read the Bible, but which one?

[MorkandMindy]

KJV or NIV

I’ve long used the NIV but numerous very experienced Christians have claimed the KJV from 1611 is more accurate.

I opened both versions at the front and found a funny word in the KJV:

Gen 1 v7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.

So I looked up ‘firmament’ and it means something firm, capable of supporting things, as in firm ground.

And the original Hebrew meant ‘beaten out’ and normally referred to metal beaten out as for example making a metal bowl.

So according to the KJV the original Earth was covered by a metal bowl.

The NIV however gives the modern scientific version; the Hebrew word for ‘beaten out’ appears to have been taken through the meaning ‘stretched’ and into the word ‘expanse’, which in English will be understood to mean an empty expanse, which is very different from a hollow metal bowl.

Has anyone any idea which one is the more accurate translation?

 

[ebia]

KJV or NIV

I’ve long used the NIV but numerous very experienced Christians have claimed the KJV from 1611 is more accurate.

The NIV is an adequate but not terribly scholarly version. The AV/KJV is a very dated version - we have much better texts and much better lexicographic and other understanding than was available in the 16th Century. Niether does a wonderful job of representing current scholarship.

I opened both versions at the front and found a funny word in the KJV:

Gen 1 v7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.

So I looked up ‘firmament’ and it means something firm, capable of supporting things, as in firm ground.

And the original Hebrew meant ‘beaten out’ and normally referred to metal beaten out as for example making a metal bowl.

So according to the KJV the original Earth was covered by a metal bowl.

It means "like a metal bowl", its a metaphor become a word in its own right - which is what languages do. Going back to the root of a word is interesting, but doesn't tell you necessarly what the word means when it is being used.

The NIV however gives the modern scientific version; the Hebrew word for ‘beaten out’ appears to have been taken through the meaning ‘stretched’ and into the word ‘expanse’, which in English will be understood to mean an empty expanse, which is very different from a hollow metal bowl.

Has anyone any idea which one is the more accurate translation?[/quote]
NRSV has dome, which is probably about as close in sense as you're going to get in modern English.

 

[ProfessorJ]

Also, the English Standard Version (ESV) is considered to be one of the better modern translations. It's relatively new, but is as close to a literal translation as they could manage. It's produced by Crossway if you want to see more about it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Well the basic problem is I feel betrayed

The Church I was a member of and attended for almost 5 years and stated as one of it's central doctrines that: 'the Bible is inerrant in it's original manuscripts'

And the pew Bibles, about 200 in number, were all NIVs. So I'm somewhat unhappy to find the NIV is far from accurate.

But even less happy to find it is actually less accurate than the KJV from centuries before.

The only reason they've done a worse job with more translators, more manuscripts and more practice is if they are doing it deliberately. No, I'm not pleased.

I learnt part of Luke and the first chapter of Revelation by heart and now I feel I've wasted it all.

 

[ebia]

Well the basic problem is I feel betrayed

The Church I was a member of and attended for almost 5 years and stated as one of it's central doctrines that: 'the Bible is inerrant in it's original manuscripts'

And the pew Bibles, about 200 in number, were all NIVs. So I'm somewhat unhappy to find the NIV is far from accurate.

But even less happy to find it is actually less accurate than the KJV from centuries before.

The only reason they've done a worse job with more translators, more manuscripts and more practice is if they are doing it deliberately. No, I'm not pleased.

I learnt part of Luke and the first chapter of Revelation by heart and now I feel I've wasted it all.

The NIV is not "far from accurate". It's doesn't set out to be the most precise to the original greek, and there are some points where they could have done better, but it's a perfectly adequate translation. Across the board it's better than the KJV. But no translation can be perfect. Even the greek texts we have are not perfect, but very, very, good, and translation is inherently an imperfect process - you simply cannot capture all the same connotations in a different language. No translation is pefect.

If you want to study Paul's epistles I wouldn't recommend the NIV, but for the gospels its generally fine with the odd phrase that could be improved on. (Most notably "my Kingdom is not of this world" should be "my Kingdom is not from this world").

 

[kiwimac]

NASB is very good for the New Testament while the Jerusalem Bible is among the best for the OT. Just read one which speaks to YOU.

 

[AMR]

Two starting points that may help:

The King James Bible

New International Version

AMR

 

[Standing Up]

Try some online resources to compare, contrast, and delve.

BlueLetterBible.org

Biblios.com

There's two "types" of translations. Dynamic and "word for word".

NIV and NLT are dynamic, giving the thought behind the words (supposedly).

NASB, KJV, WEB, Young, etc, are more "accurate" word for word.

This assumes your question serious.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The NIV is an adequate but not terribly scholarly version. The AV/KJV is a very dated version - we have much better texts and much better lexicographic and other understanding than was available in the 16th Century. Niether does a wonderful job of representing current scholarship.


It means "like a metal bowl", its a metaphor become a word in its own right - which is what languages do. Going back to the root of a word is interesting, but doesn't tell you necessarly what the word means when it is being used.

The NIV however gives the modern scientific version; the Hebrew word for ‘beaten out’ appears to have been taken through the meaning ‘stretched’ and into the word ‘expanse’, which in English will be understood to mean an empty expanse, which is very different from a hollow metal bowl.

Has anyone any idea which one is the more accurate translation?

NRSV has dome, which is probably about as close in sense as you're going to get in modern English.

It appears there are two alternatives for the KJV 'firmament'

Two Hebrew words are given by Strongs: 7549 which appears to be pronounced raw-kee and 7554 raw-kah

These translate: 7549 as 'expanse' or as the 'visible arch of the sky'
and 7554 as 'pound' 'beat' 'spread out into plates' 'stamp' or 'stretch

Which left me totally baffled,


But apparently the term is used again in Job 37:

18Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (KJV)

18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze? (NIV)

18Can you, like him,(Y) spread out the skies,
hard as a cast metal(Z) mirror? (ESV)

Can you, like him, spread out the skies,
unyielding as a cast mirror? (NRSV)


And there the versions seem to agree on the term.

Gen 1 clearly needed a noun, such as 'canopy', or 'dome' or 'metal plate' or something.

The NIV opted for a verb meaning as in 'beat' or 'stretched' but both of those leave the obvious question 'beaten what?' or 'stretched what?'. Fortunately the weasel word 'expanse' leaves the reader to imagine what it is made out of even though there is abundant evidence that what is meant is a firm structure.

It leaves me thinking I should use a pre scientific version such as the KJV because more recent ones have been deliberately worded to accommodate modern science

 

[Sketcher]

Both the NIV and KJV are accurate Bibles, but people get hung up on 1611 English. I use both personally.

The verses you're listing are poetic in the description of God's creation as well. It helps to not take them over-literally. You do need to take the Bible literally, as in this prophet did exist, really say these things, and really do this miracle, and when it gives you a command, it really is God's command. But over-literal interpretation like the earth being a metal bowl or Solomon's wife's hair being a flock of goats just isn't what anyone needs to do, and it's not what conservative believers mean by "taking the Bible literally."

 

[AMR]

More info on various Bible versions (too long to post here):

Bible Translations I Own - Christian Forums

AMR

 

[ebia]

Has anyone any idea which one is the more accurate translation?

What exactly counts as accuracy of translation isn't quite that simple.
Words have multiple meanings - so a word in hebrew might literally mean an beaten out sheet of metal, but also be used for something that shares the characteristics of that. "Firmament" isn't a bad word, except it is archaic - nobody uses it any more so its meaningless to most people - and most modern translations avoid archaic words. So NRSV uses bowl, other translations go for a more vague 'expanse'. There is no "correct" translation because there is no word in English that literally means something stamped out with ones feet, had come to mean the inside of a metal bowl on the one hand and a large expanse that shares the characteristics of that on the other.

It leaves me thinking I should use a pre scientific version such as the KJV because more recent ones have been deliberately worded to accommodate modern science

It's more about accomodation for changes in language. You're focussing on this one verse, but there are many other cases where the KJV is quite misleading because (a) lexicography has moved on - we have a much better understanding of what some Hebrew and Greek words meant (b) manuscript evidence has moved on - the Greek texts in particular are much closer to the original than that available to the KJV translators (c) the English language has moved on - some of the English words in the KJV simply do not mean now what they meant then and (d) the KJV translators had their own presuppositions and cultural influences just as much as a modern translator.

 

[sb81]

KJV or NIV

I’ve long used the NIV but numerous very experienced Christians have claimed the KJV from 1611 is more accurate.

I opened both versions at the front and found a funny word in the KJV:

Gen 1 v7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.

So I looked up ‘firmament’ and it means something firm, capable of supporting things, as in firm ground.

And the original Hebrew meant ‘beaten out’ and normally referred to metal beaten out as for example making a metal bowl.

So according to the KJV the original Earth was covered by a metal bowl.

The NIV however gives the modern scientific version; the Hebrew word for ‘beaten out’ appears to have been taken through the meaning ‘stretched’ and into the word ‘expanse’, which in English will be understood to mean an empty expanse, which is very different from a hollow metal bowl.

Has anyone any idea which one is the more accurate translation?

I read the NIV due to it flowing better as I read it. I believe the message to be just as powerful. Granted, some mistranslations may come up, as you speak of, however if one does not jump to any conclusions about their interpretations, they should be fine.

Following a good Bible study will also be able to point out some instances of these translations and give you a better understanding and refer back to the original Hebrew. I personally suggest Dr. Vernon McGee from Thru the Bible radio. You can download the MP3s for free, or purchase them if you wish. However, I still must suggest remaining open-minded even when following Bible studies instead of forming solid conclusions on interpretations.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Also, the English Standard Version (ESV) is considered to be one of the better modern translations. It's relatively new, but is as close to a literal translation as they could manage. It's produced by Crossway if you want to see more about it.

I did look it up, don't like Gen 1 in it, if I start looking through other passages I'm likely to spend more time comparing Bibles than reading one

The NIV is an adequate but not terribly scholarly version. The AV/KJV is a very dated version - we have much better texts and much better lexicographic and other understanding than was available in the 16th Century. Niether does a wonderful job of representing current scholarship.


It means "like a metal bowl", its a metaphor become a word in its own right - which is what languages do. Going back to the root of a word is interesting, but doesn't tell you necessarly what the word means when it is being used.

The NIV however gives the modern scientific version; the Hebrew word for ‘beaten out’ appears to have been taken through the meaning ‘stretched’ and into the word ‘expanse’, which in English will be understood to mean an empty expanse, which is very different from a hollow metal bowl.

NRSV has dome, which is probably about as close in sense as you're going to get in modern English.

Yes, I like that, also the NRSV has no verse numbers to clutter up the text, it is better for reading:

'And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.'

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
If you want to study Paul's epistles I wouldn't recommend the NIV, but for the gospels its generally fine with the odd phrase that could be improved on. (Most notably "my Kingdom is not of this world" should be "my Kingdom is not from this world").

Wow. 'not from this world' makes a lot more sense. I wonder if my life would have worked out differently if I had used a different translation.

When I read the gospel I did my best to follow it, but in the end couldn't 'get the power on the road'. In accordance with the command in Luke I did give my money away and follow the command to 'go tell people that the Kingdom of God is at hand' but there really didn't seem to be a message, anything more meaningful to tell people.

'My Kingdom is not of this world' just doesn't mean a lot. It seems to mean the Kingdom will always be off somewhere else, up in the sky perhaps because that is where the heavens are described as being located in Gen 1, but I said it was a spiritual dimension, and then couldn't really be a whole lot more specific other than to say there was a spiritual dimension and a spiritual warfare and then well we used resources in this one such as money and food to help the poor and that helped win the spiritual war.

Lk 4 42 At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." 44And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea

Lk 8 1 After this, Jesus travelled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases

Lk 9 1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

LK 17 20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."


My Bible knowledge was limited to Luke and I can really only say that further reading would:

1. Have helped if I had also read the other gospels to get a better idea of what the Kingdom was all about, principally Mathew's Sermon on the Mount

2. Would have hindered because the good deeds demanded by the gospels, particularly Luke are then contradicted by the Pauline Epistles where faith is all that matters and good deeds are as filthy rags.


Scripture says the Spirit would guide us into all truth. I went to church morning, afternoon Bible Study, and sometimes evening as well, mid week Bible study, mid week prayer meeting, and had my own quiet hour reading the Bible, read almost the whole thing in the Good News (TEV) and had little idea how it all fitted together. Every Tuesday night the Christian Union had a visiting speaker and I listened to them, still no idea, just a multitude of bits and pieces, lots of opinions that conflicted with each other.


Well the Spirit was not guiding me but he must be guiding others, so I talked to other people and they had even less idea than I did. I even got appointed a Bible study teacher because of my knowledge, and although I knew loads of specifics and principles I still didn't have an overall picture.

Guidance was the big obstacle, that is I didn't have the whole road map, but I didn't even have the tiny little bit I was in, or what to do next.

The evangelists originally responsible for my conversion said 'God has a plan for your life', that was in the first of the four points.

When I decided to follow Jesus I then asked what that plan was and got referred to the Bible and, well, I've just described what happened. I bought a book called 'Guidance' and read it and basically it said that God has promised to guide.

After 10 years I just plain stopped. I wondered who I was really serving and what I was achieving. My own life and my own mental state had not improved either so I was evidently doing something wrong. So I paused awaiting instructions. I'm still waiting.

 

[Willtor]

Wow. 'not from this world' makes a lot more sense. I wonder if my life would have worked out differently if I had used a different translation.

When I read the gospel I did my best to follow it, but in the end couldn't 'get the power on the road'. In accordance with the command in Luke I did give my money away and follow the command to 'go tell people that the Kingdom of God is at hand' but there really didn't seem to be a message, anything more meaningful to tell people.

'My Kingdom is not of this world' just doesn't mean a lot. It seems to mean the Kingdom will always be off somewhere else, up in the sky perhaps because that is where the heavens are described as being located in Gen 1, but I said it was a spiritual dimension, and then couldn't really be a whole lot more specific other than to say there was a spiritual dimension and a spiritual warfare and then well we used resources in this one such as money and food to help the poor and that helped win the spiritual war.

Lk 4 42 At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." 44And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea

Lk 8 1 After this, Jesus travelled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases

Lk 9 1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

LK 17 20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."


My Bible knowledge was limited to Luke and I can really only say that further reading would:

1. Have helped if I had also read the other gospels to get a better idea of what the Kingdom was all about, principally Mathew's Sermon on the Mount

2. Would have hindered because the good deeds demanded by the gospels, particularly Luke are then contradicted by the Pauline Epistles where faith is all that matters and good deeds are as filthy rags.


Scripture says the Spirit would guide us into all truth. I went to church morning, afternoon Bible Study, and sometimes evening as well, mid week Bible study, mid week prayer meeting, and had my own quiet hour reading the Bible, read almost the whole thing in the Good News (TEV) and had little idea how it all fitted together. Every Tuesday night the Christian Union had a visiting speaker and I listened to them, still no idea, just a multitude of bits and pieces, lots of opinions that conflicted with each other.


Well the Spirit was not guiding me but he must be guiding others, so I talked to other people and they had even less idea than I did. I even got appointed a Bible study teacher because of my knowledge, and although I knew loads of specifics and principles I still didn't have an overall picture.

Guidance was the big obstacle, that is I didn't have the whole road map, but I didn't even have the tiny little bit I was in, or what to do next.

The evangelists originally responsible for my conversion said 'God has a plan for your life', that was in the first of the four points.

When I decided to follow Jesus I then asked what that plan was and got referred to the Bible and, well, I've just described what happened. I bought a book called 'Guidance' and read it and basically it said that God has promised to guide.

After 10 years I just plain stopped. I wondered who I was really serving and what I was achieving. My own life and my own mental state had not improved either so I was evidently doing something wrong. So I paused awaiting instructions. I'm still waiting.

Och, I'm really sorry to hear this, MorkandMindy. I identify with your predicament because I have often felt pulled in many different, ambiguous directions. If I may, though, I'd like to sum up the Bible as I understand it, and I hope it's a useful data point for you, and not too ambiguous:

Ultimately the purpose of God's communicating with us is to make Himself known. It is on account of the Fall that we don't simply know, already. His intention is to restore fellowship between us and Him, and us and one another. Recall that the whole Old Testament was summed up with:

‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ [Jesus] said to [the lawyer], ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
-- Matthew 22:36-40

The gospel, in this context, is the restoration of a divine relationship. This is why Jesus didn't have his disciples run around saying (for example), "repent! or you're going to hell!" but rather, "repent! for the kingdom of Heaven is near!" Essentially, we are restored to fellowship with God through Christ.

This is all very general, of course. Individually and as the corporate body of Christ, we discover what this fellowship is through obeying God's commandments and learning to love God and one another more perfectly. A starting point is God's constant condemnation of the affluent and powerful in the Old Testament when they didn't take care of the needy and voiceless. The implication is that God intends for those who have much to take care of those who have little. Look around you for where there is need. The specific instruction of God is contextual to your unique place in the world and in history.

The version of the Bible you use is not so important for this end. God speaks of justice, mercy, grace, and peace, and recognizing (and learning from) these things in the stories and teachings is not hidden in basically any translation.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

Och, I'm really sorry to hear this, MorkandMindy. I identify with your predicament because I have often felt pulled in many different, ambiguous directions. If I may, though, I'd like to sum up the Bible as I understand it, and I hope it's a useful data point for you, and not too ambiguous:

Ultimately the purpose of God's communicating with us is to make Himself known. It is on account of the Fall that we don't simply know, already. His intention is to restore fellowship between us and Him, and us and one another. Recall that the whole Old Testament was summed up with:

‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ [Jesus] said to [the lawyer], ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’
-- Matthew 22:36-40

The gospel, in this context, is the restoration of a divine relationship. This is why Jesus didn't have his disciples run around saying (for example), "repent! or you're going to hell!" but rather, "repent! for the kingdom of Heaven is near!" Essentially, we are restored to fellowship with God through Christ.

This is all very general, of course. Individually and as the corporate body of Christ, we discover what this fellowship is through obeying God's commandments and learning to love God and one another more perfectly. A starting point is God's constant condemnation of the affluent and powerful in the Old Testament when they didn't take care of the needy and voiceless. The implication is that God intends for those who have much to take care of those who have little. Look around you for where there is need. The specific instruction of God is contextual to your unique place in the world and in history.

The version of the Bible you use is not so important for this end. God speaks of justice, mercy, grace, and peace, and recognizing (and learning from) these things in the stories and teachings is not hidden in basically any translation.

Well thank you for your sympathy and suggestions. I unfortunately don't really get it even now. I spent 6 months, most of it leading, a Bible Study on Israel and the Minor Prophets, and a lot of time on other parts of the Old Testament. If it really can be summarised in two statements I really wasted a lot of time. And a lot of pain too; the killing of the first born in Egypt, killing with the sword everyone old and young in Jericho and the animals too, Sisera and the tent peg.

In my own Bible study I followed Search the Scriptures by IVP so I got Luke then Genesis sort of interleaved, Acts, Exodus I think, and Joshua soon after. No shortage of nasty stuff and I don't have a TV mainly because of all the nasty stuff on it.

I wish I'd bought a Bible with 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' instead of an Old Testament.

 

[ebia]

Wow. 'not from this world' makes a lot more sense. I wonder if my life would have worked out differently if I had used a different translation.

Indeed. "of" is just to vague and open to mis-interpretation. Oddly enough, though, every Christian prays "your kingdom come ... on earth as it is in heaven".

When I read the gospel I did my best to follow it, but in the end couldn't 'get the power on the road'. In accordance with the command in Luke I did give my money away and follow the command to 'go tell people that the Kingdom of God is at hand' but there really didn't seem to be a message, anything more meaningful to tell people.

I'm sorry to hear that - Luke is a powerful book if one grasps that it is the gospel, not something that at best contains some version of the gospel somewhere toward the end and some strangely disconnected teaching in the meantime.
My Bible knowledge was limited to Luke and I can really only say that further reading would:

1. Have helped if I had also read the other gospels to get a better idea of what the Kingdom was all about, principally Mathew's Sermon on the Mount

2. Would have hindered because the good deeds demanded by the gospels, particularly Luke are then contradicted by the Pauline Epistles where faith is all that matters and good deeds are as filthy rags.

That's a gross mis-reading of Paul - Paul is adamant that what we do matters. But I will agree that Paul is the point where the NIV most often falls short. NRSV or NET are much better on Paul because they don't try to make him fit Luther. It also helps, I think, not to start Paul with Galatians and Romans, treating the latter as a systematic theology, and then try to stuff the other epistles into that framework, but to start with Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians and then the rest fits naturally, capturing more easily what Paul is really trying to say about "work": that the Law was a good thing but it could not complete what needed to be done and that the purpose of the 'Works of the Law (TM)' (ie circumcision, the food and purity laws, and sabbath keeping - the things designed to keep Israel separate) have finished because in Jesus the need to keep Jew and Gentile distinct has come to an end. The new Israel is not marked out by sabbath keeping, food and purity rules and circumcision but by circumcision of the heart - ie faith in Christ Jesus.

After 10 years I just plain stopped. I wondered who I was really serving and what I was achieving. My own life and my own mental state had not improved either so I was evidently doing something wrong. So I paused awaiting instructions. I'm still waiting.

 

[Willtor]

Well thank you for your sympathy and suggestions. I unfortunately don't really get it even now. I spent 6 months, most of it leading, a Bible Study on Israel and the Minor Prophets, and a lot of time on other parts of the Old Testament. If it really can be summarised in two statements I really wasted a lot of time. And a lot of pain too; the killing of the first born in Egypt, everyone old and young in Jericho and the animals too, Sisera and the tent peg.

In my own Bible study I followed Search the Scriptures by IVP so I got Luke then Genesis sort of interleaved, Acts, Exodus I think, and Joshua soon after. No shortage of nasty stuff and I don't have a TV mainly because of all the nasty stuff on it.

I wish I'd bought a Bible with 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' instead of an Old Testament.

Well, to be fair, a summary is just that: a summary. Incidentally, those two commandments are in the Old Testament. Jesus wasn't presenting something new. In fact, he wasn't saying anything particularly controversial (until he applied it in the Good Samaritan parable).

As to some of the destruction... yeah, I don't really know how to respond to that. I don't know how that relates to those two commandments.

 

[Van]

Lets see if I understand this thread. All translations have flaws and it takes too much time to compare the various translations to determine the best translation of a particular passage. This is followed by "after my conversion I was unable to grasp God's plan for my life because all of the efforts I made failed to put my life in perspective.

It sounds like you never went through a discipleship program to ground you in the fundamentals of the faith.

Lets talk a little bit about "firmament." Most modern translations use the word "expanse" rather than firmament. But is it any better? Probably not. Dome seems to be a better translation, capturing the idea of a beaten out inverted bowl for the apparent shape of the sky, coming down to the horizon on all sides yet high above as we look up. But do we really need the translators to put what we consider the best word in every case before we pour ourselves into real bible study? I think not.

Lets say there is a word which does not communicate with our understanding such as firmament or expanse. What should we do, toss our bible out because it is flawed?
Or should we use bible study tools to figure out what the author intended by his use of the Hebrew or Greek word translated as firmament or expanse.

Someone above suggested using the Blue Letter Bible. If you go here:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
you will find the idea is a hemisphere above the earth. So dome works well.
And note that every usage of the word is listed and dome works well in every case.
So without tossing either the KJV or the NIV we can get the actual meaning because of the readily available study tools.

Now some verses lend themselves to very different interpretations, and that is why some Christians believe in the doctrines of Calvinism, and others think Calvinism is false doctrine.

But the basics of Christianity can be gleamed from most any Bible (NIV, KJV, ESV, NRSV and my favorite, the NASB.) All have flaws but with study you can gain a good understanding of God's plan for your life. Christ died for you, and you should be willing to "die" for Christ which is to say abandon whatever is inhibiting you from being a faithful servant of Christ. And you cannot teach others "all that Christ commanded" unless you have learned what Christ has commanded of you.

May God Bless