3 ms·

I made the same mistake as yourself. Read from the beginning. To make it worse in 16th century english. This is a good resource, https://www.biblegateway.com/ h

by p0d 5y ago

I made the same mistake as yourself. Read from the beginning. To make it worse in 16th century english. This is a good resource, https://www.biblegateway.com/ https://www.biblegateway.com/.

geocrasher 5y ago
I enjoy the NWT translation, it's in modern English but also very true to the original text. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/ https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/ It's also available in the JW Library app. Both are 100% free, no signups or membership, and makes reading so much easier and more enjoyable.
- kcartlidge 5y ago
  For the benefit of other readers, as is mentioned elsewhere the NWT is a translation which amongst Christians is only accepted by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainly because they produced it. It's actually reasonably readable but there are differences in meanings due to the decisions of the translators. This is true with all translations, so not a direct criticism, but the NWT tends to differ on areas where the JW belief system itself differs from the mainstream. So personally I'd suggest avoiding it as it will give the new reader a very exclusive perspective on the faith.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Be aware that the NWT is a translation produced by a single church, a single sect of Christianity. Those wanting to study the Bible as a literary exercise should consider a translation accepted by more than only one sect of Christianity. Another comment here suggests an interesting translation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352
  - Minor49er 5y ago
    It's important to compare translations and understand why they exist and where they differ. Books like "New Age Bible Versions" by G. A. Riplinger give insight into changes with modern versions like the NIV and NKJV that make deliberate alterations to the text. But even still, it's important to remeber that translations like the KJV has replaced words like "She'ol" and "Hades" with "hell", or even replacing the name of God with "God". I personally find myself comparing the KJV with the original Greek as well as the pre-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims when I want more insight into certain passages. Commentaries also provide interesting insights. They typically cite the translations that were used as well so you can see how their conclusions were drawn
    - JoeyBananas 5y ago
      The only translation of the bible that I can tolerate is the "plain english" translation. Otherwise it's just too cryptic and give me a headache
      - Minor49er 5y ago
        Do you also read commentaries or study guides? They can help with grokking some of the more difficult parts of the text
    - kk6mrp 5y ago
      I agree that there is a huge difference between literal and dynamic translations of the text. That being said, I was recommended "New Age Bible Versions" before and was not impressed, I read through the first several chapters and compared the accusations to the other translations actual text and found most of them to be blatantly false. False as in, her charts said the other translations used words they did not use. I really enjoy the KJV also but do not consider other translations satanic like the Riplinger's book attempts to portray.
      - Minor49er 5y ago
        I'll have to look into that further. I wasn't aware of there being discrepancies between her book and the sources she used. I wonder if it's related to some of the newer translations being constantly updated. For example, the NKJV has been revised since it was originally printed. Here's a short example showing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw Another book similar to Riplinger's is "Corruptions in the New King James Bible" by Jack Mundey. The writing style is a little enthusiastic, but the author compares several editions of various bibles, showing where and how they changed over time. Both Mundey and Riplinger draw the conclusion that the NKJV and NIV are deliberately changed to mislead people, and therefore are Satanic, though neither one makes any point about the KJV's edits themselves, such as the name of God or translations of "Hell" as I've mentioned earlier.
        5y ago

by p0d 5y ago

I made the same mistake as yourself. Read from the beginning. To make it worse in 16th century english. This is a good resource, https://www.biblegateway.com/ https://www.biblegateway.com/.

geocrasher 5y ago

I enjoy the NWT translation, it's in modern English but also very true to the original text. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/ https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/ It's also available in the JW Library app. Both are 100% free, no signups or membership, and makes reading so much easier and more enjoyable.

kcartlidge 5y ago
For the benefit of other readers, as is mentioned elsewhere the NWT is a translation which amongst Christians is only accepted by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainly because they produced it. It's actually reasonably readable but there are differences in meanings due to the decisions of the translators. This is true with all translations, so not a direct criticism, but the NWT tends to differ on areas where the JW belief system itself differs from the mainstream. So personally I'd suggest avoiding it as it will give the new reader a very exclusive perspective on the faith.
Buttons840 5y ago
Be aware that the NWT is a translation produced by a single church, a single sect of Christianity. Those wanting to study the Bible as a literary exercise should consider a translation accepted by more than only one sect of Christianity. Another comment here suggests an interesting translation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352
- Minor49er 5y ago
  It's important to compare translations and understand why they exist and where they differ. Books like "New Age Bible Versions" by G. A. Riplinger give insight into changes with modern versions like the NIV and NKJV that make deliberate alterations to the text. But even still, it's important to remeber that translations like the KJV has replaced words like "She'ol" and "Hades" with "hell", or even replacing the name of God with "God". I personally find myself comparing the KJV with the original Greek as well as the pre-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims when I want more insight into certain passages. Commentaries also provide interesting insights. They typically cite the translations that were used as well so you can see how their conclusions were drawn
  - JoeyBananas 5y ago
    The only translation of the bible that I can tolerate is the "plain english" translation. Otherwise it's just too cryptic and give me a headache
    - Minor49er 5y ago
      Do you also read commentaries or study guides? They can help with grokking some of the more difficult parts of the text
  - kk6mrp 5y ago
    I agree that there is a huge difference between literal and dynamic translations of the text. That being said, I was recommended "New Age Bible Versions" before and was not impressed, I read through the first several chapters and compared the accusations to the other translations actual text and found most of them to be blatantly false. False as in, her charts said the other translations used words they did not use. I really enjoy the KJV also but do not consider other translations satanic like the Riplinger's book attempts to portray.
    - Minor49er 5y ago
      I'll have to look into that further. I wasn't aware of there being discrepancies between her book and the sources she used. I wonder if it's related to some of the newer translations being constantly updated. For example, the NKJV has been revised since it was originally printed. Here's a short example showing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw Another book similar to Riplinger's is "Corruptions in the New King James Bible" by Jack Mundey. The writing style is a little enthusiastic, but the author compares several editions of various bibles, showing where and how they changed over time. Both Mundey and Riplinger draw the conclusion that the NKJV and NIV are deliberately changed to mislead people, and therefore are Satanic, though neither one makes any point about the KJV's edits themselves, such as the name of God or translations of "Hell" as I've mentioned earlier.
      - 5y ago