpretation?

Naw, couldn't have been that....:sarcastic

You are right it couldn't, because I don't do private interpretations. All of my interpretations come from Jesus who is the Word on everything. A person who disagrees, is not disagreeing with me but with Jesus.

 

[McBell]

You are right it couldn't, because I don't do private interpretations. All of my interpretations come from Jesus who is the Word on everything. A person who disagrees, is not disagreeing with me but with Jesus.

ROTFLMAO

the delusions of the private interpretation defenders....

 

[Muffled]

A simplistic reading of every version of the Bible side by side will not get you very far if you do not take into consideration the culture at the time of writing.

For example, I have seen people taking verses from the Bible to "support" that life begins at conception.
This is just plain flat out wishful thinking.
Why?
Because back when the Bible was written, they believed that the man planted a seed into the woman and that the woman was merely an incubator.
They had no concept of conception.

That is interesting but not the only context, ie.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.

Here the knowledge of conception is not cultural but comes from an angel with greater knowlege of how things work including the joining of spirit with body to form a soul.

For this Reason there is no change between the ASV and the NASV.

However this verse portion has been changed to read 'the Holy Offspring.' There is a great deal of confusion over the word 'begotten' so it makes sense not to use it.

 

[McBell]

That is interesting but not the only context, ie.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.

Here the knowledge of conception is not cultural but comes from an angel with greater knowlege of how things work including the joining of spirit with body to form a soul.

For this Reason there is no change between the ASV and the NASV.

However this verse portion has been changed to read 'the Holy Offspring.' There is a great deal of confusion over the word 'begotten' so it makes sense not to use it.

Nice try, but you are plugging YOUR knowledge of conception into the verse where it does not exist.

I understand that you cannot/will not see it, but it is true none the less.

 

[Muffled]

Nice try, but you are plugging YOUR knowledge of conception into the verse where it does not exist.

I understand that you cannot/will not see it, but it is true none the less.

I do not agree. It is there and all my knowledge does is help me to understand the verse.

If you think this is true, prove it!

 

[Humanistheart]

How do people feel about translations using the septuagint vs the masoretic texts?

 

[Humanistheart]

How do people feel about translations using the septuagint vs the masoretic texts?

For the tannack or OT I mean. Probably obvious to anyone who know's what I'm talking about but thought I'd clarify just in case.

 

[Charity]

I always used KJV but now I really like the NIV....

 

[Smoke]

How do people feel about translations using the septuagint vs the masoretic texts?

They're both originally Jewish texts, but the MT is generally considered the authoritative text (or as close as you can get) by Jews and Protestants, and the LXX is generally considered the authoritative text by Orthodox Christians. Last I heard, the Vulgate was considered authoritative by the Roman Catholics, which is kind of a compromise between the two, with a general preference for the MT over the LXX.

 

[Muffled]

I always used KJV but now I really like the NIV....

I think you would agree that it is much easier to read modern English than it is to read antiquated English. Maybe someone will have to annotate the KJV with the meaning of antiquated words like the Shakespearean plays that I read.

 

[Humanistheart]

They're both originally Jewish texts, but the MT is generally considered the authoritative text (or as close as you can get) by Jews and Protestants, and the LXX is generally considered the authoritative text by Orthodox Christians. Last I heard, the Vulgate was considered authoritative by the Roman Catholics, which is kind of a compromise between the two, with a general preference for the MT over the LXX.

I see what you mean. I had to research the vulgate further to understand that comment though, so my thanks for an enlightening post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How do people feel about translations using the septuagint vs the masoretic texts?

For the tannack or OT I mean. Probably obvious to anyone who know's what I'm talking about ...

Those who know what you're talking about would have asked a different question and employed the spelling Tanakh or Tanach.

The Septuagint (or, more correctly, the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint) and the Masoretic reflect authentic textual variants. Decent commentaries will document variants where they exist. An excellent example of this in my opinion is the translation and commentary on Samuel by P. Kyle McCarter Jr.

 

[Humanistheart]

Those who know what you're talking about would have asked a different question and employed the spelling Tanakh or Tanach.

The Septuagint (or, more correctly, the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint) and the Masoretic reflect authentic textual variants. Decent commentaries will document variants where they exist. An excellent example of this in my opinion is the translation and commentary on Samuel by P. Kyle McCarter Jr.

Another typical Jay post

 

[sojourner]

Another typical Jay post

Yeah, but he's right...