A Reply About References for Neville Goddard and Bible Study

Hi Dan,

It was great to see your blog. I love Neville Goddard and hang on every word; delicious. I was wondering what version of the Bible (or other reference or concordance) you use? They’ve all been “revised” aka tampered and changed…doing the very thing we’re instructed not to do. But if you have a version that you like, I’d appreciate a recommendation.

Thanks,

Cynthia
______________________________________

Dear Readers,

I am expanding on what I replied to Cynthia. I hope she reads this:

Thank you for reading my effort to understand Neville/Gospel. You are correct, the Bible is heavily edited. But its message is ubiquitous in it--it cannot be edited out. For study and for looking things up I use The Companion Bible by Ethelbert Bullinger. He was the son of one of the great reformers and was an "ultra-dispensationalist," which means he divided God's work into different eras of "housekeeping." He wasn't right in his divisions, but that does not bother me. I am. In the text's companion margin are notes and insights which yield upon study another Bible, much closer to the original. I never get more than a few verses into reading before Bullinger has sent me off onto some marvelously fruitful search through the scriptures and his appendixes.

The Companion Bible is King James Version. I have several study Bibles in several versions. The King James is known to have numerous faults, but I stick with it for personal reasons:

a) It is the Bible God used to speak to me when I was saved.
b) After forty years of study I know many of its faults.
c) It is the version used by everyone I have known to be used in miracles.
d) I think it is the easiest to remember/memorize.
e) It is the version Bullinger used to make what is in my opinion the premier study Bible.

But -- after encountering God in miracles and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, one tends to become an insatiable Bible geek. Those miracles and the baptism in the Holy Spirit experience are my personal version of the Bible. Everything I read or hear taught gets processed through my personal-experience-with-God. That is my navigational star, my anchor for reference and justification.

ALWAYS at hand is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. There is a compact, paperback version. THE NAMES IN THE BIBLE MEAN THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRANSLATED. The Hebrew word for 'name' (shem) means the nature of the thing.

I read Victor Alexander's translations (v-a.com/bible). As you will find in Bullinger's notes (appendixes 30-34), the Jews edited the Bible a lot, but largely kept notes of all the changes in the margins of their scrolls. The KJV translators did not take those changes into account when they translated the scrolls' texts into English. Bullinger does. Alexander uses ancient Aramaic versions which apparently predate many of the changes. His translations are a bit expensive--I suggest you read through his website extensively to see whether you want to buy them--but I bought them and have not regretted it. I will warn you, though, that Victor uses some ancient Aramaic terms that defy translation. It can be a little disconcerting to read Allaha for God and Maryah for Lord and YHWH. Bear with him. The Aramaic is an Eastern version and has a very, very different theology to it. The West is dualistic (sees separation), the East is non-dual (no division). Alexander could not translate using Western terms and maintain the Eastern theology, so he transliterated. When the meanings of the terms dawn on you, well, I do not think prostration will feel a ritual thing.
________________________________________