Bible Recommendations
- Thread starter Scott C F
- Start date
I prefer KJV when memorizing, NASB for a better translation, NIV for an easier read and I have Amplified.
I use NIV and NLT for a quick easy read.. In my Church NIV is used primarily.. When I do personal Bible Study, I always use ESV..
KJV with a Greek & Hebrew reference like Strong's Numbers etc...
NKJV, NASB
http://www.e-sword.net/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.christnotes.org/
http://www.bibletopics.com/
NKJV, NASB
http://www.e-sword.net/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://www.christnotes.org/
http://www.bibletopics.com/
Well you could settle the issue by asking your pastor to preach a sermon from the Niv based on :::
Deu 22:28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes (rapes..Niv) her and lies with her, and they are found,
Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
If he is an honest Bible expositor, he will straight away stop using the Niv and forever more move on to a more Godly translation.
The key point here is that the girl, (maybe an 8 year old) must go and be her attackers wife...clean his house, mend his clothes later on bare his children, cook his meals and so on......really? would Jesus advocate this???
A better translation as supplied by the Esv is that there is consent here in which they are discovered.....they are both guilty of sexual misconduct and......there are consequences.
I've read the passage mentioned in a few translations and I got the same message from all of them. NIV just says it how we would say it today. I'm not an NIV fan but the reference you made doesn't support anything.
The passage isn't meant to give someone a free pass to rape a woman. Back then if a woman is raped no man would want her. This law was to make someone think twice before doing it because when you get caught you will marry her for life. The woman would most likely rather marry the jerk than live as an outcast. They lived in different times back then.
The trick is, rape is covered a few verses earlier and carries the death penalty.
Deu 22:23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. Sounds like adultery to me, and carries the same penalty as rape.
Deu 22:25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,
Deu 22:27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
Now that sounds awfully like rape...yes??
Ceile Dei posted::
The point to look for is that "they are discovered" not, 'he is discovered'.......it it dealing with sex by consent not rape...rape was dealt with earlier,get it??
Deu 22:23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. Sounds like adultery to me, and carries the same penalty as rape.
Deu 22:25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,
Deu 22:27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
Now that sounds awfully like rape...yes??
Ceile Dei posted::
As you can see from the scripture I have provided above, you are at variance with the very word of God
The point to look for is that "they are discovered" not, 'he is discovered'.......it it dealing with sex by consent not rape...rape was dealt with earlier,get it??
I like http://www.theword.net sofware. It is free and has many versions mentioned here, though the NIV is copyrighted so you have to pay for it. The reason I like the software is it has the Greek and Hebrew with many dictionaries for you to learn for yourself through the help of the Holy Spirit. All translations lose something from the original so it doesn't matter what version you have if you choose to listen to the Holy Spirit. He'll tell you what the truth is because He was the original Author
Actually, from Deut 22:23-29. all three major catagories of sexual sin are covered.
Adultery v 23,24. shoot them both.
Rape v25,26,27. shoot the attacker.
fornication v28,29. formalize their mutual desires.
Simple really, why the Niv gang could not see that is a mystery.
Adultery v 23,24. shoot them both.
Rape v25,26,27. shoot the attacker.
fornication v28,29. formalize their mutual desires.
Simple really, why the Niv gang could not see that is a mystery.
Another idea would be to ask the pastor to do a sermon on Matthew 23:14.
Oh, wait........he can not do that, no one can do it who has an NIV translation. WHY???????
The NIV omitted this verse completely. Some of the translators of the NIV evidently did not like the word “damnation.”
I am wondering this too. Is the KJV the best bible to read that's most closely tied to the original text? I read the NLT and I don't know if it omits some of the verses.
Ok like I said before I'm not an NIV fanboy but the reason it is left out is because the NIV uses older manuscripts and scholars feel that this verse could have been written in but wasn't part of the original. Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 are similar verses and are in the NIV. I do prefer the NASB but will compare translations whenever possible. The NIV isn't an evil book and you won't go to hell for reading it lol.
Ok now on the Deuteronomy issue. I'm going to use two translations the KJV and the NASB. Deut 22:22 the key word is lying. This verse is consensual sex between a man and a married woman. They are both put to death. Both NASB and KJV use lying.
Deut 22:23 This is also consensual sex. The girl didn't cry out for help and it also uses the word lie. Both are put to death.
Deut 22:25 This verse uses the word lie but before it, it specifically states that the woman is forced and she is outside the city where no one can hear her cry out. Therefore the man is put to death.
Deut 22:28 The KJV and NASB is a bit different in wording here. KJV uses "lay hold on her and lie with her" and NASB uses "and seizes her and lies with her"
Both of these translations tell a story of someone taking without permission. But since the girl is not engaged or married the law states that the man is to marry her so she doesn't live her life alone. No man would want her if they knew she was raped. If the law would have stoned the man for this rape then the woman would be left in shame. Makes complete sense to me.
Deut 22:23 This is also consensual sex. The girl didn't cry out for help and it also uses the word lie. Both are put to death.
Deut 22:25 This verse uses the word lie but before it, it specifically states that the woman is forced and she is outside the city where no one can hear her cry out. Therefore the man is put to death.
Deut 22:28 The KJV and NASB is a bit different in wording here. KJV uses "lay hold on her and lie with her" and NASB uses "and seizes her and lies with her"
Both of these translations tell a story of someone taking without permission. But since the girl is not engaged or married the law states that the man is to marry her so she doesn't live her life alone. No man would want her if they knew she was raped. If the law would have stoned the man for this rape then the woman would be left in shame. Makes complete sense to me.
LOL Welcome to the great debate
All versions claim they're closest to the original. All have flaws, some more than others. I use the KJV because I grew up with it, but you're going to need a dictionary for some words. As I said above, I like http://www.theword.net because it has the originals and dictionaries so when a debate comes about I can see for myself what the originals said. There's a lot to be said to learning the written Hebrew too as there are some really cool things; literally a broken letter written, larger and smaller letters and since "fonts" is a modern invention, rather cool to find in the original Hebrew. In the Greek, where it's translated six hundred threescore and six, you'll find three Greek letters that do not mean anything so the assumption is they represent numbers since Greeks, like Hebrew, doesn't have numerical numbers, but use their alphabet to express numbers; however, Revelation 13:18 is the first, which begs the question, why. Every numerical reference is spelled out; like שִּׁשִּֽׁי (sixth) instead of (6) ו. Revelation is the only book that commands not to change the words and when you see the oldest handwritten version you'll see those three letters resemble something else. Maybe John wrote something instead of a word and as his book was copied they assumed they were Greek letters seeing how the rest of the book was written in Greek. Either way, it's a first usage like this throughout the scriptures. Needless to say, there is a lot lost in translation.
Just a question for the Mods, there are some real issues with some translations, and there is some real issues with the KJV. I know some get really offended when these things are presented, is there any problem with a discussion of the KJV? For instance the fact that the first edition was covered in masonic and mystical symbols? That sir f. bacon was the final translator being a known luciferian. Or should I stop now?
Or is there a place on the forum where this issues could be discussed?
Or is there a place on the forum where this issues could be discussed?
The text that the KJV relies upon is about 1000 years newer that the other text used in the other translations, the additional words etc.. are just that, additions that have been added by those who where using the text. The older text are without doubt, the better text. Although the KJV may in many places better translate from Greek to English the intention of the text that are in agreement. If we found a Old Testament copy of the law of Moses that was in Joshua's time, and then found one in the time of Herod? We would not even think the newer find was some how more accurate than the older? It just don't make reasonable sense. But you will see those who defend the KJV are not to interested in reason at times. They are very mean and get very upset when the KJV is brought into question. So be prepared for some un-Christian behavior if you question the KJV.
No translation is without issues, bashing one over another only leads to weak to give up. God's word is so powerful that even in translations it affects men's lives. Let God sort it out in each person's heart.
I agree Ab but it seems the issues of some translations are openly debated (even overblown) and those questions in regards to the KJV are off-limits in some circles of Christian conversation. I see some real faith destroying issues in the KJV and think that the light of honest discussion could help some who are weak to get past some of these errors. And to silence some of those who demand that others conform to their religious traditions.