Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[Solvedit]

The Pastafarians have their Loose Canon.

[BeTheGoddess]

Never heard of her.  
Just looked her up after you said the name.

The end of her book The Gnostic Gospels, she states that her reading on the "early church" didnt cause me to lose faith, it just made my faith stronger.

Im not recommend you reading the entire book, because there is some horrible stuff in there.

[BeTheGoddess]

The Pastafarians have their Loose Canon.

Thats just post modern Discordianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

[Solvedit]

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 the method used to study difficult passages is important as is not demanding answers on your timetable.  I have posted a small thread on those topics in this subforum called "Prayer and the Most Important Commandment." 

The point was that many ancient traditions held the solar plexus to be the seat of the soul so Matthew 22:36-40 may have been intended to be taken as an instruction on where your attention should be during prayer.  Matthew 6: 7-8 may have been an instruction on not simply thinking with your mind about what you would like God to do for you.

Perhaps prayer should be more like meditation than shouting requests at the sky.

[FlyersFan]

For the record ... our bibles ...

New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible
1957
Imprimature: Francis Cardinal Spellman - Archbishop of New York
(old language ... like thee and thou ... )

New American Bible
"Translated from the original languages"
1970
Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle Archsishop of Washington
Sponsored by the Bishops Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

Ignatius Holy Bible
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
1946
Imprimatur 1966 Peter Bartholome Bishop of St. Cloud Minnesota

The Navarre Bible
Each book of the bible is it's own book in the Navarre Bible Series.
It has the scripture, and then study commentary to go with it.


I wouldn't bother with the Protestant bibles.
They are missing 7 books - Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
And there are some pretty important concepts and things in those to be missing.
For example Sirach 48:12-14 proves the dead are alive, awake, aware and active.
Something that protestants using their shortened bibles are missing and therefore
they get the wrong notion that the dead are 'sleeping in the grave' because they 
take literally the phenomenological language in the New Testament about the dead
being asleep.

[rickymouse]

I have read many versions over the years.  Usually I read them in church instead of listening to the pastors sermons, and of course, good reading material for the bathroom.  

The creators of the different versions probably translated them based on the beliefs they hold.  In Genesis, the one who originally wrote it was trying to explain things to people who probably could not comprehend sience and astrology well, so the thing was dumbed down to make it so they could comprehend it.  I think that there was a real inteligent race back then, a race that tried to teach people things that could not comprehend things scientific.   How would you guys be able to explain the scientific creation of the earth to a bunch of people who had no clue about it nor any desire to learn it?  

Much of what is in the different bibles matches, but there seems to be a lot of content altered between the bibles in areas.  The Jehova witnesses sent people to try to get the proper translation of parts of it, but translation of words does not give the whole meaning, something is always lost in translation of languages..  Words can have different meanings just by altering the context of the sentence.  The bible was also made in a time when Parabals were common, so the parable meaning is different in different cultures too.

[Wolfrock]

There are several. ESV is the usual for most days. KJV, NKJV add clarity for me. What I do believe is that more of the differences we see in different versions are the attempt for cultural understanding, not an attempt to change the basic message. If I pray and meditate over a passage the versions come together in truth. I refuse to pick and try to find (Or create) a difference. I am not and will never be that smart. 

Instead, I search my heart for the Holy Spirit's interpretation of what God intends. He, (the Spirit ) is there as the helper.
However there some versions based on specific religions and beliefs, I simply can not abide. I won't use specifics, but if you need to write a bible specific to your religion, I think it likely written to control man and not to bring you closer to relationship with God.

[Creaky]

Sure.  But the only way to learn about Jesus is through the bible.
And not the gnostics.   They are obviously fakes and have been condemned.

I wouldn’t deny the value of the bible
but, before it was collated there were many Christian’s committed to the faith. 
Wars started, people burned and heresy written (Gnosticism) based on its teaching. 
we are gifted with a brain, knowledge and the guidance of the Holy Spirit 
if we are in Christ?
i watched a YouTube video today explaining why Jesus had to die, it answered a question bugging me for years. I never understood that and I didn’t get the answer from the bible myself

[Creaky]

The end of her book The Gnostic Gospels, she states that her reading on the "early church" didnt cause me to lose faith, it just made my faith stronger.

Im not recommend you reading the entire book, because there is some horrible stuff in there.

I recommend reading the whole book because there is some horrific stuff in it, people are horrible 
history is horrible, the bible isn’t meant to be pretty it records failures and faults don’t repeat that horror, it’s easy to fall into

[3rdrockfrmsun]

The book of Enoch is totally false ... there was no Adam and Eve therefore there was no Enoch to be 7th from and it contradicts the canonical gospels.

 Jesus never name-drops Enoch directly, but there’s a ton of overlap in what He says and what’s written in 1 Enoch. It’s more like He’s drawing from that same tradition that was common in His time.For example, the “Son of Man” language — where the Son of Man is a pre-existent, heavenly judge who will sit on a throne of glory — comes straight out of 1 Enoch 48:2–7 and 69:26–29. When Jesus says in Mark 14:62 that “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven,” that’s almost a direct reflection of those Enoch passages.
You also see parallels in:

• 1 Enoch 62:2–5 → Matthew 25:31–32, where the Son of Man sits on His throne and judges the nations.
  
• 1 Enoch 10:4–6 → Luke 8:31 and Matthew 8:29, where demons fear being cast into the abyss.
  
• 1 Enoch 104:2 → Matthew 13:43, where the righteous “shine forth as the sun.”
  

Even if Jesus didn’t cite Enoch by name, He’s clearly echoing that same imagery and theology.
And just to top it off — Jude 1:14–15 does directly quote 1 Enoch 1:9 word for word:
“Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all…”
That shows early Christians were reading Enoch and treating it seriously. The book was part of the worldview of Jesus’ audience, and those ideas made their way into His teachings and the New Testament.
So, He might not have said, “as Enoch wrote,” but the fingerprints are all over the text.