versions??????

You should read one that you understand ... because God wrote it to communicate how we should live.

 

Amen, Pastor Larry. The minor or even major differences in translation won't harm the average reader in the pew, but it just might draw one closer to the Lord by understanding what is read.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Heres an idea, buy several and read each, along with a concordance and maybe a good bible commentary.

When a particular verse sticks out to you look at it in Greek or Hebrew translation word for word. Its great to read the bible. Its also great to be an in depth studier of it also.

Sometimes to really understand what a verse is driving at, the Amplified Bible can be quite helpfull.

 

Beta or VHS??? Choose the one that your friends have; that way, you can swap tapes.

KJV, RSV, NIV, or ASAP? Read the one that those Christians you know read. That way, you can discuss verses and passages with similar understanding.

 

Excellent idea. This method of study is great for those who do not want to learn Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I do recommend reading the entire chapter instead of jumping from translation to translation by verses. This method will allow you to see things you normally would not with only one translation and will also show you there is very little difference between the translations. Look in the secular bookstores on the shelves where they pile books that haven't sold well and marked them down. I have bought two parallel Bibles--brand new--large hard-back for around five to ten dollars. Otherwise, twenty is not a bad price at all.

Good advice Dr. Griffin!

 

Gwyneth; i agree w/ the above post ,would like to add, be sure & pray, i know God would like to hear from u on this matter, seeing this will include him, some times it's hard for me to read old testament stuff, but when i pray he never fails to give me something stimulating to ponder.
by the way folks excellent posting ! great help

 

You are absolutely right. I left out a major issue and that IS prayer. The Holy Spirit will help interpret the Bible for you, even when you read the same chapter for the tenth time.

As for old testament, this is where a newer language Bible can help you very much because it makes it more of a "readable" story than a struggle. You are exactly right. Great point.

 

Only one problem, Dr. Bob, the print in these parallel Bibles is too small for those of us over 45!

 

If you are looking for one good all-around Bible version suitable for memorization and study, as well as devotional reading, ESV is awfully good.

 

"The one you will read," is of course, the best answer. I would recommend that you purchase a version that your own pastor uses on Sunday (or in your 'liturgy'). Beyond that, the ESV, RSV, or NIV would be just fine.

 

One of the things I do when trying to determine whether I will use a particular version is to read some of the more familiar passages like the creation story in Genesis, the 23rd Psalm, John 1, John 3:16, etc. One of the major deciding factors I use is Matthew 1:23 - if the version in question does not say Jesus was born of a virgin, I don't use the translation much if at all. To deny the virgin birth of our Lord is to deny one of the major tenets of the Bible. I don't feel that any one particular Bible version should be used to the total exclusion of all others, and I will never condemn anyone for their personal preference in Bible versions, so long as the version they use is not one which denies the lordship of Jesus Christ. So may God bless the reading of His Word, no matter what the version!

 

I have quite a few versions in my collection, and I am unable to find any that don't have "virgin" in Matt 1:23 (except the Worldwide English Version, which says "young woman who has not slept with a man", which is a virgin by definition). Even my 'controversial' translations like the Reader's Digest Bible, Living Bible, The Message, and even the JW's New World Translation all have "virgin" in this verse. Can you tell me of any translations that *don't* have virgin in this verse?

 

ICan you tell me of any translations that *don't* have virgin in this verse?</font>[/QUOTE]Has the Jesus Seminar done a translation yet? If they have, I would say look there and undoubtedly, you will find a translation without any mention of any of the miracles.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Gywn-
I stick with one version instead of be confused by more than one. I trust the KJV more than I do these modern ones. I think that it is the most reliable translation.
I also have other versions but hopping from one translation to the other and getting confused and spening more time trying to figure it out in my opinion can slow your growth in God's Word.
DD

 

Try Isa 7:14 in each version. I think that is the one with the problem.

 

Some versions have "young maiden" or similar in Isa 7:14. Personally, I do not have a problem with this, because of the context of the entire chapter (read it! ). Matthew, using Midrashic principles (an accepted Jewish method of interpreting O.T. scripture) find's fulfillment in Mary's virginity, but the passage's primary meaning deals with an even in Ahaz's day.

 

I totally disagree with this, having read virtually everything available on it in order to my ThM thesis on this passage. Isaiah intended a single virgin, the mother of Jesus, in the future. The issue for Ahaz was the time frame of a child born until he is 2-3 years old, by which time he will be free. The significance for Ahaz is the time frame.

The issue of the translation of 'almah is not complicated. The word mean a technical virgin or it can mean a young woman until the birth of her first child. "Virgin" is the correct translation of Isa 7:14 by virtue of Isaiah's intent to communicate the miraculous sign only a virgin birth would give. The sign of a virgin birth, 730 years later, to a woman in the Davidic line would assure the fulfilment of the davidic covenant, the very thing that is under attack in Isaiah 7:1-9. Thus there is no need to apply an abnormal hermeneutic to see relevance for Ahaz and complete fulfillment in the Messiah.

Rather Midrashic principles, Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit. I think it does a disservice to inspiration to chalk it up to midrash. The Holy Spirit revealed something to Isaiah and then revealed its fulfilment to Matthew. Of course, that is a short summary of 115 pages.

[ December 07, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]