What's the best translation for serious Bible study?

[Second Phoenix]

His doctrinal thesis (NYU) was twelve hundred pages that was published into a book: Isrealology the Missing Link in Systematic Theology.

The length of a "thesis", much less the page number, especially in a school not well regarded as a place of theological studies, is absolutely irrelevant. By the way, a dissertation, not a thesis, is normally applicable to those arguing for a doctorate.

One of his books Jesus was a Jew, was on Tony Blair's (British PM) too ten most influential books of his lifetime.

Tony Blair, with his PhD in scripture study?

 

[intojoy]

English is not your first language, is it?

Which is determined by whom?

Well I've only got a fourth grade education.
If you'd rather not talk with me that's fine.

Systematic Theology is the bestest way to study the bible because whatever topic you want to study, the bible doesn't fit it all into one place one spot for you to learn about that subject.
For example the study of angels. If one wants to know what the bible teaches about angels he has to find every passage, every verse that the bible speaks about concerning angels. Once he has all of the verses he can compartmentalize them into a group, study them as a whole and produce a biblical angelology. I hope I didn't f up the grammar this time.

 

[intojoy]

The length of a "thesis", much less the page number, especially in a school not well regarded as a place of theological studies, is absolutely irrelevant. By the way, a dissertation, not a thesis, is normally applicable to those arguing for a doctorate.

Tony Blair, with his PhD in scripture study?

Don't you know who the British prime minister was?

 

[intojoy]

Hmmm silenced. Guess he's looking up systematic theology. That guy needs blocking.

 

[NorrinRadd]

... peaks ...

"Piques."

Mainly because your post leaves the impression that "real" Bible study requires a seminary education, and so comes across as elitist.

 

[Achilles6129]

Please don't take my post the wrong way. It's not meant for you so much as others reading. I have studied scripture at the graduate level (in very serious, academic institutions).

What aspect of scripture do you want to study? There are many ways to look at scripture, so it all depends on your focus. If you want something that affirms what you already believe, you can do that online for free. We need to be really honest with ourselves about why were are doing it and what we hope to accomplish.

If you want to take a serious and critical look at scripture, there are many available means.

In general, someone seriously looking into understanding scripture will use a modern English translation or two alongside an academically rigorous biblical commentary. Academic biblical commentaries can vary in terms of focus. Some are much more interested in the narrative and making connections with other texts. Some have a critical analysis of the structure of the language. Some look at the history, culture, and so forth.

There are many Christians on CF who have no idea what scripture study is. Reading what you want into the KJV is not scripture study. Using online tools to interpret the ancient languages, without the slightest grasp of proto-European/Semetic languages is useless.

I seriously recommend, for someone into truly studying scripture- that they decide what aspect of scripture peaks their interest and collect commentaries on them. Commentaries rely on the latest research and can be very dense and helpful.

I use commentaries as well as different translations. Like I said, my three translations are the NASB, the ESV, and the NRSV. I have found those three to be the three best. But I also use commentaries like the Word Biblical Commentary, New International Commentary, Anchor Yale Commentary, and so on.

 

[Bobby64]

Personally, I believe looking at a certain passage of the Bible in many different translations can really bring it to life. So I would recommend your idea of using more than just one.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Well I've only got a fourth grade education.
If you'd rather not talk with me that's fine.

What you said didn't make sense, I figured it was a language issue.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Hmmm silenced. Guess he's looking up systematic theology. That guy needs blocking.

I didn't post again because I needed sleep.

As for looking it up, I studied systematic theology in grad school while working on my mDiv.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Don't you know who the British prime minister was?

I know who he is - his position has no relevance to the validity or value of a book on 'theology'.

 

[Second Phoenix]

"Piques."

I believe Peaks/Piques can both be used. Peaks meaning 'raises' versus 'excites'. Not that I care, I regularly make grammar mistakes

Mainly because your post leaves the impression that "real" Bible study requires a seminary education, and so comes across as elitist.

Not sure how you got that- I said all you need is a translation or two and good commentaries.

The only reference I made, as I recall, to the use of an education was in studying the language.

 

[Second Phoenix]

I use commentaries as well as different translations. Like I said, my three translations are the NASB, the ESV, and the NRSV. I have found those three to be the three best. But I also use commentaries like the Word Biblical Commentary, New International Commentary, Anchor Yale Commentary, and so on.

Cool. Why did you go with three translations that are somewhat related?

 

[Achilles6129]

Cool. Why did you go with three translations that are somewhat related?

Because I think that they are the most accurate.

 

[Serpentslayer]

KJV should be used to benchmark test other translations. What I do is cross correlate on Biblehub to convey a more sharper and direct meaning.

Many prefer to go for these direct meanings of the bat by preferring these easier translations. The problem is that they fall into the trappings of relying on those interpreters who have brought in their understanding of what the KJV means when in fact it does not mean that at all.

I thought I make you weary to not fall for being to reliant on translations and commentaries because these all have their own preconceived understanding by changing the context altogether.

 

[Iosias]

Nrsv

 

[MoreCoffee]

NAB

CTS NCB for liturgy.

 

[Second Phoenix]

KJV should be used to benchmark test other translations.

Why? It uses outdated language and inferior manuscripts/

What I do is cross correlate on Biblehub to convey a more sharper and direct meaning.

And you have studied Greek and Hebrew?

Many prefer to go for these direct meanings of the bat by preferring these easier translations. The problem is that they fall into the trappings of relying on those interpreters who have brought in their understanding of what the KJV means when in fact it does not mean that at all.

What?!