Best English Language Bible?

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
scorpion, the veneration of Mary is justified by tradition not scripture, so you are straw manning a bit here.

I think Catholics would say that their tradition must not contradict the bible, however it is not necessary for it to come directly from the bible as the final arbiter of doctrine on its own.

It was that same tradition that led to the bible in the first place, so this is a false dichotomy too.

Both tradition and scripture inform one another.

What you are doing with scriptural verses is very easy to do with any denomination. You can always find some practice in any church that has an opposing scripture.

I have been to many Protestant services where they do not have the Lord's supper, and the Catholic church does, so, based on the fact that Jesus specifically said to have the Lord's supper in memory of him, does that make these denominations heretical?

I don't think so, but I could easily make that argument look good on the internet.

Also, on a common sense level, do you think that God is so legalistic that he doesn't account for intention?

It is a sign of respect to Jesus that Catholics don't feel bold enough to address him directly and seek only to approach his mother and ask her to mediate for them.

Do you think this is less godly than those boldly approaching Evangelicals who expect Jesus to find them parking spaces and winning lottery tickets?

Or do you think that every denomination, and even believer, has areas of his faith where he has got it dead right, and other areas where he is goofy as the day is long?

You are writing your post like it is obvious that Catholics are madmen and you have seen the simple truth.

You are toeing the Protestant line about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, and these can be seen as heretical as well, the first because it doesn't allow people direct access to God through personal revelation and the reading of the great mystics, for example. These things are not worthless and heresies by definition, and a more reasonable stance to take would be that private revelations can be valid as long as they don't contradict the Bible.

As for Sola Fide, the Bible verse this comes from was obviously an exhortation against pride, and not a proclamation that works are worthless.

And again, there are verses in the Bible that you can use to justify works, and verses you can use to justify faith alone, so I don't know how you can speak so finally and definitively about what is an appropriate way for others to find a relationship with their creator and worship him.

Are you really saying that all the beautiful and edifying writing of the great Christian mystics down the ages is worthless babble?

Should I now toss in some verses to show you that I am right and you are being prideful?

I'm not going to, because even though I think you are writing in a cocky way about something that we all should approach with trepidation and respect, I have also seen myself be as certain and and cut and dried about issues that I later found out that I didn't understand, so it would be hypocritical of me to judge you as different from the wonderful and all knowing me. Call it more of a heads up.

You are picking and choosing your verses to back up your personal interpretations and guess what. You are in good company because everyone does that.

I will not deny that there are some pretty goofy ways that people have chosen to worship God, and that extends beyond the Catholics.

Fallible humans, endlessly muddling their way towards a relationship with their God.

No one is exempt, so it would be advisable to be at least somewhat circumspect in your criticism of another person's mode of worship.

I have never heard a Catholic say that it was anything other than Jesus dying on the cross that saved him, and I am well aware of some of the excesses, sins, and weirdnesses of the Catholic church.

None of what you are saying matters if you don't have love for your fellow man though, that is clear, and even an atheist can tell if the person talking to him loves him or not.

I do get, and sympathize with your reaction to this thread, because it is getting pretty Catholicy and pretty esoteric, as if it is assumed that these things are only right and proper, rosaries and that.

These things are annoying, but there is no need to get dismissive about the practices of another denomination unless there is something that you see, and can prove, is completely against the faith. Let them have their missals and rosary beads and old Bibles.

These in no way negate your faith, your path to your faith, so there is no need to tell a whole tradtion that it is in error.

Not a Catholic myself, but was raised in that church, so there is a lot that I still love about it.

One of the greatest advantages the Catholic church as is that it has been around for so long that it has committed every sin and heresy in the book, and all of it is on record, like a huge burial dolmen in the middle of a field that can be seen for miles.

This can't help but make a church, or at least its members, more humble than they would otherwise be.

I look at the younger denominations, so brash and cocky, so sure of their interpretations, and sometimes think, well, your sins are still hidden, still chewing away at your churches like insects in the woodwork.

It is all well and good to criticize an old man who has done a lot of living and made a lot of mistakes.

Let's see how your church does when it gets its big spanking, which it still hasn't gotten yet.

(I am trying not to write spiritual posts so much anymore, so I hope you will excuse me for this indulgence. I am not sure the value, as people seem to believe what they are going to believe and that is that. Still, when I know an answer to something, sometimes I can't help but type it out. It's in me and needs to get out. And on some days, when the sun is shining, I am endlessly hopeful.)
 
There are several things I respect about Protestantism, but one of the things I cannot understand is how so many willingly omit James 2:14 where James says, "What good is it brothers if someone says that he has faith, but does not have works? Can faith save him." Since it was Martin Luther who removed this book, wouldn't this mean that Christianity was in constant heresy for its first 1500 years of existence?

As far as Marian tradition is concerned, I feel that it is something that has waxed and waned throughout Christendom. At least that's what I can tell from the books I've read on the subject. Some time periods have had a greater devotion to Mary than others, although it is safe to say that the Church has always venerated Mary. Hell, even in 330 Constantine dedicated Constantinople in her honor. However, that being said I've known of a few Catholics who place just as much or more emphasis on Mary than Christ, which is definitely a problem. Also, while I believe in the power and intercession of saints to help us in our lives, I've thought the idea of having a patron saint for literally anything and everything is a bit strange. It seems less a theological aspect and more like a cultural aspect of Catholicism to pray to the patron saint of test taking before an exam, instead of God. I'm just a layman though so these are all just my personal thoughts.

I hope that as a Catholic I myself am not being a heretic here and I think someone like Aurini might have better insights on this topic than me.
 

Mage

 
Vasily Zaytsev said:
There are several things I respect about Protestantism, but one of the things I cannot understand is how so many willingly omit James 2:14 where James says, "What good is it brothers if someone says that he has faith, but does not have works? Can faith save him." Since it was Martin Luther who removed this book, wouldn't this mean that Christianity was in constant heresy for its first 1500 years of existence?

Why don't you make conclusion then that Protestantism is heresy instead for removing James and other books? What makes you make only one conclusion out of several possible ones? Isn't it an instance of a broader set of scenarios how a blind believers mind works? Picking one explanation for phenomena and sticking with it while other interpretations could be just as valid?

Vasily Zaytsev said:
As far as Marian tradition is concerned, I feel that it is something that has waxed and waned throughout Christendom. At least that's what I can tell from the books I've read on the subject. Some time periods have had greater devotion to Mary than others, although it is safe to say that the Church has always venerated Mary. Hell, even in 330 Constantine dedicated Constantinople in her honor. However, that being said I've always thought that Mexican Catholicism places a bit too much emphasis on Mary. And, while I believe in the power and intercession of saints to help us in our lives, I've thought the idea of having a patron saint for literally anything and everything is a bit strange. It seems less a theological aspect more like a cultural aspect of Catholicism to pray to the patron saint of test taking before an exam, instead of God.

If anything though, this is probably just personal preference. I hope that as a Catholic I myself am not being a heretic and I also think someone like Aurini might have better insight on this topic than me.

In protestant mind-view the world is lonely place. Individuals can only have relationships with God. This translates well in todays post-Christian neomarxist paradigm of destroying all levels of interpersonal relationships - destroying ties of family, ties of nation, ties of male groups, ties of brotherhood, ties of friendship not tainted with their disfigured notion of love as something you must always put your dick in. In the western liberal paradigm a person is only to have relationships with government.

Government is to give the person all money, government is to provide loans, government is to provide jobs, government is to provide food, government is to provide entertainment, government is to provide education, government is to provide safety, government is to provide healthcare, government is to intervene family life, government is to stand above fellow human beings and is the highest authority to snitch to, where to seek marriage and divorce, daddy government will even give you children without a partner if freeze your eggs.

All this evolves from protestant extremely-monotheistic viewpoint that you must pray to God and have no relationships with saints and other believers. Once you remove God you just got government put in there. All monotheistic faiths are like that - Islam is the same - under guise of Monotheism it is actually all about creating a super Big Sharia Government to control all aspects of individuals life.


Catholics are a bit more Pagan and a bit less monotheistic in this sense that they value relationships with all members of Church. The Catholic Church is a community of believers who constitute the sacred body of Christ. Catholics value their saints because for them heaven is not a lonely place. Catholics can already build relationships with those of their community who are already there in heaven as well as with those who are here on Earth. This relationship is love and this Love is where God manifests. This Love is the works where God manifests.

This is why Catholics have the biggest and strongest families in Western Christianity and why Catholics have always been less pro big government and more pro family mafia types. This is why Catholics will maintain male only clergy - because they have a place and a role for each individual in the Church, the Body of Christ. There is roles for priests and roles for lays, roles for men and roles for women, roles for adults and roles for children.

Protestants don't believe in roles because they only believe in persons relationship with God and not in relationships between people. Therefore protestants will accept female clergy, therefore they do not batiste children, therefore they compromise on contraception and have smaller families, therefore they do not believe in works and believe they can be saved by passive faith.

God is Love between people. Therefore God created people - for his Love to have a place and reason to manifest. The still life needs no God. We do. We are animated by God's love. Therefore we must act with love and have relationships with all creation - each other and nature as well. All that God created he created so that in the interconnections of the things created Love, that is Himself, could manifest.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
I'm tapping out.

Before I leave, some other recommendations:

If you ever find yourself called to the higher forms of Mental Prayer and start leading an Interior Life, which the Nuns explained to me to celebrate as a blessing because it can't be forced or willed, and only happens by Grace, and most are never called to it. They saw me perfectly in the zone, oblivious to all the chatter in the church around me, as mass ended, and they explained Infused Contemplation to me.

That's not saying one is better or holier for doing this. Our place is to be as holy as we should be, not as holy as we wish to be, and not to resent others who appear holier than we are. We all have our assigned places, and I recognise I was guided by Grace to this, so I have to take the responsibility seriously.

It's a strange experience. Not easy to describe. Just: connecting with the divine, like you're snatched up by joy. Sometimes my eyes flow with tears, but it's not from sadness. I'm not a guy who ever cries.

It's odd. When I read 'The Spiritual Combat' by Scupoli less than a month back, I was horrified by the idea that I could do nothing good without God's grace, and was uncomfortable and frightened with the idea of spending eternity praising God. I mean, wouldn't you get bored? Wouldn't you still want to do other things?

Now, doing the meditations regularly, I get it. Yes, I could spend eternity praising God. If you experience even the small glimpse of that beatific connection possible through meditative prayer, then you understand it's all you'll ever need to be happy. What must the real thing be like?

Three works connected to this:

"The Interior Castle" by St Theresa of Avila lays out the Interior Journey of the Soul towards God. It'd be on archive.org.

'Divine Intimacy' by Father Gabriel of St Mary Magdalen is meditations for each day of the Tridentine Liturgical Calendar. It's an absolutely beautiful work that I believe could also be studied in a non-meditative fashion for the depth it goes into. Unfortunately, it's a pricey work. I think it cost me $125, and, amusingly, I thought it was a book of explanations of daily liturgy, not a book of meditations, and turned up just after I'd watched a Youtube Talk on Meditative Prayer. You get exactly what you need at the moment you need it.

'The Ways of Mental Prayer' by Vital Lehodey is a detailed book on the subject, and is easily-readable, 'how to' guide for when / if you are called. It's fascinating to read, to the extent that I'd rather be reading it than posting on here now.

----

If you're also cursed with the Vice of Pride the way I am, there's a great little book to practice the opposite Virtue: "Humility of Heart" by Father Cajetan Mary da Bergamo. It's a series of short meditations on Humility. Since all sin is thought to flow from Pride, it's useful for all Christians.

As such, I can recognise the danger of writing publicly as opening the door to being Prideful. I need to talk much, much less.

I can also recommended any of Father Chad Ripperger's books, or anything by Saint John of the Cross.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
Vasily Zaytsev said:
There are several things I respect about Protestantism, but one of the things I cannot understand is how so many willingly omit James 2:14 where James says, "What good is it brothers if someone says that he has faith, but does not have works? Can faith save him." Since it was Martin Luther who removed this book, wouldn't this mean that Christianity was in constant heresy for its first 1500 years of existence?

I'm in the LCMS church which is one of the non pozzed Lutheran denominations. We use the ESV which has James in it. You've conveniently left out the rest of the verse. I'd warn you not do that because each chapters context is very important to the larger narrative.

I dont believe Marty removed this book from his original German translation. He also included Enoch and other texts as well but I digress.

The rest of James reads as follows:

Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

So here's how it is taught in Lutheran Sunday school: why are you doing your good works? Are you doing your works to cover your own ass or are you doing them because of your love of Jesus' sacrifice and ministry?

The whole verse encapsulates this. If your intentions are to curry favor with God you're not going to get anywhere. If you're doing your good works because you love Jesus and his message. Then your faith will come alive and your good works will have meaning.

This is also why sin is far more nefarious than we realize and why we need faith in Jesus. The devil knows we cannot reason away deep seated intentions like saving our own asses after death and is why we are prone to the slavery of flesh and death.
 
That's why an earlier post I had to take away translation problems by explaining the theology of the word faith in english is better understood as "faithfulness".

As James says about the demons (who also fast, but do not pray) who mentally are aware of the truth of God, of course faith isn't saying you believe, or having mental assent to an idea (as do those same demons); it is being faithful, which they aren't.

God never said, "If you love me, believe that I exist." No no no, it is far more than that.

"Keep my commandments."

Be faithful. That is action, or proper decision; it is making it part of your person, not just your mind. Any rationalizer can do the other stuff.

Remember, the holy fathers said this, because it is sure:

"The wise man is the man who knows what is right ... and does it."

So you first have to know it, which can be hard enough for many. Then comes the harder part.
 
Welcome to the faith!

In my opinion, the NKJV does not read Shakespearean at all. It's a fairly new translation (1980s), albeit in the same broad translation style as KJV, and supposedly based off of the same sources. I say "supposedly" because I have no way of personally vetting it.

Regardless, I think it's a fairly good Bible for a beginner. Easy to understand and not rephrased using modern-day terminology and sentence structures.
 
Welcome to the faith!

In my opinion, the NKJV does not read Shakespearean at all. It's a fairly new translation (1980s), albeit in the same broad translation style as KJV, and supposedly based off of the same sources. I say "supposedly" because I have no way of personally vetting it.

Regardless, I think it's a fairly good Bible for a beginner. Easy to understand and not rephrased using modern-day terminology and sentence structures.
Hey, thanks so much for your reply. Yeah, I've been checking out some of the other translations online and they just don't have that same "authentic Bible feel" to them with the modern, almost colloquial English. Also, I guess when I said "Shakespearean" I really meant "old English."
 

bucky

Ostrich
Hey, thanks so much for your reply. Yeah, I've been checking out some of the other translations online and they just don't have that same "authentic Bible feel" to them with the modern, almost colloquial English. Also, I guess when I said "Shakespearean" I really meant "old English."

I prefer the early modern English feel of the KJV too (proper Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, is the language spoken in England before 1066, incomprehensible to modern English speakers who haven't learned it as a second language). That said, at least for the New Testament, it's probably not a good representation of the "feel" of the original Greek. The New Testament was written in simple, everyday language, intended to be easily comprehensible to everyone, not just the highly educated. Not sure about the Old Testament. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written in a highly elevated, literary form of Hebrew.
 

arcterex

Pigeon
It is easy to get into the mindset of the Bible as just another text to read and debate about.

Or to nitpick over phrasings and definitions of specific words.

I tend to agree with this. The distinctions between ESV, NIV, etc. is of little consequence to most believers. It's not something to get caught up in. In any version, you will not understand the text without significant research, especially the Hebrew Scripture / Old Testament. That will be true regardless of the version you happen to purchase. The Bible is a bit different than purchasing First Edition Books or finding rare recordings of live events of legendary bands. The substance of the Counsel of God overwhelms the minor differences between options you'll come across (in this case, the differences on account of biases, translations, etc.)

Recently, in addition to my own study, I've been doing courses with a teacher who was on the committee for the New Testament for both the ESV and the NIV. He has mastered Greek and on occasion, there are meanings to the original text that don't come through that are useful to clarify. But it is of minor significance for the beginner or intermediate disciple. When you are at an advanced level, or if you are interested in theological debate, these nuances become worth knowing the original languages; esp. Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old.

Ultimately, it's about building a relationship with God. Repenting your sins, exalting God, fellowship with other disciples, abiding by the Lord's commandments. It's about practice. The Bible helps us understand God's program so we can realize His promises; you won't go wrong with any of the major translations. Not to discourage you from finding the right Bible, but I wanted to emphasize the bigger picture.
 
I prefer the early modern English feel of the KJV too (proper Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, is the language spoken in England before 1066, incomprehensible to modern English speakers who haven't learned it as a second language).

Yes, I guess that is correct as well. "Early Modern English" it is. I originally said Shakespearean because it was written during his life, in a period of English history that could therefore be referred to as "Shakespearean." Man, you Christians are perfectionists. haha.

But, thanks for the comment. The KJV is the also one that is used for all the voice-overs in all those famous Cecille B. DeMille movies as well, so it HAS to be the authentic bible, right? (haha) I should have the book by the end of the weekend and am looking to forward to getting it. I am also very thankful that I have this forum as a resource, as I am sure there will be some more things I will need more clarification on moving forward.
 

bucky

Ostrich
Yes, I guess that is correct as well. "Early Modern English" it is. I originally said Shakespearean because it was written during his life, in a period of English history that could therefore be referred to as "Shakespearean." Man, you Christians are perfectionists. haha. But, thanks for the comment. I should have the study bible by the end of the weekend and am looking to forward to getting it. I am also very thankful that I have this forum as a resource, as I am sure there will be some more things I will need more clarification on moving forward.

Yes, I geek out about languages. I learned some Old English at one point, and it was very interesting. Here's a sample, just to show how different it is from our language:


Feala iċ on þām beorge ġebiden hæbbe
wrāðra wyrda. Ġeseah iċ weruda God
þearle þenian. Þȳstro hæfdon
bewriġen mid wolcnum Wealdendes hrǣw,
scīrne scīman; sceadu forðēode
wann under wolcnum. Wēop eal ġesceaft,
cwīðdon Cyninges fyll. Crist wæs on rōde.
Hwæðere þǣr fūse feorran cwōman
tō þām æðelinge; iċ þæt eall behēold.
 
Nea
Yes, I geek out about languages. I learned some Old English at one point, and it was very interesting.
Neat! Yeah, I checked this out on YouTube about a year ago, and also watched a good multi-part documentary about English. Apparently, the Old English sounded a lot like what they speak in the northern Netherlands, which would make sense because this is where several of the Germanic tribes that invaded England after the fall of Rome came from. The next major changes occurred after the Norman invasion, if I'm not mistaken. Many new words were added and many of the "official" words were French, while they still kept the colloquial terms as well because they were still in common use. (i.e. "Beef"/"Cow", "Pork"/"Swine", "Deer"/"Venison", etc.)
 

kel

Pelican
NKJV is written in modern English. If you're looking for that olde tyme-y feel you're going to be disappointed. Compare KJV vs NKJV

The Orthodox Study Bible you bought, though, comes highly recommended, so a good purchase anyways. That's the one I had and lost which derailed the read-through thing I was trying to do.
 

bucky

Ostrich
NKJV is written in modern English. If you're looking for that olde tyme-y feel you're going to be disappointed. Compare KJV vs NKJV

The Orthodox Study Bible you bought, though, comes highly recommended, so a good purchase anyways. That's the one I had and lost which derailed the read-through thing I was trying to do.

Can't you find it online? For Bible study I usually just read a chapter or two on my phone before bed. I'm a KJV guy but it seems like every Bible site I see out there has a multitude of different translations.
 

kel

Pelican
Yeah, the bible is very available online, but still I like physical books given the choice. For the bible, specifically, I like reading through whatever I've set aside, and then maybe going through an online version that breaks down the original Hebrew/Greek/whatever, puts it in context, etc.
 
It depends how you want to use the Bible. For pure reading pleasure you should purchase any translation that suits you. Unfortunately I don't own one, but I heard the Common English Bible with Apocrypha is the most complete Bible in the English market. The language should be easy to read and it has (basically) the Orthodox canon of the Old Testament. For my personal use, I read from the 1611 King James Bible and The Septuagint with Apocrypha translated by Sir Lancelot Brenton; you will be astonished how different the Septuagint is from the Masoretic Text, just compare Proverbs 15:28. For scholary use I read from Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, which has extensive commentary on a linguistical level and provides historical commentary; for example after the book of Joshua there are a few pages of historical background of the Canaanite cult practices and as to why God ordered the Israelites to exterminate them.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
If you really believe that Bible is the word of God then you must do your best to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.

All those people who are Bible thumpers but don't care to master original languages are hypocrites.”

Jesus/Disciples quoted scripture in multiple languages. The OT was written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek. Paul told Timothy (a young Greek preacher) that he had known the Holy Scriptures from a child.

I think its obvious that language can be sufficiently translated to retain its efficacy.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
Hey, all. Complete noob here and also new to the faith. I've just ordered the NKJV Study Bible by Thomas Nelson. I think that I will like the Shakespearean-like language. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.


I met my wife in Toronto, as far as I can tell, she was the only good thing they had.

I strongly encourage you my friend, to do your due diligence when it comes to choosing your sword -
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.

If you are going to have victory in the Christian life, choosing a butter knife will not serve you well.


Use this website, do your own due diligence, feel
free to message me with any questions and don't make the fool descision to stick with a wrong choice because you just spent 60$ dollars on it.
God is able to give you much more than this, His Word is more valuable; rubies, Silver and Gold cannot compare.

Godspeed
 
Top