Given that [proponents of *Textus Receptus* Only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) are still influential today and that the majority of Bible translations today are using the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) , I wonder whether there are Bible translations that cater to **both** Greek editions by *consistently* providing the original Greek text **as well as** the translation of the variant *not* used in the main text. **CONSISTENTLY** is the operative word here, so that [*Textus-Receptus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) only Bible readers can benefit from non-KJV translations to help them understand Scripture better (by using a modern translation) **while trusting** that the *Textus Receptus* manuscript version is always present to them. It makes sense from the Marketing perspective. Although of course one could consult *Wikipedia* or a list of differences in a [web article](https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs) , or use a tool such as *BibleGateway* to display it side by side, it is a lot more user-friendly to see the variant as a footnote that is available **offline**. My preliminary research shows that alternate manuscript footnotes are sporadic, not consistent. For example, for [Matt 19:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A16-17&version=KJV,YLT,CSB) CSB only shows the *mss* variant in v. 17, but not in v. 16, and *not* show the Greek itself. [*Bible Hub*](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-16.htm) *does* have links to alternate manuscript but it's not indicated in the main text as an alert. Given that such a dual-manuscript translation is not available easily today, what is the easiest way to read the Bible **and be consistently alerted** when a *Textus-Receptus* variant exists? I know I can use tools like the [Logos software](https://www.logos.com/) to do side by side interlinear translations of both CSB and KJV/YLT, but it's not that easy to spot a variant. So I will also accept an answer that can provide a recipe for using a software like this to read a Bible normally but has footnote, color codes, etc. to alert me that a **meaning-altering** *Textus Receptus* variant exists. ----- **NOTE** (after feedback in comments). Of course I wouldn't want any variants that don't make a difference in meaning. My Question has to do with making sure that the 3 text traditions (let's also add the Eastern Orthodox text tradition whose OT is based on Septuagint) are well represented in footnotes that **should include a judgment from within each tradition on how that variant is likely**. Each translation based on a particular text tradition already winnowed out meaningless variants BY THAT tradition, so in my ideal Bible those variants don't need to be mentioned at all. So I just want the 3 tradition text critic (TR, NA, and EO) to do their job well *within their text-tradition*, and the Bible publisher would present their 3 works in a single Bible volume with the main text coming from one of the 3 (the rest is in the footnotes). **So 3 Bible committees consulting their respective text-critic experts, and 1 publisher.**

It's common to see Jesus's words in red in a lot of bibles. However, I have been appreciating the [Christian Standard Bible](https://csbible.com/) team judiciously **bold**-ing OT references that are clear enough when the authors intended the phrase as an OT quotation, such as in [1 Cor 15:42-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015%3A42-46&version=CSB) : > 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; 43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; 44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written, **The first man Adam became a living being**;[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual. > > a. 15:45 Gn 2:7 making it easier for us to recognize how 1 Cor 5:45 refers to Gen 2:7, even though other translations have the footnote as well. See more examples from the entire [chapter 15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015&version=CSB) . Especially interesting is [Acts 2:17-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202%3A14-24&version=CSB) where there is a mixture of bolded words and regular words. Is it possible this is to show how Luke added words to the OT verses, which is helpful to get more insights in how NT authors used OT? Example (v. 17, line breaks ignored): > **And it will be** in the last days, says God, that **I will pour out my Spirit on all people; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.** My question: **Which English Bibles have this "feature"?** What's the origin of this practice, which maybe in a non-English Bible translation?

I grew up Catholic but lost my faith in teenage years. Regardless, the Bible has been very influential until this day and it has some pretty neat stories. I now want to read the Bible seriously. I have never read the whole text and I have no idea how to. But I believe that reading it *sequentially* from cover to cover is *not* the standard approach although this is generally how I approach other books. I realize that Bible reading guidelines may differ depending on the interests of the reader. I want to 1) get the *general idea of the stories* in the Bible and 2) to *understand the internal (perhaps literary?) references in the text*. I understand that the Bible has a lot of internal references which I might not pick up on my first reading. Regardless, **I am looking for guidelines on how to read the Bible so I can achieve the above 2 goals with *just one reading***. By the way, "Do not read the whole text, rather focus on [...]" is also an answer I am willing to consider.

I would like to know whether the Bible says that Christians should read the Bible every day. In the old testament, I have found some verses which say that Jews should read the Law every day. For example Psalms 1:2 and Psalms 119:97. However, some things have changed when the new testament came. For example, circumcision is not a commandment for Christians (Galations 5:2). But some commandments from the Law still hold for all Christians, such as the command to abstain from sexual immorality (Acts 15:20). Therefore, I would like to know if there is a verse inside the New Testament, which applies to all Christians and which explicitly says that we should read the Bible every single day? EDIT: since the word 'Bible' does not occur in the Bible, a synonym would also suffice.

I’ve been asked to read psalm 23 at a funeral next week. The service is being led by our Church of England vicar. Does anyone know what is traditionally said at the beginning and end of the reading? I’ve never given a reading during any kind of service before and want to make sure I get it right. Many thanks.

The Bible is probably one of the most historically significant books for the Western civilization, so it should be a worthwhile read for many a literature geek. In which order should it be read, then? Cover-to-cover is hardly a good order, as the New Testament is more significant for western culture and Christianity than the Old Testament (which comes first). I'm looking for the preferred order for a first-time reader. For reference, the books of the Bible are listed on Wikipedia . Answerers may assume a Protestant Bible, but ones based on others with two testaments are welcome, too.

The Catholic church teaches that only the Church (Magisterium) has the right to interpret Scriptures whereas Protestant churches typically believe that anyone has that right. What is the argument that supports the idea that anyone can and should interpret Scripture for himself or herself?

I have a friend who is foreign born and her English is good but she needs to improve her reading and writing skills. It is jeopardizing her job situation because she can't read/write emails very well. I want to suggest some books for her to read that will help her improve her skills. However, she is very religious, and would only be interested in reading Bible-related books. She reads from the King James Bible every day for ~30 mins, but it is in old english, and I am not sure that she understands what she is reading. But she reads it religiously. Is there a more modern Bible-related book that I can suggest for her? Something that would help her understand modern grammar and sentence structure would be best, especially for improving her written communication in daily life. Any help would be great!

What is the importance of reading the Bible in Catholicism? Can a Catholic anticipate going to heaven by only attending the masses and going to Confession, but **never read the Bible at home**? Does reading the Bible have the same importance as attending the mass? Let's not discuss about the past here. I am interested in the present-day official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. I believe that nowadays there is a Bible in the house of every Catholic family.

I will start by describing some methods (and what I dislike about them) for studying the Bible. Then, I will describe the method I would like to use to study the Bible. Lastly, I will ask for supporting material for my idealized Bible study method. ## What I have tried: * reading a fixed # of pages per day: This worked well for a while (and read through the Bible a few times) based on this method -- but I ran into the problem of: * Old Testament was too slow * New Testament was too fast * did not get as much "theology" out of it * reading books / articles by reformed theologists * got a lot of theology out of it (yay) * did not like the fact that I was constantly jumping through verses in the Bible * feels "digested" ## What I would like to try: * read a variable # of the pages of the Bible per day, and have supporting commentary that explains the main interesting theological points I should get out of the book/chapter/verse * this is something that is "like a concordance" but at a higher level. What I mean is as follows: * from a concordance, I get things likes: in this particular verse, the world _foo_ means _abc in the context_ ; in this particular verse, in the time/culture of when it was written, _bar_ means _def in the context_ * what I want is something like: this book contributes to developing the doctrine of predestination, verses XYZ relate to this, chapter ABC makes this point, etc ... * so I'm looking for something that is "systematic theology"-ish -- but I don't want to jump through verses of the Bible, I want something that develops systematic theology based on the order of the Bible * so I want something that is like: * in the Book of Genesis, we develop the following theological points * point 1 is developed in chapters A, B, C * point 2 is developed in chapters D, E, F * then, I go off and read the book of Genesis, and reference this supplementary material for the theological points ## What is the closest thing that exists? EDIT: [This](http://www.amazon.com/Gleanings-Genesis-Arthur-Pink-Collection-ebook/dp/B008CM51IY/) may be what I want :-)

I have heard many pastors encouraging their members to read the Bible daily. Why do we have to read the Bible daily? Is going to church and listening to sermons not enough?

I am interested in the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and their languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through **twice** and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through **four times**. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, *I Was Wrong*, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org). In addition, Mr. Lee Woofenden , an ordained minister, in answering my original question, pointed out that 'historically, the Roman Catholic Church has at times discouraged or even effectively forbidden the laity from reading the Bible (...) The Tridentine Index of Prohibited Books, The Roman Index of Prohibited Books.' I, accordingly, ask: Is there any evidence whatsoever or indications that some leaders in major Christian churches or denominations discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT?

As you can see from my 'autobiography' I am not particularly denominationaly religious but interested. I have read the whole Hebrew Bible all the way through **twice** and the whole four Canonical gospels all the way through **four times**. Imagine my surprise when I read that in his 1996 book, *I Was Wrong*, televangelist Jim Baker admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison! Similarly, a Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Details (www.pewforum.org ). I ask: what do you think are the reasons for many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?