Which version/edition/translation do you recommend? Which one is the most accurate, to really understand the Bible? I don't want any websites, just name me the best printed Holy Book.
209446
King James \nhuh\ngo to see this site plz \nhttp://www.ahmed-deedat.net/modules.php?name=tapes&op=mydown&did=6\nthis is abt bible \n& its another part\nhttp://www.ahmed-deedat.net/modules.php?name=tapes&op=mydown&did=5\n\nyou can also conact me @\naimooon87@yahoo.com
616287
If you highly recommend it as a good translation of the Upanishad, I would gladly like to receive it. You needn't give it to me for free, I will gladly pay you for it and the shipping. The only version of the Upanishads I have is not very good at all. It only has five of the Upanishads in it and most of the book is "Translator's Commentary". The book was translated by a Christian missionary so the version tends to use Christian terminology (and the Translator's Commentary, which takes up half of the book, is full of "how the Upanishads compare to the Bible"). Its an awful translation! :(  I probably should have known better since the first version of the Bhagavad Gita that I bought was from the same company and it failed to translate a great deal of the Sanskrit (so in the middle of sentences would be Sanskrit phrases, but then no translation of what it meant). Thankfully the head organizers of the satsang I attended got together and got me a copy of the version they use (which is the one that was translated by Christopher Isherwood & Swami Prabhavananda). It's a very good version that I am so thankful to be able to read. That said, if your Upanishads was translated by Swami Prabhavananda then I have great hopes that the translation does a great deal of justice to the Upanishads and well worth the read. \n\nI don't feel comfortable posting my address, etc, here, but you can contact me for that (just click 'contact gabriel_zachary). I do live in the US (Oklahoma). I hope you find a good home for the book (even if not with me...afterall if God intends for me to have it, then it'll be, if not then atleast I now have heard of the book and if you give me your recommendation of it being a good book, then I won't hesitate to buy it at a later date)\n\nPeace be with you,\n\nNate
326265
Ehem...Every single answer-WRONG!\nThe Catholics have a few translations of their own, and like your average protestant, don't get too worked up over translations, since almost all translations are pretty good.\nNew American Bible\nJerusalem Bible\nRevised Standard Version (composed by scholars from alot of different denominations-and some secular scholars, accepted by pretty much everyone, conservatives tend to prefer not to use it. But Catholics use it often)\nNew Revised Standard Version (a killer translation, also includes extra books in the catholic bible)\nDouay-Rheims Bible\n\nFor the record, the King James is far from the most accurate translation. It's still not a BAD translation, dont' get me wrong. But we've learned SO much in the last 400 years that there are a couple places (not hugely important places, but bible nonetheless) that are simply wrong, and alot of places that have been cleared up by extra manuscripts found, especially the dead sea scrolls, and some other things.\n\n\nThe King James is a disctinctly protestant Bible, although it originally had the extra 'catholic books' in it.\n\nEvery now and then you'll hear someone assert that the King James is the best translation, or even that it is THE PERFECT GOD-BREATHED translation, but this is simple ignorance. And they'll quote a couple of books, etc. but it's all from misunderstood history, bad scholarship, etc.\nThere is not a single scholar on the planet, Christian, atheist, or otherwise, that believes the KJV is the most accurate Bible on the market today. There are, however, a number of Christians who think this. These Christians are wrong.\nI don't mean to complain about the KJV, though. It's a pretty decent Bible, as most of them are. But there is stuff that would be easier to read, and virtually everything since then, especially the newer translations, will be a bit clearer in spots.\n\n\nFurther, the apocrypha:\n\nFor forever, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible. \nWell, when the Protestant Reformation took place, alot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty contreversial thing to say. \nSo Luther cut that stuff out.\nSo  the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same. So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.\n\nThis is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.\nSo now you understand the debate.\n\nVery few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the idea of Purgatory finds it's strongest support there), but there are various works of various merit.\n\nIf I were you, I'd go buy a New Revised Standard Version. It's a great translation, it's got the extra books (and even some extra books only used by the Eastern Orthodox churches) , but they are set apart, so you know where they're at, and when you're reading 'protestant bible' and 'catholic bible.'\n\nFor the record, I'd like to return to a Deutero-Canon. I think it fits better with how the early church and Jewish thinkers thought. But that's just commentary.\n\n-stephen\n\nAmendments:\nAll modern translations (with the exceptions of the Living Bible and 'The Message', which are translated from English) are based on Hebrew & Greek manuscripts.\nThe Masoretic text IS a Hebrew manuscript that is the firmest basis for not only the KJV, but also every other modern translation, as it is, almost always, the best text.  So note please, that all the Bibles, inc
32205
I'm glad you asked this question.\n\nThere are several "apocryphal" books. Apocryphal is the word used that means basically "books that aren't concidered divinely inspired". These books were not excepted as scripture for two main reasons.\n1) As far as Old Testament books are concerned, books like "The Book of Enoch," "The Assumption of Moses" and "Odes of Soloman" amongst others, were never excepted even in Jesus' time by the Jews.\n2) In the New Testament, Jesus never refers to them in His teachings.\n\nI have read these books and you really have to take them with a grain of salt. There fantastic stories, but you cannot take them as you would what's in the Bible. I know that in the book of Jude he refers to a couple of them. But you need to realize that these "apocryphal" books do have truths in them, but they cannot be excepted as truth as a whole. Does that make sence? Jude was just pointing out a universal "absolute" truth that was mentioned in one of them.\n\nNow, beware, there are many New Testament "apocryphal" books too. "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Gospel of Mary Magdaline" and many others that are considered "gnostic" gospels. They were written decades after the supposed time the book itself says it was written. Besides that, they don't line up with what IS canonical. You really have to read the introductions the translaters make before you deside to read them.\n\nI do, however, have a recommendation. It is truly safe and helpful to read the writting of the "Early Church Father". This includes saints like Justin Martyr, Ignatious of Antioch, 1 Clement, 2 Clememt, (my favorite) Polycarp, all of these men were the disciples of the disciples and they have really alot of encouraging and helpful things to say about how church was when it was still a baby. \n\nThere is so much more that I would like to relay on this subject but I'm afraid that I'm taking to much of your time.  There is one other thing, for a good, easy reading book on the subject that will answer all of your questions I recommend a book called, "How we got the Bible" by Neil Lightfoot. You can find it at any Christian bookstore, and many secular bookstores too.
539515
I saw the same thing and am trying to find that gospel and the gospel of Mary and to tell you the truth all of the gospels they were talking about. I'm not so sure that it is real or fake but the bible says test all things.... also says seek wisdom, not just biblical wisdom. Kudos from me, your on the right track...however, I seriously doubt the authenticity of the book. Googling it doesn't help much!
178342
for new testament study, i actually read the original language, Greek.  there is no substitute... learn it if you ever have the opportunity!  for general reading, i typically read the nasb or esv because they tend to be the most literal without as much translators interpretation involved... but a faithful paraphrase like the nlt (new living) or an "optimal" translation like the hcsb is always helpful as well\n\nkatlyn, i really have the same concern though about not getting the full meaning... i certainly don't understand it as good as the native speakers did, and i understand english much better, but my hope is that over time it will get more natural.  it is invaluable being able to see what's really going on semantically though, so you're not in the dark when people talk about such things, don't you think?
24205
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/\n\nI like how you said "Now that there are different versions of the book." Welcome to the 16th century.
382853
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version \n\nWith Challoner Revisions 1749-52\n1899 Edition of the John Murphy Company\n\nIMPRIMATUR: \nJames Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.\n\nPope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546. \n\nThe DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles. \n\nThe whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. \n\nThe DR Bible was photographically reproduced from the 1899 edition of the John Murphy Company, Baltimore, Maryland, by Tan Books in 1971. Eventually, this edition was optically scanned to produce a large text file which this publisher used for creating this website, with the aid of text-processing software. \n\nOne important goal of this project was to preserve the original text "as is", without making any changes in the wording, because the original text had the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, dated Sept 1st 1899. \n\nThe text file was checked quite thoroughly by software written by the publisher for punctuation errors and verses out of order. The index was humanly checked for misspelled words and the corrections were made to the text. However, some spelling errors may still be present in the text. Many verses were out of order in the original file. These have been corrected. \n\nEvery effort was made to ensure that this online version is an exact match to the original printed version. No words were added or ommitted from the text, except for correcting errors caused by the scanning process. No words were rearranged. No verse numbers were changed, except in the case of Psalm 9. \n\nPsalm 9 originally contained 21 verses and there were 2 versions of Psalm 10, numbering 1-18 and 1-8. This obviously caused a conflict, so it was decided to make the first Psalm 10 as the last part of Psalm 9 and renumber the verses 22-39. This retains the same numbering as all the Douay Rheims. Note, in the Protestant Bibles the numbering of Psalms 10 through 146 differs by one.
69172
I love this one - http://www.watchtower.org/bible/ - It's translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and written in modern , understandable English.
450688
Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible to be the only "holy book" of real interest to true worshippers such as themselves.\nhttp://www.watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_02.htm\n\nIt is true that Witnesses have made famous the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", which they print and distribute. There are more than 130 million copies of this modern-language bible in print, in dozens of languages.\nhttp://watchtower.org/languages.htm\n\nThe entire text of NWT is freely available at the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a personal printed copy can be requested at no charge:\nhttp://watchtower.org/bible/\nhttps://watch002.securesites.net/contact/submit.htm\nhttp://watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm\n\n\nJehovah's Witnesses certainly like NWT, but they are happy to use any translation which an interested person may prefer, and in fact Jehovah's Witnesses themselves distribute other translations besides NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses attach no particular infallibility or inspiration to NWT.\n\nIt seems signficant that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones best known for their worldwide preaching work. Yet Jesus commanded that ALL who would call themselves "Christian" perform this public work:\n\n(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.\n\nLearn more:\nhttp://watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm\nhttp://watchtower.org/e/na/\nhttp://watchtower.org/e/20020915/article_01.htm\nhttp://www.watchtower.org/e/20050715/article_02.htm
149140
I have found the Application Study Bible NLT to be a great bible for study. The language is modern and the study notes are awesome. Remember, things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned, so always pray for wisdom and understanding before you read.
86790
Why are there so many different versions of the bible?\n\nHere I must assume you are refering to translations. . . there are many different translations because it is difficult to take words from one language (one that is very old, in fact) and put them into another language (one that is changing every day).  Since different groups translate the Bible, the text comes out slightly different, but "should" generally be close to the same in idea at least. \n\nWhy are their so many different kinds of Christians?\n\nThere are many different Christian sects because men struggle to agree with each other.  For a time, there was one Church, but then there was a division between East and West and later a division between Catholic and Protestant.  The Protestant Reformation has resulted in a huge number of sects developing, and each has, over time, developed differing concepts about the faith.  \n\n\nIf Christianty has stayed perfect and unchanging for 2000 years, then why are there so many variants within it?\n\nWho says it has?  I don't think anyone with any knowledge about Church history would say that.  Nothing that passes through the hands of so many humans can remain perfect . . . only God is perfect.
89171
I like the Amercian Standard Bible.  When studying, it is good to have a few versions to look at, since English is not the orginal language of the Bible, the translations vary slightly.  If you read more than one version, you will have a better understanding of the original intention of the writer.\n\nMost importantly, as you study, pray and ask God to reveal himself to you through His Word, and you will receive insight you could never grasp on your own.\n\nKeep reading!
260793
What bible you speak of..Jewish, Christian or Muslim bible? does not matter which one you would use as tolite paper..it is so so so wrong to do that...
309066
Does this mean that the first man in the holy book was the bastard son of a goddess? Who got her pregnant. I like this story. Was it one of the other Gods?
217327
Look at it from all perspectives, not just the Holy blood holy Grail side of it. Get Holy Blood Holy Grail. Based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. \n\nThis website has a weath of information of the other perspective, disproving that it isnt true.(against the Di Vincicode and The Dead Sea Scrolls)
603742
The original was written in Hebrew & Greek but now in English written bibles I have found that the King James Version is the closest. Don't take my word for that but it is the bible that I study from. What you need to do is pray about it and ask God to show you where He wants you to read His Word from.