Reddit mentions of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version

Oxford Annotated NRSV.. The supporting info is spectacular.

I recommend you check out /r/exjw. Many there are atheists, but its also for everyone in your situation. (but be careful: you REALLY DON'T want your aunt or mum to learn you visit that place) Many on that subreddit have personal experience of living with Jehovah's Witnesses and not being able to reveal that they think differently about things.

Another advice I would give is similar to what shotokando gave you: they can't really argue against you reading the Bible in another translation than NWT.

The reason is this: many JWs, at least those who have been JWs for a long time, have different translations already in their homes, and many Kingdom Halls have multiple translations in the library (though I have heard a rumour that they have been throwing away the content in the KH library, I don't know if that rumour is true). In addition to this, an argument they use when people accuse them for having their own translation is "any translation will do" or "we use all translations". This is something you could use.

So you could argue that you will simply read the Bible in both NWT and some other translation side by side to understand it better.

A study Bible I recommend is The New Oxford Annotated Bible. It contains a lot of scholarly notes, and the translation is NRSV, which is really good. Because those notes are part of the study Bible, you might get away with them. But be careful about how you get this volume: if your aunt or mum discovers it being delivered, they might still overreact.

I like NRSV (NOAB), NJPS (JSB), and NABRE. I recommend getting all three. In addition to being good translations, they contain lots of scholarly notes.

\ I just saw there's a new fifth edition of NOAB.

I discovered Fadiman and Major's book when I was 20 y/r and did this very thing. It was the best decision I ever made. A few notes:

1.) The Durant's "Story of Civ" is excellent, but is so antiquated that it's approaching literature more than history at this point. It's also so long that only segments of it are brilliant, and quite a lot is tedious for the non-historian. I suggest only browsing through it as meets your fancy.

For a good, condense, and reasonably up to date history the world, the best I'm aware of is by the late J.M. Roberts, found on Amazon for $25.

2.) I started chronologically, and had mixed results. If you take that route, take periodic breaks with newer material to keep things interesting.

3.) Don't worry about them being "too complicated to comprehend." These books will always offer you treasures no matter the age. Read and reread them as you see fit over your life time.

4.) The 4th ed of Fadiman's book is the best, but the third edition has a superior introduction. See if you can find a cheap paperpack of it somewhere.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Edit: If you want to add the bible to your collection, this is the best edition out there. (A new ed is coming out April 1st!)

I see you have a couple Bibles in your picture.

May I suggest the best bible for study and reflection: The New Oxford Annotated Bible. This is widely regarded as the most scholarly translation (NRSV) combined with ecumenical scholarly commentary. This will help you place the teaching in context of the time and audience for which it was written.

Also, for the teaching of Jesus the Christ without the dogma and theology of the Apostle Paul, try the Gospel of Thomas.

Here are some progressive, critical sources that cover African-American and feminist perspectives:

• The Africana Bible: Reading Israel's Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora, ed. Page (Hebrew Bible + Deuterocanonicals)
  
• True to Our Native Land, ed. Blount (NT)
  
• Women's Bible Commentary, ed. Newsom, et al. (Hebrew Bible + Deuterocanonicals + NT)
  
  For individual book commentaries, you might consider selections from these series:
  
  
• The Anchor Bible (Doubleday)
  
• Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Westminster John Knox Press)
  
• Hermeneia (Fortress Press)
  
• International Critical Commentary (T&T Clark)
  
• Interpretation (Westminster John Knox Press)
  
• Old/New Testament Library (Westminster John Knox Press)
  
  Note that commentaries in the Hermeneia and ICC series are fairly technical (e.g., Hebrew and Greek words are not transliterated), and some books in the Hermeneia and OTL/NTL series are English translations of older German works that are now beginning to show their age. For example, the Hermeneia volume for the Johannine Epistles is a classic (1973 ET of Bultmann's Die drei Johannesbriefe [2nd ed., 1967]), but it's older than me (and I'm no spring chicken)! In contrast, the Hermeneia volume for Mark is a comprehensive, recent treatment by Adela Yarbro Collins, published just 11 years ago.
  
  I also agree with earlier comments regarding NOAB, now in its fifth edition, which is just slightly changed from the fourth edition. Note that a major revision in terms of page formatting, paper stock, etc., occurred between the third (2001) and fourth (2010) editions (cf. comments on Amazon for details). You can find used copies of these prior editions for reasonable prices both online and at places such as Half-Price Books.
  
  Two other Bibles to consider, in addition to the HarperCollins Study Bible:
  
  
• The Access Bible, ed. O'Day and Petersen (ecumenical study Bible geared for mainline audiences)
  
• The Peoples' Bible, ed. DeYoung, et al. (study Bible incorporating multicultural, liberationist, and post-colonial interpretive methods)
  
  Best wishes concerning your continued studies!

I got it for about 30 bucks on Amazon. So it’s more expensive than your standard pocket bible but it’s not bad as far as study bibles go. Considering the use I’ve gotten out of it and how much it’s helped me with both my studies and my faith, I would’ve gladly paid twice that. As a brother in Christ (sorry mods, I know that kind of language is kinda frowned upon here), I’d encourage you to splurge on it.

That doesn’t sound like a bad price for the ESV student bible if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for, but I wouldn’t consider that and the New Oxford as alternatives to each other. They’re really trying to accomplish two different things. If you already have a decent grasp on fundamental Christian theology, I don’t think you’ll gain a lot from the ESV student bible, unless you just want to keep it around to compare certain passages, which I do still use it for occasionally.

Link on amazon: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version https://www.amazon.com/dp/019027607X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_nqH6CbC9THYR6

Specifically, I would recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. Alternatively, the Harpy Collins Study Bible, which is also NRSV.

If that's your goal then the New Oxford Annotated Bible is what you want. The fifth edition just came out so it's a bit pricier than the fourth. Nothing wrong with getting the fourth edition for $22, though.

skepticsannotatedbible.com /s

If you are interested in seriously tackling the text from scholarly perspective I would suggest The New Oxford Annotated Bible (which uses the New Revised Standard Version). You can get it online here or here.

Also since you are starting from Genesis and will be spending lot of the time with Old Testament I would suggest The Jewish Study Bible both for commentary and comparison of The Jewish Publication Society translation with ESV / NSRV. You can get the 1st edition online here.

/u/mike_bevel is this the version you purchased? https://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/019027607X

I will give my response to your post. I read the other comments, thinking that I would just add to what they said without repeating what had already been said, but realized that then my own comment would become fragmented if I took that into account, so I will ignore what others have said.

 

> I lied to the elders by saying I read it when I got baptised after they asked if I read the bible everyday.

I think this is a very common lie. I don't think many elders have read the Bible either.

In fact, every single time some Jehovah's Witness say "I know this is the truth, because I have investigated the evidence myself" they are lying.

Another very common lie: "I don't masturbate"

The truth is, almost everyone masturbates, most people have not read the Bible, and every single one that has actually investigated the evidence for themself has left the religion, at least mentally.

 

> I’m a slow reader (I think I might have adhd. Should I see a doctor?) and I’m up to Genesis 3.

Going to a doctor could be a good idea, perhaps. I don't know the extent of your problem.

Personally, when I haven't been reading anything for a long time, in the way I read the Bible, then it will be slower. But then if I keep at it for a few days or a week I will speed up. Sometimes if I read two hours straight, the first hour I will read with difficulty, but the second hour I read much better. Another thing that could speed up your reading is if you don't speak the words, neither out loud nor in your head, because it takes time to "pronounce" the words. But reading text without even pronouncing it mentally is not something everyone knows how to do, and I don't know how to teach it.

Though, even if you only read the text in the same speed as you speak normally, you will still easily read through the Bible in a year, unless your life is busy.

 

> I’m very very confused about Genesis 1 and 2 so far as it seems like it contradicts itself so much.

My understanding of the scientific explanation is that Genesis 2 was written first by one author, and later Genesis 1 was written by another author and added to the beginning of Genesis, and the theologies of those authors are different.

The first author, who wrote Genesis 2 about Adam and Eve, thought, according to my own understanding of the text, that humans were first created as mere animals, and then they gained "knowledge of good and bad" and became more than animals. This was why they were naked without feeling any shame, because they were just as any other animals. The author was a child of his time and culture, and thought it was uncivilized to be naked, unaware that it is a cultural idea not universal to humans.

This might also explain why the snake could speak: the author might have thought that as Adam and Eve were just mere animals, they could speak the same language as animals. Though there are other possible explanations.

Christians usually describe the events in Eden as "the Fall", but this is not supported by the text. Instead, it is "the Ascension". The two trees represent two qualities of gods that set gods apart from animals. The "knowledge of good and bad" represents the author's understanding of the mental difference between humans and animals, which he believed originally only belonged to the gods.

Jehovah lied to Adam and Eve about the tree, essentially saying that it was poisonous, to keep them from eating and ascending to the level of the gods. The snake revealed the truth, and they ate and became as gods. Jehovah felt threatened by this, and expelled them from Eden to prevent them from gaining the second quality of gods: eternal life, by eating from the tree of life.

This was the author's explanation why humans are partly divine, by having knowledge as gods, and partly animal, by being mortal as animals.

The second author, who wrote Genesis 1, disagreed. He thought God created the humans in the image of God from the outset. There was never any time when humans were only mere animals, and no "Ascension". There was never a "tree of knowledge".

The second author plagiarized a pre-existing creation myth, and made some changes. One of the changes was that he removed a battle between God and the cosmic waters, because according to the second author, God is omnipotent. The original audience knew the pre-existing myth, and could notice the difference, but most modern readers don't know about the pre-existing story.

Genesis 1:1-3 should read something like

> When God began to create sky and land—the land being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of Tehom and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

In the original story, there was a battle between the gods and Tehom. In Hebrew, "Tehom" is a proper noun, a name, even though most translations hide this.

The Watchtower Society brags about not hiding the fact that "YHWH" is a name, and transcribes it as "Jehovah", but they are still guilty of hiding the name "Tehom" and other names in the Bible such as "El". (Also, as others have stated, the Watchtower inserts the name "Jehovah" into the Bible where "YHWH" is not found, like in the New Testament.)

This is just how I understand it, though it is also based on what I have heard from scholars. I may have gotten details wrong.

When I was PIMI and read it not too carefully, I thought that the story about Adam and Eve "zoomed in" on the sixth day of creation. Thus, Genesis 1 described the creation of heaven and earth and humans, while Genesis 2 took a closer look at the creation of humans. Now I don't believe this is correct.

If one tries to read Genesis as a single coherent story, to the limited degree it is possible, then this is probably how I would read it today: First God created sky, land (a flat earth in an earth-sized snow globe), and humans in six (literal) days, then he rested on the seventh day, then after an unspecified time, Jehovah created Adam, that started out as a mere animal, but then ascended. Thus Adam and Eve were not the first humans, though it seems the first humans were gone, because there were no one to tilt the ground.

 

> Anyway, what translation should I use? ... Of course, there’s the King Lebron James Version, the American standard version and a bunch of others too. I want an actual physical copy of the bible too, I’m a young person but I’m so sick of looking at technology all the time so I’d prefer an actual bible. I also don’t want a biased translation or one that may have just added or removed things from the bible where they see fit. I want a bible as close to the original texts as possible.

I like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) (specifically as The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 5th ed.) and the New Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh (NJPS) (as The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed.).

However, there is no translation without bias, or even without mistranslations. At least not one of the whole Bible in a single volume.

But there are definitively better ones and worse ones.

Some things that speak in favour of NRSV:

• NRSV is an Ecumenical translation, involving Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, and the Old Testament involves a Jewish translator as well. This means that when they disagree about the interpretation, they tend to stick to the more literal reading that they all agree on. It still has bias, but not as much as translations made by a single denomination.
  
  
• NRSV is created by non-fundamentalists, which means a higher acceptance of a scientific understanding of the text.
  
  
• NRSV is on the spectrum towards a formal translation, which means it is closer to a word-for-word translation. This means it has less smooth English, but also less room for bias.
  
  
• NRSV is recommended by academics, both by secular scholars and non-fundamentalist Christian scholars.
  
  When I first started researching different translations to decide which ones I should get, I thought "Using 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' is superior to using 'the LORD', so I will start looking at translations that use 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'", but I soon realized that the winner was NRSV despite not using 'Jehovah/Yahweh'.
  
  The Watchtower brags about getting "YHWH" right, but the name "YHWH" is only about 1% of the total number of words. Getting 1% of the words right, while being dodgy about the remaining 99% isn't that impressive.
  
  Sometimes the gender neutral language of NRSV is criticized. An example of the gender neutral language is that in the New Testament the phrase "brothers and sisters" is used where many mainstream translations use "brothers". This isn't necessarily wrong, because the Greek word could refer to an all-male group or a mixed gender group. But some have said that NRSV occasionally use gender neutral language where the intended meaning is not gender neutral.

New Oxford Annotated Bible 5th Edition just came out.

I’ve purchased each Edition since the 2nd. Great translation, great scholarship.

Maybe this is of no help for you, but personally I don't make marks in the Bible itself. Instead I write notes on my computer, where I have text files for every book of the Bible. I make notes in the same files when I read different translations, so I have it all together. This means I can read the Bible without being distracted or influenced by previous notes, and it also means my notes are searchable, making it easier to find things again.

This is my main Bible.

I bought three translations, two in English:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (NRSV) (I bought the 4th ed, but I linked the 5th ed)

The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed. (NJPS)

Then I have two different editions of the Masoretic text, based on the Leningrad Codex.

Then I have The Kingdom Interlinear, which despite being published by the Watchtower is kept together with the non-WT Bibles due to it containing the Greek text.

These I will probably keep for a long time, as the Bible is historically a very important work, unless they are replaced with better alternatives.

Then I keep a small reference library of WT stuff, which includes a few versions of NWT, the Reasoning book, Insight, Daniel's Prophecy, etc. All of it I got from WT while PIMI/PIMO, which means that no JW can question the authenticity of the information in it.

When I want to know what the Bible says, I look it up in my three non-WT Bibles and compare them, and tentatively accept whatever they all agree on while remaining agnostic about whatever they don't agree on.

I am also in the process of reading through the Bible, to learn what it says without bias.