Bible Study Bible advise please

[wishbone]

Hello , I am new here so I hope I have posted this in the right place.

I am looking for a bible. I know a few of the main stories but I have never read the bible. Could you surgest one that is going to be in an easy to understand text. I don't won't to pick a hard one than give up reading it. Some notes might be a help as well. I am a 49 , if that makes a difference in the type of Bible I buy. I would also like a text that is easy on the eye. I am also an infrequent church goer ( I am trying to retiry that).

Many thanks for your advise.

Roger

 

[handy]

Roger,

When it comes to different types of Bibles there is something to keep in mind: Versions of the Bibles come in both paraphrases and translations. Paraphrased Bibles tend to be very readable and easy to understand. However, they may or may not be 'true' to the original texts, and sometimes one can misunderstand what God's message to us in certain texts were. Translations do much better at keeping the words we read as close to the original texts and meanings of the Scriptures. When I was new at my walk with God, I used the Living Bible. It was a paraphrase, but I found it very easy to read. As my walk progressed, and I wanted to study the Word more seriously, I started using the New American Standard Bible. It is a good translation.

I'm going to provide you with a link to BibleGateway. Go on it, and read through some of the different translations that they have. This will be a good way to find a translation or paraphrase that you'll feel comfortable reading. You can also compare how texts line up with each other. If there is a translation or paraphrase that seems to not even compare with what all the rest have to say, then it's probably not the best one to invest in.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Also, I wanted to share this with you: When I started out years ago, I thought I would read the Bible, so I picked up the Bible and starte with Genesis 1:1. I read through Genesis and Exodus but got bogged down somewhere in Deutoronomy. I would suggest that when you start reading, to start with one of the Gospels. I can personally testify to the impact that the Gospel of John has had on my own life! At any rate, don't feel that you have to start on Genesis 1:1 and read through to Revelations. The Bible is a collection of different books, and there is nothing wrong with reading the books 'out of order' as it were.

Hope this helps!

 

[wishbone]

This helps very much , thank you. I have been reading Genesis on-line and when i get my bible i will read the Gospels next. After i am not sure, we will see when the time come.

Many thanks for your kind help.

Roger

 

[anna-Rose]

greetings
I would say read romans and the psalms also hebrews they will help you understand Genesis - this is the foundation of the whole Bible and is spoken of by Jesus many times.

as for the Bible translation - the English Standard Version is in modern english and translated using the king James as one of the texts - they are both word for word translations - these are best because they have the meaning of the words corectly - other translations are thought for thought so take a whole paragraph and translate it missing the meanings of some words ( these are the ones with lots of foot notes stating other people think that......)

e-mail your address to my yahoo e-mail and I will send you some good books that will be of use
armersh@yahoo.co.uk

here is the link for my web page - it has loads of good comentries, Bible rescources and other stuff including free tracts, good books and church history and missioneries .

also plenty of stuff for new Christians .

http://www.sheepforjesus2.spaces.live.com

also look on answers in genesis for comentries

here is the link for good sermons on Genesis
http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/sermons/

also a good link for the evangelical times - look on here for articles on finding a good church, baptism and loads of other topics and issues:

here are some good publishers you may like to look up for good books:
banner of truth
day one
Christian focus
intervarsity press

dza devlefa ( God go befor you )
http://www.evangelical-times.org/

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Roger,

I would have said the King James, but it just may bog you down trying to reconcile some of the more outdated words and phrases.

My recommendations would be: The New King James, The Modern King James or The 21st. century King James. Yes, that's a lot of kings. ;-) I choose a King James version because I prefer the manuscripts used for the interpretations, which is called the Textus Receptus.

If you have the time, this is a good site on the history of the NT texts.

http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm

 

[Archetype]

Greetings Roger,

I would recommend picking up three bibles to start off: the NIV, KJV and the NAB. All are written in contemporary english and are easy to follow. Now why three bibles, doesnt one have all the answers?

You'll find that in each bible there are translations errors. For example, in the KJV, there exists nahum ch1 vs 15 but the NAB bible doesnt have it. one then would interpret the passage to be history rather than prophesy. why is that?

If you were to compare and contrast them, then you will be able to filter out the errors and inconsistencies and recover the message estimate faithful to the orginal translation. Remember correct knowledge brings about correct conduct.

I would start with the new testament. It is easier to follow and rich and warm and forgiving. Not that the old testament isnt. but the old testament contains many difficult concepts and strange accounts that we may find disturbing at first, by reading the new testament. and the new testament as the lord put it, is the fulfillment of the old. you'll be able to tie in the books of isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel and the pentateuch with the new testament.

thats what i'm doing now. i finished tying christs revision of an eye for eye commandment( matthew 5: 38-40) that was taught in the OT/Exodus 21: 20-27, concerning the punishment for men quarreling and pregnant women and slaves.

a friend of mine also tied matthew 24 with the account of noah and the ark in which we do know the relative day of the end times but not the hour. the king james bible says we don't know both, the NAB bible says we don't know either. but as in the days in noah, noah knew when the world would be flooded, in seven days time!so the NAB bible can't be right in that respects.

but if you just want to read scripture...i'd pick the NAB. its alot easier to follow. the KJV although modernized contains some trace of old english. it likes to use the yea's and thee's and eth's and sometimes transposes verbs and conjugations.

but either way just get a bible and start reading. and pray to jesus to have the holy spirit guide you and reveal the message to you. and pray for me that I do not become a pharisee or heretic. for as paul said in galatians 1:8 even I, who proclaim myself to be a future evangelist, am capable of preaching a false gospel, something I do not want-hot potatoe!

PS: there are also LARGE, BOLD print type bibles. very easy on the eye and to follow.

 

[Imagican]

Vic had it right to start with.

Do yourself a favor and do NOT limit your understanding by reading watered down versions. Read the King James Version. If God wishes that it's words be REVEALED to you, then they WILL, regardless of what others may tell you about reading NEWER versions that are 'easier' to understand. Read the King James Version. If you TRULY desire to KNOW God's Word, then you WON'T give up simply becuase it is possibly difficult to read at times. You will fare better in the long run than being duped into 'false understanding' by altered versions.

MEC

 

[tim-from-pa]

I'm a King James Man myself, but I'll make it a tad easier. I would go with the New King James just to get your bearings and an idea what the bible is about. The translators supposedly stayed to the original spirit of the King James translation, although I did find some problems with it.

Then, after reading that once thru from beginning to end, get a King James Bible and a Strong's Concordance and study! Study deeply. Christianity is not to be messed with and it is not a pick-and-choose faith like a buffet. God put all of it there and as we grow in faith, we will grow in obedience to all of it and even learn to like the parts that seem unlikeable.

I wish you the best.

 

[wishbone]

Thanks everyone for your helpful advice.
I took my short list of all your recommendation to a Christan book shop and spent a good hour or so looking at all the books on my list and went for, right or wrong the NIV version. Sometime soon I will invest in the KJV as lots of people seem to live this version. Reading Genesis at the moment and I have learned so much already.

Thanks again.

Roger.

 

[Biblereader]

Read the KJV, and the Holy Spirit, if you are born again, will instruct you, and teach you
all things.

 

[waitinontheLamb]

Read the authorized version, the King James. You can buy online the Defined King James Bible. Google that in and you will find the link. It will give definitions for the more difficult words you come across. Don't dive into the modern versions. They will just lead you in strange directions. Stick with the tried and true.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Read the authorized version, the King James.....

Heeeelarious. Who authorized it? The Church of England did, and not only do I bet you're not an Anglican, but I'll bet you didn't know that the Church of England doesn't even use it anymore.

Read the RSV-CE.. ..best Bible there is.

 

[Vic C.]

Read the authorized version, the King James.....

Heeeelarious. Who authorized it? The Church of England did, and not only do I bet you're not an Anglican, but I'll bet you didn't know that the Church of England doesn't even use it anymore.

Read the RSV-CE.. ..best Bible there is.

I chuckle every time I see you promote it. It's got it's root in KJ and Tyndale.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":ecc7e]

Read the authorized version, the King James.....

Heeeelarious. Who authorized it? The Church of England did, and not only do I bet you're not an Anglican, but I'll bet you didn't know that the Church of England doesn't even use it anymore.

Read the RSV-CE.. ..best Bible there is.

I chuckle every time I see you promote it. It's got it's root in KJ and Tyndale.[/quote:ecc7e]

Well, you know us Catholics: We take what is good from any source, strip it of its errors, and incorporate it into the faith.

 

[waitinontheLamb]

Well, you know us Catholics: We take what is good from any source, strip it of its errors, and incorporate it into the faith.

Maybe this is why I read your posts now that I think of it. Your statements, while asinine, make me laugh.

This one is a classic. It will go down in the annals of historically ridiculousness. The romish church is the inventor of that which is bad. If there is evil to be found, some pope will incorporate it and make it dogma.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, you know us Catholics: We take what is good from any source, strip it of its errors, and incorporate it into the faith.

Maybe this is why I read your posts now that I think of it. Your statements, while asinine, make me laugh.

This one is a classic. It will go down in the annals of historically ridiculousness. The romish church is the inventor of that which is bad. If there is evil to be found, some pope will incorporate it and make it dogma.

If your "waitinontheLamb", then you have a long "wait" if you continue accusing your brothers falsley..

 

[waitinontheLamb]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":ef5ce]

Well, you know us Catholics: We take what is good from any source, strip it of its errors, and incorporate it into the faith.

Maybe this is why I read your posts now that I think of it. Your statements, while asinine, make me laugh.

This one is a classic. It will go down in the annals of historically ridiculousness. The romish church is the inventor of that which is bad. If there is evil to be found, some pope will incorporate it and make it dogma.

If your "waitinontheLamb", then you have a long "wait" spewing out that kind of B S.[/quote:ef5ce]Wow, such language for a "christian." Before you referred to me as a Jack-a and now you use your letters for another foul word. Such "christian" behavior. Hm. Imagine that.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Before you referred to me as a Jack-a and now you use your letters for another foul word. Such "christian" behavior. Hm. Imagine that.

I never said I was nice. But I do keep it real. And what I said was REAL. Try it some time.

 

[cyberjosh]

If your "waitinontheLamb", then you have a long "wait" spewing out that kind of B S.

Bad habits are often hard to break, but could you please refrain from continuing to use "B S" in your posts, as it seems a bit inappropriate on a Christian forum. I'm sure you could use more creative words like malarky, tripe, bunk, or (if you are going for obscure words) rigmarole.

The romish church is the inventor of that which is bad.

As for you, we have strict rules on this board against making such biased remarks. We've had enough problems on this board in the past with Protestants flaming Catholics and it needs to stop. If you have an important point to make, give a real reason and specific supporting statements rather than polemical remarks please.

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[waitinontheLamb]

If your "waitinontheLamb", then you have a long "wait" spewing out that kind of B S.

Bad habits are often hard to break, but could you please refrain from continuing to use "B S" in your posts, as it seems a bit inappropriate on a Christian forum. I'm sure you could use more creative words like malarky, tripe, bunk, or (if you are going for obscure words) rigmarole.

The romish church is the inventor of that which is bad.

As for you, we have strict rules on this board against making such biased remarks. We've had enough problems on this board in the past with Protestants flaming Catholics and it needs to stop. If you have an important point to make, give a real reason and specific supporting statements rather than polemical remarks please.

Thanks,

~Josh

I wonder if those around at the time would have thought Luther's thesis he tacked to the door of the church was a flame too?