forum.christogenea.org

I'd personally like to know which O.T. people are into. You hear so much about how the LXX came from a corrupt transcript. Then you hear it was the Bible YeHoShua and the disciples used. I like the AV but I have fits understanding it at time. I have a copy of The Leningrad Text and a Geneva. I also have a copy of Helen Spurrell's O.T. I'd really like something that was easily read but also true. Maybe I want too much.

I have Ferrar Fenton, an old KJV with good cross reference system (the one Clifton uses in his paper) and the orthodox study Bible. I wouldn't mind a Smith and Goodspeed too. I also like the NASB at times.

It's not really which Bible do you read, because they are all with some error and "versions" that reflect a certain perspective. Richard Kelly Hoskins once said it's not which Bible, but whether or not they have adulterated the Law. What is important is the study of the manuscripts and how they have been translated. In Christian Identity we have a key (and a gift) to interpret Scripture as a racial message. That rule of thumb will guide our understanding of most verses. Many passages have been exploited by universalists when they are scribal errors or interpolations. "Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" II Tim. 2:15. Therefore, it behooves us to avail ourselves of a variety of user friendly Bibles that support Christian Identity, whether indirectly or inadvertently. We should also be savvy towards versions that are antithetical to the divine intent.

Mark