by gloobster 42 Replies latest jw friends
I like the New Jerusalem Bible. It's based on some very good scholarship and uses Yahweh in the Old Testament. If you get a printed version, the notes are excellent!
There are a couple of online versions:
http://www.catholic.org/bible/
and
http://www.kofc.duq.edu/scripture/
For those interested, a PDF version of the New Jerusalem Bible can be downloaded from:
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=8593e5c425e2bfde6481cd2649054eeb
satanic bible. best thing i've read in years. it actually helped me in my career
wisdens
It depends on the occasion: I've become like a fashion-plate of a Bible user.
"I use a whole pile of them, for comparison.
Generally I use the New World Translation, simply because it's built into the WT library and thus easily accessible."
I do both of these; the NWT does attach readily to some other reference books and this can be useful :)
I also have as many languages as I can (Greek, German, Hebrew, Spanish, Chinese & other Asian languages) for when I really feel the need to explore.
When I go to a house of worship, I use the bilingual Chinese, cuz its a Chinese church :)
When I'm "on line", I use the Blue Letter Blble.
When doing my own reading, I use the LXX (Septuagint, a reprint of the Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London 1851 version). The Greek part of this bilingual edtion is essentially what Jesus would have read on a day-day basis. But that only covers the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. For the Greek scriptures/New Testament, I use Green's Interlinear, also bilingual Greek but greatly resembling the Diaglott.
I do need to get a good "parallel Bible".
Note : another post did this last year or janaury
Thanks to Lone Ranger: I will check out the Jerusalem Bible. Apocrypha and oddball books are a favorite subject of mine.
Mustang
Generally I use the New World Translation, simply because it's built into the WT library and thus easily accessible."
I do both of these; the NWT does attach readily to some other reference books and this can be useful :)
Exactly what reference books (other than those published by the Watchtower Society) attach to the NWT?
Reina Valera
MAD Magazine... just as real... what? me worry?
I will go by the King James version to refute the Washtowel's Bible. That is the one that was used by the Protestants to make the Bible available to the masses, and is therefore less likely to have many intentional transcription errors.
Gloobster,
I am refering to WTS pubs, such as the Concordance, the several MS (Make Sure's & Reasoning), old TMS books (QM & Equipeed for Every Good Work), the Aid book and various other of theri refererecne books. I never said "secular" refeence works (where secular would mean non-JW texts).
Bear in mind that I spent 2 dozen years "in the troof" before I left, over 30 years ago. Right, wrong or indifferent, the WTS has a strong system for dealing with Biblical topics. And I find using familiar tools to start an avenue of research (and switching to others after the work is in progress) more efficient than changing unfortunately acquired habits.
One such "unfortunately acquired habit" is that after years of pIONEERING, I have the wording from the NWT deeply ingrained in my consciousness. Scriptures spring to mind straight from the pages of the NWT.
I have used my JW background to my advantage: much like college being only a starting point and a stepping stone to further learning, I have studied beyond where WTS goes but using their training as a starting point.
To that end, I found the late Dr. Gene Scott's intensive scholarship to be very refreshing. While never really agreeing with a number of his doctrinal points, I noticed that he "t ook off where WTS left off" in studying the scriptures.
While JW's hit a plateau and stagnated, Scott moved forward. Scott amassed, before his death, the largest PRIVATE collection of Bibles and manuscripts in the world. His "Room of the Book" rivals the British Museum, in that respect. Indeed, he has obtained manuscripts that the BM was after and trades/deals with them.
From wttching and following Scott, I can see that as many MSS have become available since the 40's or 50's as from ~1610 (KJV & Douay release dates) to the 40's/50's. This would infer that the eaarly task of the WTS translating commitee might stand being revisited.
WTWizard
Scott recommends the KJV; it has less of the influence of later changes than anything else on the shelves today (one exception). Scott points out that the American and British Bible Societies both made CHANGES of their own devising in the 1800's. Therefore modern Bibles are tainted.
The exception is the LXX. I have a reprint of the 1850's Samuel Bagster Septuagint. It is biligual in Greek. I have a fondness for bilinguals and interlinears, having learned to read Greek from an Emphatic Diaglott.
This LXX is doubly insulated: the Bible Societies did not touch it, as it was a scholarly publication. Also the LXX MSS were easily extant to Jesus day itself: the LXX only does the Hebrew scriptures and not the New Testament/Greek scriptures. It was complete by the time of jesus; indeed it was, in addition to the Torah, THE BIBLE OF JESUS' DAY. THIS IS WHAT THE ATTENDANT HANDED JESUS ON THAT SABBATH DAY IN THE SYNAGOGUE!!!
So, when Scott co-mingles the KJV and the LXX, the insightfulness is mutliplied. and you now have a proper basis for further viewing the scripture with the newer, infested Bible Society editions.
Compare Romans 3:22 using KJV, NWT, NIV, RSV, ASV and what-have-you. (LXX doesn't cover this.) Look for a different preposition. This could be the most important two letters in the entire Bible.
Mustang
Just Starting Student Class
