Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[UltraBudgie]

Yes, you stole it.    It was not complimentary.   

I also stole the Gideon Bible, until the point where I discovered that it was free.   Even then, it was stolen. at least in my heart.  

Thank you! That clears it up. I've actually asked several Mormons, in the few decades since, who have essentially said "no no that's okay glad you have it", but I never felt right about it. It's difficult to feel like you've repented when you're still not actually sure about technicalities like that.

[Creaky]

FF is a conservative Christian who already stated in the thread she wasnt into Gnosticism, and the Naj Hamadi, she doesnt need that. I have read the whole book and would recommenced it to someone interested in the gnostic gospels, not someone who had already stated its not their cup of tea.

 Not all books are for all people. Its why we have librarys.

Oh, my mistake
I was talking the bible, not a separate book away from the bible
Not all books are for all people

Had never read Mein Kampala till recently, eye opening

[argentus]

Thank you! That clears it up. I've actually asked several Mormons, in the few decades since, who have essentially said "no no that's okay glad you have it", but I never felt right about it. It's difficult to feel like you've repented when you're still not actually sure about technicalities like that.

I shouldn't have stated so bluntly that you stole the Book of Mormon.   For all I know the hotel you were staying in considered it to be complimentary and a form of outreach for someone to take it.   I am not a Mormon, however, like you have know and know several.   It is my understanding that the Book of Mormon is meant to be paired with the Holy Bible.

[glen200376]

Yep.  It does.  But we know there was no Adam and Eve.   So that ancestry is false.   It's not the only unreal thing in the bible.    Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, story of Jonah and the whale, Enoch, Job, Noahs Ark ... and in the New Testament we have the quote, supposedly by Jesus, talking about 'in Noahs time ...'  (Matthew 24:37-39) which is probably the most problematic quote in the New Testament.   We know there was no Noahs flood.   So that quote was either added by someone and Christ didn't say it ... or He said it and was wrong which would make him NOT God ... or He said it and was not meaning to take it literally but was instead using a reference they could understand (which is what I think probably happened).   Problematic ...

But the truth is that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written the closest to the time period of Jesus and were written by disciples of eyewitnesses so they are the ones that are to be looked to for closest to accurate about the life of Jesus.   Not historical fiction written by nobodies a few hundred years later.

You aint no catholic or Christian,you are a heretic.

[chr0naut]

Lately I’ve been reading the NASB, but I’ve also got a copy of the 1611 KJV — the real deal, with the old spellings and the Apocrypha still included. It’s tough to read sometimes, but there’s something about the language that feels more grounded, like you’re stepping into history instead of just reading about it. I’ve got a few modern KJVs too, and I’ve noticed how much they’ve changed over time — little word swaps that end up changing the whole meaning of a verse.
I keep hearing people say the Geneva Bible is the only one they trust, which got me wondering how much of our belief is shaped by the version we happen to read. Every translation comes through the hands (and theology) of someone — and sometimes I wonder if we’ve lost parts of the message in all that rewriting and rewording.

Jesus Himself quoted books that don’t even appear in most Protestant Bibles — and He referenced Enoch (Mark 14:62 / comparing with Enoch 62:5-7) — which sent me down a rabbit hole of reading older texts and alternate translations. It’s strange to think how much of what we now call Scripture has been filtered, cut, or rearranged over the centuries. People forget that our Savior read from scrolls we don’t even have in the modern canon.

So I’m curious what everyone else here reads, studies, or trusts. Do you stick with one version, or do you cross-compare? And do you think the “missing books” actually matter to our understanding of the Gospel — or did God allow only what we needed to survive in the canon?

I think that you must remember that our English Bibles are translations, and as such, represent not just the original writers text and cultural knowledge, but also the cultural knowledge, biases, opinions and translational understandings of the translators.

We know that several of the apocryphal books are entirely medieval fictions, purporting to be ancient, but not.

Possibly the worst of translations in "English", is the '1611 King James Bible with its apocrypha' (in my opinion). The text was based primarily on the Latin Vulgate (which in itself is a translation of collections of earlier Koine Greek or Aramaic documents), The Vulgate is highly "Romanized" with, for example, the Latin names for Roman gods being used for Hebrew and Aramaic words. The KJV also removed many of the specific Hebrew names of God (which have important meanings) and replaced them with the generic words "God" or "Lord" (at the whim of the translator). The spellings and typography have also moved on in the language too. Also, although the translators may have believed in unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices, they are pagan mythological creatures. I would probably suggest that Bibles based upon the Majority Texts are closer to the original works than those based upon the Vulgate.

And of course, any translations that are based upon the KJV inherit many of its textual and conceptional errors.

There are many 'lost books' of the Bible, but there are a lot of fakes that proclaim themselves to be these books, so you have to be careful. The advantage of the canonical works are that we can be fairly sure of their provenance.

Personally, I have recently come across the Translation for Translators (T4T) which is like an Amplified Bible on steroids. But for most of my daily readings, I use the Berean Study Bible (BSB), with occasional cross-reference to the Berean Interlinear Bible with Strongs lexical references (BIB+). These days, I read them mostly on electronic devices where it is easy to cross-reference and compare everything.

[Astyanax]

One holy book. So many different  versions, each with its champions.

Someone, somewhere must be having a hell of a laugh.

[FlyersFan]

You aint no catholic or Christian,you are a heretic.

1 - Catholics ARE Christian.   The ORIGINAL Christians.  No need to put the word 'or' in that sentence nor separate the two words Catholic and Christian as if they are two different things.

2 - What I said is true, use your head.   Large portions of the bible are not literal truth, they are allegory.  Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale, Job, Noahs Ark, Enoch etc.    And the world is not 6,000 years old.  And since we know for a fact that Noahs Ark and the flood did not happen, then the quote supposedly from Jesus speaking about 'in the time of Noah ...' is problematic.   There was no Noah and there was no flood.

[3rdrockfrmsun]

1 - Catholics ARE Christian.   The ORIGINAL Christians.  No need to put the word 'or' in that sentence nor separate the two words Catholic and Christian as if they are two different things.

2 - What I said is true, use your head.   Large portions of the bible are not literal truth, they are allegory.  Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale, Job, Noahs Ark, Enoch etc.    And the world is not 6,000 years old.  And since we know for a fact that Noahs Ark and the flood did not happen, then the quote supposedly from Jesus speaking about 'in the time of Noah ...' is problematic.   There was no Noah and there was no flood.

You’re right that Catholics are Christian — though I’d point out that the Orthodox Church actually traces its lineage straight back to the earliest apostles, long before Rome became the center of authority. The early Church didn’t split until after centuries of unified tradition, so if we’re talking “original,” Orthodoxy has a strong claim.
As for the flood — it’s not as easily dismissed as you’re suggesting. There’s geological and historical evidence of massive regional floods in the ancient Near East, and just about every culture on Earth — from Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica — carries some version of a great deluge in their oral or written history. That doesn’t prove every detail of Noah’s Ark happened exactly as written, but it does suggest something huge occurred that left a deep mark on humanity’s collective memory.
The Bible’s full of allegory, yes — but calling it only allegory is just as limiting as taking it all woodenly literal. The truth usually lives in that strange in-between: spiritual truth expressed through historical echoes.
So maybe instead of saying “there was no Noah,” it’s more accurate to say the story of Noah is a divinely-framed account of something our ancestors remembered — and something that still speaks symbolically about corruption, renewal, and covenant.

[andy06shake]

You’re right that Catholics are Christian — though I’d point out that the Orthodox Church actually traces its lineage straight back to the earliest apostles, long before Rome became the center of authority. The early Church didn’t split until after centuries of unified tradition, so if we’re talking “original,” Orthodoxy has a strong claim.
As for the flood — it’s not as easily dismissed as you’re suggesting. There’s geological and historical evidence of massive regional floods in the ancient Near East, and just about every culture on Earth — from Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica — carries some version of a great deluge in their oral or written history. That doesn’t prove every detail of Noah’s Ark happened exactly as written, but it does suggest something huge occurred that left a deep mark on humanity’s collective memory.
The Bible’s full of allegory, yes — but calling it only allegory is just as limiting as taking it all woodenly literal. The truth usually lives in that strange in-between: spiritual truth expressed through historical echoes.
So maybe instead of saying “there was no Noah,” it’s more accurate to say the story of Noah is a divinely-framed account of something our ancestors remembered — and something that still speaks symbolically about corruption, renewal, and covenant.

There’s geological and historical evidence of massive regional floods in the ancient Near East, and just about every culture on Earth

That's true, but local/regional flood stories aside, there is still no credible geological or archaeological evidence for a single global flood covering the entire Earth.

Even the end of the Pleistocene period does not support a global flood theory.

And dont get me started on magic TARDIS 400ft long boats made of wood and glue that contained two of every animal on Earth.

I mean, it's a cool story, but that's about it, and if we are honest, most likely a rehash of the "Epic of Ziusudra" from Sumerian tales that came before.

[FlyersFan]

As for the flood — it’s not as easily dismissed as you’re suggesting. 

Yes it is.

4,000 years ago the world was not destroyed in one massive flood leaving only a boat with 8 people and 2 of every kind of animal aboard.   It simply did not happen.    And having regional floods here and there around the world at different times doesn't equate to the Noahs Ark story at all.   All the science and history prove the flood did not happen.   If it had happened everyone would be speaking one ancient language and all would be worshipping the same ancient God of Noah.   Obviously that's not happening.   It is allegory (coming from a Summerian story that the Hebrews stole and readapted to fit their own culture and religion).   Adam and Eve, Job, Jonah and the Whale, Noahs Ark, Enoch ... did not happen.