I use several different sources. Right now I am doing a study on the book of Daniel by Beth Moore. I have a Believer’s bible commentary. I use the NIV and NASB versions of the bible. The other studies I dont remember but they are through workbooks or books. All different sources I suppose. I always study the bible through a bible study offered at my church.
Which concordances do you use?
There are a variety of different translations available. My experience with translations is that oftentimes the English “versions” differ substantially from one another and also differ substantially from how I would translate from the original language.
I know a little Latin, but no Hebrew or Greek.
One of my “wishes” would be to study Hebrew and Greek.
Every language has it’s own peculiarities and it is really difficult to get past the cultural differences [the Middle Eastern culture versus “Western Culture”] and the “temporal” differences [differences owing to Jesus’ and the Apostlies preaching and writing taking place 2000 years ago]
For example, few people in Western Civilization have ever raised sheep. Yet Jesus talks about sheep all the time.
Jesus talks about mustard seeds and fig trees… He talks about fishing. He talks about letting weeds and wheat grow together.
When Jesus rescued the woman who was about to be stoned to death, … we cannot relate to that.
A lot of Jesus’ talks wove in references to “Old Testament” quotations, so any study of the New Testament must also be accompanied by the “Old Testament” laid open along side the “New Testament”.
Maybe also, writings of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church from the first three centuries should accompany New Testament study… because they “amplified” and explained the Christian faith to their “parishioners”. And they did it under conditions of persecution.
I was reading an English translation of some Psalms … really part of the Old Testament. And came across the expression “Son of Man” … in the Old Testament!! I was pretty surprised. And the publisher/editor had added a footnote in Hebrew suggesting that the original text used the expression “ben Adom”, which of course is not in Hebrew writing, but “ben Adom” [Son of Adam] suggests a totally different nuance from “Son of Man”.
So, anyway, sorry for being so long winded… but I am “wary” [not the right word, sorry] of rigid adherence to interpretations of English text that may or may not be accurate representations of the Hebrew.