Most unabridged version of the bible

Which version of the bible is absolute closest to the unabridged in edited bible ? Seem the Ethiopian Bible might be it but idk.

Can you read Hebrew?

Go read the stuff written in the year 200 or whatever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#:~:text=The%20earliest%20manuscript%20of%20a,half%20of%20the%202nd%20century.

I've got a concordance that helps me find the original Hebrew and Greek words used and their meaning. Helps grasp the original meaning.

Original King James?

Been used for four hundred years. It's my go-to.

if god wants it reveal will

Danny is right, it would have the least amount of edits.

Manuscript evidence. More or less what danny referred to. I'm not sure what you mean by an "unabridged" Bible. I don't know of any truncated versions. God has been blessing the KJV of the Bible for centuries, I don't see where you need anything else.

The Ethiopian reference tipped me off. He's referencing the apocryphal books. The Ethiopian Bible has 81 to 88 books vs the protestant 66. And even the Ethiopian church disagrees on the total number nor are all available.

It seems to have become a trope to use the apocryphal books and other pseudo epistles by many to discredit the accepted cannon or the early church fathers who studied carefully and prayerfully, and guided by God in my opinion, as to what was eventually accepted as cannon.

I would caution using that approach as it is all to simplistic to tear down something by what you may think should've have or not have happened. Much like the current use of the word Democracy to describe or Republic when or founders were to a man opposed to the concept of democracy.

Dead Sea Scrolls

^^^This^^^
He will illuminate.

I have a New King James version, but I am not one that worries much about what translation I have, reading it as part of my daily life is what matters more to me. Moses wrote over 1500 years of Hebrew history in a lifetime, Jesus did not write a note or a paragraph, sometimes we make way too much about things that just may get in the way of really getting the message.

Bryce

The translations of the Dead Sea scrolls that didn't make the cut, when they were editing and compiling them to make the bible are available at some institutions. Many colleges have some of them in the restricted section. Most people are not permitted to read them.

Keith

Wonder why?

I don't believe it's the way Islam interprets it.
I have followed the King James version.

The Peshitta-- Syriac .
1st to 2nd century. It is written in Aramaic and has been translated only in recent years.
What I've read seem to be in line with the bible I use . The kjv version. Posably the oldest writings of the new testament discovered. It's been a wile since I've looked into it but it's interesting.

Enjoy RC Sproul ,
Good preacher, post millennial, and Calvinist. The first of which I'm a believer in, the latter = Calvanism
Not so much.

Enjoy RC Sproul ,
Good preacher, post millennial, and Calvinist. The first of which I'm a believer in, the latter = Calvanism
Not so much.

Do you believe God gambled Christ's death on the whim of man? Christ could had died in vain if left to man's "free will" in choosing Him. No way. Christ died for the elect, those chosen before the foundation of the world.

IMO, the Dead Sea Scrolls describe in vivid reality the Old Testament and what is going on. I don't think they are controversial; it is the reality. Just some don't won't to hear the truth, or worse, they hide and destroy it.

Probably becaus the writings that weren't selected are considered heresy.

One of my best friends, worked in UD's library back in the late 80's and early 90's, when we were in college together. He got ahold of and made copies of the keys to UD's library's restricted section. After the library closed, he would go in and read the restricted documents. Most were religious in nature.

He got caught. They took the keys and changed the multiple locks to the restricted section. He lost his job over it temporarily. Soon after he was hired by TASC.

Keith

Patently untrue. All of the dead seas scrolls that can be translated, some were just fragments of text, have been and are available to all online. Not all were canonical books of the bible.

For the life of me where do y'all get all of this hidden stuff from. Ain't nobody trying to hide anything. Truth be told many collections of ancient texts are just that old stacks of dusty books that no one has looked at in years. It's only in the modern age of digitization that much is being dusted off photographed and disseminated.

I do wish that any claim of hidden whatever came with a reference to exactly which texts in which collection.

Only about 24% of the scrolls found and pieced together were used to make the Bible. The rest didn't make the cut. Much of the material in the 230 of the around 950 scrolls, that did get used, was only used in small part. We have a very edited Bible.

Keith

Please post a link where they can be read in their remaining entirety then.

I have heard and read that many scrolls, that were considered to heretical, were destroyed long ago and didn't even make it into any restricted collection.

Keith

If our country was founded on Christian principles, those principles came from the KJV of the Bible. Why do you look further?

Do you know anything of the "gnostic gospels"? Those were rejected by the early church as fast as they were inked.

Wolfdog,
Get you a copy of the Septuagint. Get the Apocrophya as well with the Books of Jubilees and Jasher.

Get you a good Catholic Bible to read as well. Also, get you the best Baptist protestant version of the the Bible, such as the King James. Me personally, I like the Living Bible, cause it don't have all that hath and thou stuff. Read and compare all of them. When you find contradictions in them, search the other Books for references and answers. For example, Genesis in the KJV is full of unanswered situations. The OT alone tells us many times....."Is it not written in the Book of ??????" Many of these Books are lost to history for one reason or another. Sometimes, the diligent mind has to go to these other documents to get the picture on the details. The story of Dinah in the Book of Genesis is a good example.

These things alone will answer most of any ones questions, but will require studying. Other than learning Hebrew and Aramaic as earlier suggested, that is the best we English speakers can do. But it is enough, and it is plenty to steel coat your belief.

How so? While some were indeed old testament texts the actual time period in which the scrolls themselves were stored in their clay jars and hidden away was mid to late 1st century by a group well known to history as the essenes. The essenes were a Jewish fundamentalist sect, kind of a let's get back to basics of the faith group. As such they led a separatist lifestyle out in the desert away from urban centers. The Jewish Amish if you will.

The most plausible explanation for the hiding of the scrolls and the reason they remained hidden with the essenes apparently not returning for them is the events of the mid to late 1st century, namely the Jewish revolt against Rome and Rome's retaking of Judea and Jerusalem.

Also there could not have been any not making the cut for the dead sea scrolls which were not discovered until the 1940s. The biblical canon was set in 382.

The Vatican has the largest restricted library in the world. Many, maybe all Catholic universities have restricted sections. Many of the religious documents in them are considered to controversial to let untrained people read.

I know the Southern Baptist religion, which is relatively new as religions go, was started in 1845. Did they not get any copies of the older religious documents?

Did they just discard the documents they didn't agree with?

Keith

Luke was a Greek physician and he wrote two books in the Bible, The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. I don't know if he wrote it originally in Greek or if he use another language, but it does read differently then many other books even through all the translations. Greek is a more academic type language and the basis for our language and learning systems. Hebrew is a more figurative language and translates quite differently.

Bryce

I agree with Keith 100% on this. The KJV is certainly enough for redemption and salvation, but it don't answer all the other questions the Bible proposes.

The Book of Giants was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. All I have found is highly fragmented; perhaps intentionally. I don't know.

How many Christians here have heard of the Book of Giants?

It is my opinion, that Satan has been in our household for a long time, to deceive, to cast doubt, to divide, us all from what is written.

Sorry, I did somewhat screw up. I confused the codices with the scrolls. Not all the codices were used either.

It's been around 37 years since I studied this.

Keith

First, Southern Baptist is not a religion. At best it is a denomination though that would also be technically incorrect.

It is instead a convention of like minded INDEPENDENT local church bodies. So there is a basic shared doctrine though not on all things.

Our government has a huge restricted collection as well. Your point being?

We can speculate till kingdom comes on what may or may not be in those restricted areas but that in no way disproves what we have in the Bible. On the contrary all of recorded history corroborates scripture.

There is possibly much missing in the dead sea scrolls. The initial find was by a shepherd boy tossing rocks into some caves he found. It was the sound of breaking clay jars the prompted him to investigate further. Before the find could be preserved for science quite a bit of damage occurred. Some were sold off by locals and some even used to start fires.

And they were not just a religious text library, though mostly religious or related subjects.

Yep. My reason isn't about salvation or getting into heaven. And don't really trust anything the Catholic Church has messed with .Personally don't wanna get into it more then that.

"How so? While some were indeed old testament texts the actual time period in which the scrolls themselves were stored in their clay jars and hidden away was mid to late 1st century by a group well known to history as the essenes. The essenes were a Jewish fundamentalist sect, kind of a let's get back to basics of the faith group. As such they led a separatist lifestyle out in the desert away from urban centers. The Jewish Amish if you will.

The most plausible explanation for the hiding of the scrolls and the reason they remained hidden with the essenes apparently not returning for them is the events of the mid to late 1st century, namely the Jewish revolt against Rome and Rome's retaking of Judea and Jerusalem.

Also there could not have been any not making the cut for the dead sea scrolls which were not discovered until the 1940s. The biblical canon was set in 382."

Warrior, the way I interpret things, the OT makes absolutely zero sense for a a rational being......except in the angelic view of Genesis 6. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm it. The Ethiopian Church confirms it as well. Perhaps, we are the ones misguided.....deceitfully, from the beginning.

I would love to have full access to those restricted sections. I wanted my friend to sneak me in back when he was.

Keith

BTW, the SBC was indeed established in 1845 following their break away from the Baptist Convention. But the Baptist tradition goes much further back as part of the reformation movement out of the Church of England that gave us the Puritans and the Methodists as well. There are also theological ties and similarities to similar movements on the continent that would give us Mennonites and the Amish.

The Book of Isaiah was found in there. It is nearly 100% the same as in the KJV.

My point is that, I do trust our Bible 100%, but it is absolutely full of stories that start and we never hear the end, passages that have no meaning, etc. Only way you can find those answers is to look into the other texts wtih prayer asking the Holy Spirit to guide you.

I absolutely believe that God loved man enough to gamble Christ's death on them.

If you don't believe that, I don't even know how you can say you believe in Christ.

Honest questions. Some that I have asked myself. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that the 66 books that we accept are indeed attested to through history by many knowledge men and women cross-referencing all available texts and copies of texts to be the true and accurate Word of God.

That is not to say that that the many apocryphal texts cannot shed and insight or further knowledge but that they are related but outside of the text of the Bible.

One of the keys used by the church fathers was whether these accepted books supported and referenced each other.

It's a rational and logical argument. Theoretically, Christ could have died in vain if left to man's free will. God didn't gamble his sons life on that.

Broad is the way that leads to destruction and most are going that route. That's what the Bible tells us. It's a fixed number, the text tells us that. It's already determined.

So the criminal on the cross who spent his entire life sinning and never repented for anything went to Heaven because he was "Chosen"? And not because Jesus has mercy?

Uh-oh

Calvinism and TULIP. Now there's a can of worms for you even though I do consider myself in Calvin's camp I can't explain the how's and why other than I know my God knows all before during and after so it stands to reason He knows who will and who won't. I also know that there is absolutely nothing that a totally depraved man or woman could ever do to effect salvation unless God moves first. There will be no gate crashers in heaven. So God must call to salvation and when God calls you can't say no.

I struggle with the concept of those who will not. Did God not call them? Or did they have the free will to refuse?

If you think about it, Arminian theology appeals to those who won't trust God with their salvation. They feel they need to add their own effort to it. The bottom line is, they don't trust God. Trust is exactly what God wants, nothing more.

This usually goes to motive for me. Whenever a thread like this comes up, there's an underlying current that intends to cast doubt on scripture. It's a way to validate and excuse unbelief. That's why I chime in the way I typically do. The sinner is not in the driver's seat.

IMO, our Bible is the Cliff's note version of what happened in the OT. Its enough to give the history and get the the understanding, but that is it. If one want's to follow those trails the OT alludes to, then one must go to other texts. The NT not so much. We all agree that Jesus Christ is the son of God, came down to save us from our sins, and He is our Savior. That's really all that matters, but I like the history of it all.

But the counter to that is the calvinist who sits in a pew for fifty years with a fatalistic attitude of I'll found out when I get there.

I wouldn't be a Calvinist but for what scripture teaches and my own experience. Pastors preach the gospel because they know the elect are out there. Some plant, some water but God gives the increase.

If you’re not going to learn Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic too), then you’ll be reading a translation. All translations have their issues but are generally pretty good. If you want to really understand the text a little better, read more than one translation and use a concordance. When multiple translations don’t line up in certain passages, it’s usually a sign of some interpretive ambiguity, and that’s when the concordance is handy. You can also get an interlinear Bible. Those are a great tool if you’re getting really serious about the “original” versions. If your question is about the Apocrypha, you can pick them up in a separate volume if your own Bible doesn’t have them. Also, all of this is available for free online in multiple places. I like having print copies on hand, but I use BibleHub.com a lot too.

P.S. I’m going to make a correction that I make on most of these threads again: the story of the Bible is NOT about getting to Heaven when you die. That idea is foreign. It’s just not there. The Bible also doesn’t create a clear systematic theology for itself, so I don’t find boxing oneself into the various theological -isms to be that helpful. Currently, I think I’d say the Bible lays out a Covenantal theology centered almost entirely on the Exodus.

I'm late to the party. Rabbi Daniel Lapin recommends the Korean Jerusalem Bible. I have the compact edition if I did it over again I would buy the large print version. I mostly read the king James version but it's not the easiest to understand because of using obsolete English. I'm not trying to start an argument just my worthless 2 cents.

I have a simple Bible to read and understand ,you can called it a Bible for dummys!.

Just curious Guss ? What is the same version you speak of.

I disagree with your first statement but agree on the latter part. I circled this verse thirty-three years ago within just a few days of the Lord bringing me out of the bondage of Egypt. Egypt representing sin and Pharoah representing Satan. I didn't free myself from that, God did. God doing for man what man can't do for himself runs through the Bible from start to finish.

Between the Douay-Rheims Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers, you can stay occupied for a bit.

Where do you get that idea? Actually the Geneva Bible was the choice of many of the first settlers.

It's don't use the king James words that people have problems with simple.

I still have the fond memory of entertaining a couple of Vegans at our kitchen table. One of them noticed a K-bar in my window sill and referred to it as a weapon, to which I quickly replied it was for skinning deer. That set the entrance stage for them to bring in the forgotten languages of which I knew little of. They quickly introduced me to the long lost Essenes and how that they dressed in white and did not eat the flesh of God's creatures. I asked them where that was in the bible, it was then I realized it must all be part of a big secret of history that even Josephus didn't understand the fullness of.
I told them, well now that you have took me way back, lets just fast forward to Peter down at the tanners house and since it was in the bible, maybe God sanctioned that and that was good enough for my parents and its good enough for me. At which time I escorted them out the door and asked that they didn't come back. My wife said I was rude and grinned, lol.
As they went to their car our old yeller Tom cat jumped out of an unrolled window. I guess in their forgotten language they probably remarked they had been marked by the Devil, lol. That old cat had caused me to invent some colorful language over the years, but that was one time I was glad to call him mine, lol.

Quotes. By the time the American Revolution came around, the KJV of the Bible was the most cited bible in the land.

Hey, if the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.

Erh, pardon me me fellows but the Eastern Orthodox Catholic bible was copied long before the King James and historic theologians will tell you the Roman Catholic one was close behind so if you want one that is the oldest, those would be the ones. The bible (new testament) was copied by those monks, converted rabbis, disciple scholars and priests beginning in the 100-200 AD which would make them 1800-1900 years old. So lets not argue or compare Christian religions, just be akin/aware to the oldest writers of the bible. Old testament, the Jewish folks win that one by a large margin. ................the mike

I hope this is a joke!

Yes it's a joke.

And a good one.

Genesis 3:21
King James Version

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Sounds like God clothed the whole human family. Since babies are born naked still some by choice prefer streaking thru the produce section, I guess in hopes of finding a leaf big enough ! Leaves maybe; but since the life is in the blood and redemption requires a just equal, not much redeeming qualities in a turnip.

This country was founded on Enlightenment principles. The politicians of the day just used some Christian language to describe them.

If you're trying to say that the enlightenment was anti Christian or wholly secular then I think that some reading on your part is in order.

I’m not. Just trying to make sure we don’t become too syncretic. America isn’t the Promised Land, and American right-wing politics are not the same thing as Christianity. From my perspective, there seems to be confusion about these things sometimes.

jht: Your word syncretic reminds me of a thing someone on here does or used to have pinned on the bottom of there posts that says: "I didn't believe in reincarnation in the last life and I don't believe in it in this one either", lol.

I've often thought the American experiment was God's way of showing us just how incorrigible mankind really is. We were handed something good and squandered it.

It would be a huge mistake and disservice to both church and state to say the we are a Christian nation but we are strongly influenced by the judeo-christian ethic. In essence Mr Adams was correct in that our form of governance is suitable only for a moral people.

Without morality rules and constitutions are meaningless.

Most of the founders would be considered conservative Christians today.

Interesting discussion. The most unabridged version of the bible? There are different translations and much debate about the meaning of certain scriptures. I believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

And I believe plain and precious things have been left out? Why do I believe this? Because I have a strong testimony of Another Testament Of Jesus Christ. This Witness of Jesus Christ and the gospel is The Book of Mormon. Reading this scripture will bring light and truth and clarity of the gospel of Jesus Christ that many struggle to find in their study of the bible alone. It is certainly not a replacement of the bible but a companion to it. If you read it with sincerity asking God if it is true you will receive a witness that it is true. You will find plain and precious things that are left out of the bible or lost in translation and you will become closer to Jesus Christ.

One page description of what you can learn from the Book of Mormon:

Only one small problem. The jesus of mormonism is not the Jesus of the bible. Actually, not even close.

Joseph Smith, a petty thief and con artist, served Satan.

Seeing as how it hadn't been written yet I don't think Paul used it.

The problem with mormonism isn't just the book of mormon. I think you could still be a born again Christian and believe in the fanciful tales in the book of mormon. I've read the book of mormon and didn't notice any blatant blasphemous statements. However, it is quite a work of fiction that has been changed in many places over a fairly
short period of time.

The problem with mormonism though is found in their other books upon which blasphemous doctrines are derived; The Pearl of Great Price, Book of Solomon, and Doctrines & Covenants.

1599 Geneva Bible. That is the one that first came over here, or a Tyndale .

I use the KJV and have for thirty+ years with no intent6of changing. I have a copy of the Amplified Bible and several commentaries along with about five hundred books covering just about anything you can think of regarding the Christian faith.