Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Bob Carabbio]

Which Bible is the true Bible?

I find it disheartening that there are so many versions of the Bible out there, all with different books in them, making it virtually impossible for a Christian to determine which is the true Bible and inspired word of God.

• Is it the Greek Orthodox Bible, with books such as 1 Esdras and Letter of Jeremiah, which are not in the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or Anglican Bibles?
• Is it the Catholic Bible, with books such as Baruch, which are not in the Protestant Bibles?
• Is it the Protestant Bible, which does not have books such as Wisdom of Solomon that are in the Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican Bibles?
• Or is it the Anglican Bible, with books such as 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon and The Prayer of Manasses that are not in the Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Bibles?

How can Christians claim that the Bible is divinely-inspired by God when we cannot agree on which Bible was divinely inspired by God?

Simple: NONE OF THEM, and all of them. In the final analysis the BEST Translation is the one you'll actually READ. 70 years ago I started (and learned to read in) the KJV. and since I know it best, and understand the "Work Arounds" for places where the translation isn't good, I'll not be changing anytime soon. In the final analysis, all Bibles say the same thing, and the differences are trivial. The "Safety" is that the Holy Spirit won't empower what He didn't say.

 

[OzSpen]

My Common English Bible is on the way - thanks, Oz !!

Episcopius,

One reviewer said he considered the New Living Translation was better than the Common English Bible. Here's another review: https://www.cbeinternational.org/re...-academic-journal/book-review-ceb-study-bible

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Simple: NONE OF THEM, and all of them. In the final analysis the BEST Translation is the one you'll actually READ. 70 years ago I started (and learned to read in) the KJV. and since I know it best, and understand the "Work Arounds" for places where the translation isn't good, I'll not be changing anytime soon. In the final analysis, all Bibles say the same thing, and the differences are trivial. The "Safety" is that the Holy Spirit won't empower what He didn't say.

Bob,

I think you are being too casual with your view of 'the Bible and the work arounds'. Try that when telling us why some books are in the RCC translations and other books are in the Eastern Orthodox translations and still others are in the Protestant Bibles.

Oz

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob,

I think you are being too casual with your view of 'the Bible and the work arounds'. Try that when telling us why some books are in the RCC translations and other books are in the Eastern Orthodox translations and still others are in the Protestant Bibles.

Oz

Better question - tell us ONE THING in the "Deuterocanonical" books used by the Catholic denominations that is of any Spiritual Value whatsoever. WHat are we "Protestants missing by not having them?? (note: the KJV DID INCLUDE the deuteros up until the late 19th century when they were dropped since they had no value.)

 

[OzSpen]

Better question - tell us ONE THING in the "Deuterocanonical" books used by the Catholic denominations that is of any Spiritual Value whatsoever. WHat are we "Protestants missing by not having them?? (note: the KJV DID INCLUDE the deuteros up until the late 19th century when they were dropped since they had no value.)

Bob,

I found this to be an excellent overview of the Apocrypha: 'What Has Been the Historical View of Christians Toward the Old Testament Apocrypha?' (Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible)

In Codex Alexandrinus the order is: Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees, Fourth Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Psalms of Solomon.... we find that Codex Vaticanus does not contain Second Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh. However, it does include Psalm 151 and 1 Esdras.
Codex Sinaiticus omits Second Maccabees and Baruch, but it includes Psalm 151, First Esdras and Fourth Maccabees.
Codex Alexandrinus includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon and Third and Fourth Maccabees.
Note that none of these Greek manuscripts contain all of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. In fact, only four (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus) are found in all of them. Thus, no Greek manuscript has the exact list of Old Testament Apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent.

The Wycliffe Bible contained the Apocrypha.The Geneva Bible was used for the foundation of the American colonies. It included the Apocrypha but separated it from the OT and NT. John Bunyan, William Shakespeare, and John Milton used this Bible. As you've indicated, the earliest KJV of 1611 contained the Apocrypha. There is an ESV edition that contains the Apocrypha as well as an NLT version.

Luther accepted the Apocrypha in his German Bible, but not as inspired Scripture. John & Charles Wesley quoted the Apocrypha.

These RCC translations contained the Apocrypha: Douay-Rheims American Version (DRA), King James Apocrypha (KJA), Brenton LXX with Apocrypha (LXA), New American Bible (NAB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV).

As for my reading of the Apocrypha, I took it in a course in a Christian college. I found the most historical help in the 4 books of Maccabees. However, I do not go to the Apocrypha for spiritual refreshment.

Oz

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

The first bible written in koine Greek by GOD.

And yes it's still available, and it only tells one version, not many ?.
You just have to study a little harder.

My name is OLIGOS

 

[OzSpen]

The first bible written in koine Greek by GOD.

And yes it's still available, and it only tells one version, not many ?.
You just have to study a little harder.

My name is OLIGOS

Oligos,

So the biggest part of your Bible (OT) is missing because it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Have you read the one version of the Bible? Which one is that?

Oz

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob,

I found this to be an excellent overview of the Apocrypha: 'What Has Been the Historical View of Christians Toward the Old Testament Apocrypha?' (Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible)


The Wycliffe Bible contained the Apocrypha.The Geneva Bible was used for the foundation of the American colonies. It included the Apocrypha but separated it from the OT and NT. John Bunyan, William Shakespeare, and John Milton used this Bible. As you've indicated, the earliest KJV of 1611 contained the Apocrypha. There is an ESV edition that contains the Apocrypha as well as an NLT version.

Luther accepted the Apocrypha in his German Bible, but not as inspired Scripture. John & Charles Wesley quoted the Apocrypha.

These RCC translations contained the Apocrypha: Douay-Rheims American Version (DRA), King James Apocrypha (KJA), Brenton LXX with Apocrypha (LXA), New American Bible (NAB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV).

As for my reading of the Apocrypha, I took it in a course in a Christian college. I found the most historical help in the 4 books of Maccabees. However, I do not go to the Apocrypha for spiritual refreshment.

Oz

So NOTHING of spiritual significance, then, as I thought. I never bothered woth Any of it for the same reason. Catholics, at least, dug one of the proof texts for their phony "Purgatorial Sanctification" lie out of 2 Maccabees.

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

Oligos,

So the biggest part of your Bible (OT) is missing because it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Have you read the one version of the Bible? Which one is that?

Oz

OzSpen
I think it's easy to tell which part of the bible I was referring to.

I have quite a few different versions of the "COMPLETE" bible, but don't favor any one completely, but usually take the NASB version to bible studies, and base many of my studies using the NASB, but still enjoy comparing the differences of many different versions in English.
I do like study bibles and enjoy comparing the initial pages of each book, and the thoughts that's shared where there is a "Survey" and Explaination's "about the author".

Most bibles have wordage differences and useages. I love to do word studies, as word meanings especially in the original language, can really surprise me, and changes the entire context and meaning of scripture for me.

After beginning to study the New Testament in it's original languages, which was and is, still a struggle, but continues to drive me, as I have found more truth, and more exciting depth in the original languages, mostly Koine Greek, my understanding of quite a few topics changed somewhat, and I just love the expansiveness and inclusiveness, that the English language isn't capable of.
It's "thrilling" to be able to understand the bible in a way never made available to me in any other way.
YES..it has been a struggle, but I think it should be because I want God's truth and am "Passionate" to find it, and the rewards have been FABULOUS personally, and so much more FULFILLING to have more of the COMPLETE TRUTH that I have searched for, for 40+years, and the expansiveness of particular words, opens up so much more of how the authors of each book were thinking and how the words had such deeper meanings than what we're told today.

If you study how the bible was translated and transliterated into English, the translators were faced with choosing English words that they "THOUGHT" would convey the meaning of a word, but sometimes there was no exact or sometimes even close translation into English - hence, back to the original language for me, which is BEAUTIFUL.

Over the years, I have invested in creating a library to help me study and understand the Koine Greek language. I simply can't imagine not knowing what I know now. My faith has been expanded far beyond where I would have ever come to without these studies, including my study of the history of the bible and the history of Christianity.

I'm just thankful God called me to this, as I would have missed out on so much.
For me, it's just astounding what I have learned, and not missed out on.

For me, a wonderful way to study, but I'm sure it's not for everyone.

My name is OLIGOS

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I do not go to the Apocrypha for spiritual refreshment.

That's because there's nothing of Spiritual significance in 'em. Israel's history of SPIRITUAL FAILURE is already well documented without them.

SO the KJV (and other modern translations) lose NOTHING by eliminating them.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the KJV for a new Christian, because of the language, but all Bibles say the same thing, so one's as good as another.

 

[Moseme]

Is The Gospel of Thomas in The true Bible? If not, why not?

The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus performing miracles as a child which he never would have done having taken the form of a servant and making himself of no reputation. His entire life he used the father's authority and the holy spirits power. And he only used the spirits power for miracles after being baptised. So miracles as a child are impossible and the gospel of Thomas is untrue.

 

[Moseme]

I use the kjv because that is what my friends use and I have no problems reading it because I am familiar with the language of it. I have also read other books that people argue about the apocrypha, book of Enoch, gospel of thomas. I read these because I wanted to test them myself and the short of it is that I found them not to be holy scripture. There was no cohesion like the rest books in the bible and often there are contradictions. Maccabees even admits to not having divine inspiration and being the product of a man. I am not saying that the bible is complete just that so far from what I have read the 66 books are the only ones to have divine inspiration.

 

[Edward]

Don't sweat the small stuff. The Lord is alive within me. He has done so much for me that these things are evident. I trust the Lord. He has done for me time and time again and built a fine resume of trust within me. So in retrospect, I look back and see that the Bible that was put into my hand when I very first was introduced to the Lord...was a KV Bible. I was weaned on a KJV Bible and have come to like the colorful language.

So should I now question if it is the "right" version? Why should I? I trust the Lord and I believe that, getting the right book into my hands was His responsibility. I have to believe that God is capable of getting me a decent copy of His word, come on now! His book even says that, His Holy Spirit will lead us into some truth.

Did you catch that typo, lol?! It says, His Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. And that His words will never pass away. So obviously the Holy Spirit was on the job before I ever received that first Bible! And it has to be complete enough as is or else something passed away, right? So to me, KJV is ok.

Now in addition to the KJV, the Lord actually gave me a defining endorsement of the NKJV Bibles also. I have a pretty big testimony attached to how that came about! So when I use Bible Gateway.com I read the KJV and I use the NKJV as a parallel text.

As far as apocryphal texts go, sure, I've read quite a few non-canonical texts. Enoch, Jubilees, The Gospel of Thomas, and others. Now these texts are not canon but that does not mean that they are not useful. And of course, these texts would have to be judged on the content of their message. Take The Gospel of Thomas for instance. It's purported to be a collection of quotes from Jesus. I read it. It struck me as being just the way Jesus talked in KJV or whatever. It's how He sounds. It doesn't contradict the canonized scripture at all. Now if the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth, then how did I ever come to read it? I did not look for it. And there it was. The content of the message, Brothers & Sisters.

I can not be dogmatic about the KJV, NKJV or Thomas. How could I? I couldn't know if the Lord put a different version into your hand which spoke more to your background/thinking process/heart more than a KJV? All I know is what I know, and I trust you, Holy Spirit. I trust you Jesus...don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus performing miracles as a child which he never would have done having taken the form of a servant and making himself of no reputation. His entire life he used the father's authority and the holy spirits power. And he only used the spirits power for miracles after being baptised. So miracles as a child are impossible and the gospel of Thomas is untrue.

True. Thomas is an imaginative piece of work, but totally worthless in a Spiritual sense.

 

[OzSpen]

That's because there's nothing of Spiritual significance in 'em. Israel's history of SPIRITUAL FAILURE is already well documented without them.

SO the KJV (and other modern translations) lose NOTHING by eliminating them.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the KJV for a new Christian, because of the language, but all Bibles say the same thing, so one's as good as another.

Except for Mark 16:9-20, which contains some fanciful/heretical theology.

 

[OzSpen]

The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus performing miracles as a child which he never would have done having taken the form of a servant and making himself of no reputation. His entire life he used the father's authority and the holy spirits power. And he only used the spirits power for miracles after being baptised. So miracles as a child are impossible and the gospel of Thomas is untrue.

It's in the Pseudepigrapha and represents a false gospel with gnostic teaching.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Except for Mark 16:9-20, which contains some fanciful/heretical theology.

Unless it doesn't, of course.

 

[Moseme]

It's in the Pseudepigrapha and represents a false gospel with gnostic teaching.

Lol I did not know that it belonged to a special group. I just knew that it was false.

 

[OzSpen]

Lol I did not know that it belonged to a special group. I just knew that it was false.

Moseme,

Do you know the difference between the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha? Have you read any of the fanciful teaching of Tobit in the Aprocrypha?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Unless it doesn't, of course.

Bob,

So, do you accept all of the teaching of Mark 16:9-20 as breathed out by God? Is there no false teaching here?

Oz