Aloha! New with a big question!

[Lion IRC]

Welcome

Glad to see you are taking an interest in the bible no matter what language it is written in.

If you are so concerned about the finer details of translations and versions you might be getting a little ahead of yourself. The arcane debates about which translation is best/better involve a lot of gnat straining and missing the forest for the trees.

IMHO you should read several different translations, a couple of times, then go learn Koine Greek and Hebrew, then get a grasp of canonical exegesis, and THEN you will be able to sit down and really appreciate the one suggested to you by folk here at AF.

[KichigaiNeko]

Aloha! and from another big island.

Can't add anything further to what Zen has said. Don't mind Danny , but the sceptic's annotated bible is quite a good read.

[Aractus]

"Those idiots"......
If you would be good enough to show how we are incorrect in what we said Danny that would be great.

Certainly mate.

There is no such thing as the original bible.
All extant versions are copies, mistranslations or plagiarisms of other copies, mistranslations or plagiarisms and so on and so forth.

Well you're categorized that incorrectly.

We have copies, yes, and translations also. We also do have mistranslations.

But not all in the one place. We have 5,800+ manuscripts in Greek, and over 20,000 in Latin - and more still in other languages. Even without any of those, if you were to lock them all in a very large vault, we'd still have almost the entire Bible preserved in the quotations of church fathers, and other early historical figures, in Greek, Latin and other languages. So yes, we has lots and lots of copies, quotations even and translations too (starting with Latin, Cyrillic, etc).

Mistranslations - let's assume we're talking about the Vulgate, for instance, yes there are mistranslations eg Rev 22:19 where it says " God shall take away his part out of the book of life", I illustrate this error because it was copied by Erasmus, and that's because he didn't have the last leaf of Revelations in the 7 Greek manuscripts that he borrowed, and thus he copied it from the Vulgate and translated it back to Greek. And thus because it appeared in the Novum Instrumentum omne (as did the Comma Johanneum), it appears in the Geneva Bible, and subsequently the KJV. Note that it wasn't the translators of the Geneva Bible or the KJV who "mistranslated" it, they translated it from the Novum Instrumentum omne (3rd Edition), and it was either Jerome who made the error back in the 4th century - or it was the person who made the first copy we have.

The idea that this process is a cycling one is wrong. With each new critical Greek editions, less and less errors are reproduced in the original texts, and almost all modern translators no longer use the critical texts as the sole underlying textual basis for the NT; they consider all relevant early manuscripts alongside the science of textual criticism where they feel necessary to avoid copying mistakes found in the text.

[Owlix]

I just don't speak bible-talk, I have no idea how to interpret things the right way. I have to rely on the interpretations of others, or a lot of cross referencing. I started reading Genesis on the Skeptics Annotated Bible (thanks! Brakeman, by the way) for at least 2 hours now, taking notes where I feel it's necessary. I think I'm done with my bible study session for today, and in two or more hours, y'know how far I got? to Genesis 15. All this cryptic wording and everything. As the Maitland's might say, that book reads worse than stereo instructions. I feel sorry for everyone that lived back then if this is how they talked as well.

When I finally get to Jesus' portion, I'm going to imagine his conversations with a cockney accent.

[Aractus]

Why did you start with Genesis, may I ask?

[Owlix]

The most important reason is that I'm an avid reader and never spoil the endings.

Other than that, beginning of a book seems like a logical place to start.

Anytime a question arose about 'how to read the bible' I was instructed to start at Genesis and continue on (this from many different people, clergymen, christian and non religious alike). Others suggested following a 'bible in a year' program. Which I suppose I could do as well. I get the feeling this book will take me in-numerous more time to read than any other book I've perused.

Also because I don't know enough about any of the bible to know where to start otherwise.

Suggestions on a different spot?

[Aractus]

Start with the NT, read Luke or Matthew, then Acts, then the epistles, the other gospels and finally revelation, then read the OT.

Or, if you really want to start in the OT. Read Job, Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and then the other books starting with any 2 of the minor prophets.

Or you can do combinations - Matt or Luke, then Job, then Acts, then Exodus, then Romans (or 1 Corinthians) then Psalms, and so on.

[Owlix]

What's the reason for reading in that order?

And, Luke OR Matthew? Why not both?

[T.J.]

I'd recommend anyone who'd just want to read through it to pick up the Contemporary English Version (CEV) as it's easier to understand. But if you want to actually study it the New International Version would probably be the way to go. King James (not the New King James) tries to offer more of an idea of how they may have talked back then, but it's increasingly harder to read as a result. Not sure I fully understand your reasoning for wanting to read through something you don't believe in, but understanding the source material wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Welcome aboard.

[Zen Badger]

You could do well to start with Revelations.

If THAT doesn't convince you of the general inanity of the bible then nothing will.