# Studying only ONE Bible?



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

A recent thread got me thinking: are there benefits to studying from only ONE Bible for most of your life? For example, I like the ESV, so should I endeavor to study almost only the ESV Study Bible (or a Non-Study Bible ESV) to thoroughly know where everything is both by memory and by sight? Then, when that Bible is too used I can just buy one of the same? 

What do you think about this?


----------



## PresbyDane (Mar 21, 2009)

Well I am danish I do not have any other choice


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

Well thanks for the bump!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 21, 2009)

I think it would be a good idea to have a set Bible that one uses on a regular basis. I do think one of the downsides of not having a common Bible among Christian folk is that we no longer really have a common language when it comes to how we know and understand the Scriptures.


----------



## PresbyDane (Mar 21, 2009)

that is a down side you guys have, but only having one is not really all that great either, espescially in the places were it is wrong


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 21, 2009)

Re4mdant said:


> that is a down side you guys have, but only having one is not really all that great either, espescially in the places were it is wrong



Out of curiosity what is the "history" of the Danish Bible?


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Mar 21, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> A recent thread got me thinking: are there benefits to studying from only ONE Bible for most of your life? For example, I like the ESV, so should I endeavor to study almost only the ESV Study Bible (or a Non-Study Bible ESV) to thoroughly know where everything is both by memory and by sight? Then, when that Bible is too used I can just buy one of the same?
> 
> What do you think about this?



I need to stick with one because I have a hard time memorizing as it is and I like to be familiar with that Bible and use it effectively as I study with other brothers and evangelize etc.

However,I found after going through the Bible a number of times I was reading the Bible like a newspaper rather that taking time and meditating in it,so I needed to get out of my comfort zone and had to change primary translations for 2009 so I went with the ESV Study Bible as well and love it,so for a time will go through this and see how it goes,but I am missing the security of a known translation/Study Bible but are getting blessed with a freshness and back to meditating on His Word more


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

Good insight there, Brian. Thank you.


----------



## etexas (Mar 21, 2009)

If you studied NOTHING but the AV, you would be doing quite well!


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

etexas said:


> If you studied NOTHING but the AV, you would be doing quite well!



What can I say, the AV just isn't "me."


----------



## PresbyDane (Mar 21, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Re4mdant said:
> 
> 
> > that is a down side you guys have, but only having one is not really all that great either, espescially in the places were it is wrong
> ...



Here:

Vulgata var grundlaget
De allerførste oversættelser er næsten lige så gamle som de bibelske tekster selv. Fra oldtiden stammer oversættelser til græsk, aramaisk, syrisk, latin og andre sprog. En særlig status fik den latinske oversættelse, der går under navnet Vulgata; den blev den vestlige kirkes officielle bibel. I løbet af middelalderen bliver bibelske tekster oversat til forskellige europæiske sprog, blandt andet tysk, engelsk og fransk, fortrinsvis på grundlag af Vulgata. Også i de skandinaviske lande har bibeloversættelsesarbejde fundet sted. Et manuskript med en dansk oversættelse fra 1400-tallet af 1. Mosebog–2. Kongebog er bevaret.

Christian den Tredjes bibel
Med reformationen i 1500-tallet sker der et nybrud i Bibelens historie. Luther oversætter hele bibelen til tysk fra grundsprogene, hebraisk og græsk, og hans oversættelse bliver forlæg for en række europæiske bibeloversættelser blandt andet den første danske helbibel, som udkom i 1550; den der går under navnet Christian den Tredjes bibel.

De danske Lutherbibler
De officielle danske bibeloversættelsers historie fra den første, Christian den Tredjes bibel fra 1550, til den seneste, den autoriserede oversættelse fra 1992, forløber i tre faser. I den første fase (1500-1600-tallet) er det arven fra Luther, der sætter sit præg. For det er først og fremmest Luthers tyske bibeloversættelse, der har været forlægget for Christian den Tredjes bibel. Luthers bibeloversættelse udmærker sig ved et mundret og kraftfuldt sprog; for ham har oversættelsesidealet været at finde frem til meningen i bibelteksten og så forholde sig lidt mere frit til de enkelte ord. Han er orienteret mod målsproget. Christian den Tredjes bibel har et luthersk præg, og de to revisioner (1589 og 1633) er forsynet med Luthers forord til de bibelske skrifter og noter til enkelte ord i teksten og med Luthers medarbejder Veit Dietrichs resuméer.

Med rette kaldes disse bibler de danske Lutherbibler.

Allerede i begyndelsen af 1600-tallet oversættes hele Bibelen på ny, men denne gang med den hebraiske og græske tekst som udgangspunkt. Det er biskop Resen, der udfører dette arbejde. Oversættelsen udkommer i 1607, og dermed indledes næste fase af den danske bibels historie (1600-1800-tallet), som er domineret af den resen-svaningske tradition. Resens oversættelse har en helt anden karakter end de danske Lutherbibler. I modsætning til Luther havde Resen nemlig det ideal at oversætte så ordret som muligt. Han er orienteret mod kildesproget.

Det betyder, at over for den mundrette og ofte frie oversættelse, som kendetegner de danske Lutherbibler, fremtræder Resens oversættelse som meget tekstnær og ordret, men ind imellem også knudret og med et udansk præg. Ligesom Christian den Tredjes bibel kom i reviderede udgaver, blev Resens oversættelse underkastet en revision, som blev foretaget af biskop Svane. Resultatet af det arbejde, den resen-svaningske bibel, udkom i 1647. I de følgende århundreder kom den i en række reviderede udgaver.

Tredje fase af den officielle danske bibels historie (1900-tallet) er karakteriseret ved tre nyoversættelser direkte fra grundsprogene. Det drejer sig om 1931-oversættelsen af Det Gamle Testamente, 1948-oversættelsen af Det Nye Testamente og 1992-oversættelsen af hele Bibelen. Dette nybrud i den danske bibels historie har sin baggrund i bibelkritikkens fremkomst og det historisk-kritiske arbejde med bibelteksterne, som gennem 1800-tallet havde præget bibelforskningen. Det betød et nyt syn på teksterne, som nødvendigvis måtte afspejle sig både i en ændret ordlyd og i en ændret præsentation af dem.

Oversættelser med særpræg
Den officielle danske bibels historie illustrerer, hvor forskelligt oversættelsesarbejdet kan gribes an. Selv om det er de samme tekster, de hebraiske og de græske bibeltekster, der er oversættelsesgrundlaget igennem den danske bibels historie, fremtræder de danske bibeloversættelser alligevel med hver deres særpræg.

Men den danske bibels historie illustrerer også, hvor forskelligt de bibelske tekster har været præsenteret for danske bibellæsere gennem snart et halvt årtusind. Læserne af de første danske bibler bliver ikke alene konfronteret med de bibelske tekster, men bliver udstyret med nøglen til tolkningen af dem gennem de forord, resuméer og noter, der ledsager bibelteksten.

I de seneste bibler derimod er der en tendens til en større og større tilbageholdenhed over for sådanne ledsagende kommentarer. Her er det først og fremmest bibelteksten og den alene, læseren får udleveret. Tolkningen derimod er her i højere grad overladt til bibellæseren selv.

Det nyeste skud på stammen er Bibelselskabets nyoversættelse af Det Nye Testamente til nudansk, Den Nye Aftale, som forventes at udkomme i sensommeren 2007.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Mar 21, 2009)

I would have a "goto" translation for memorizing. 

I would recommend doing a year or a few months in a different translation every once in a while. i.e. Like every two years go through the Bible in the KJV or HCSB, etc. I personally think it is good to stay engaged with other "scholarly" translations that are coming out or are already out...it has been a good learning experience for me. Translations get reputations and it is nice to judge for yourself if the reputation is correct.

Other than that there is a huge blessing I believe in having the same physical bible. You can become familiar with the layout, markings, etc. 

I do not use study bibles for day to day reading...just reference (I buy them in hardback editions and keep them on the shelf with my commentaries). I found out that they become a huge crutch to me and when I encouter a tough passage I skip to the notes instead of rereading and struggling through the text first. 

I love the simpleness of God's word on the page, with an uncluttered layout, etc.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

matthew11v25 said:


> Other than that there is a huge blessing I believe in having the same physical bible. You can become familiar with the layout, markings, etc.
> 
> I do not use study bibles for day to day reading...just reference (I buy them in hardback editions and keep them on the shelf with my commentaries). I found out that they become a huge crutch to me and when I encouter a tough passage I skip to the notes instead of rereading and struggling through the text first.
> 
> I love the simpleness of God's word on the page, with an uncluttered layout, etc.



Good input, thank you. I was thinking about primarily reading from an ESV wide margin ref. bible and supplementing that with study bibles and commentaries. If there is something that I actually _want_ in my bible I can just put it in myself.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 21, 2009)

Re4mdant said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Re4mdant said:
> ...



Very helpful, thanks


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 21, 2009)

Well, if you can read English I don't think it is necessary to limit oneself to a single version of the Bible. 

However.

I think that your primary study Bible should be the version used by your local congregation in its worship. This is what you'll be having read to you, preached to you, taught to you, etc... So it helps with continuity. Plus, if you trust the leadership of your local church with the care of your immortal soul, then I think you should trust them with the version of the Bible you employ.

Just my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 21, 2009)

Good point, Ben; thank you. My church uses the ESV, so I'm good there. And the point of studying one main Bible was not so much about translation but about familiarity of where everything is in the Bible physically. I just don't know if that would help study/finding texts in the long run. Whatever Bible is used would definitely be supplemented by other texts, so there isn't really an issue of being constricted to one translation.


----------

