Top 3 Bible versions in: English, German, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Latin to facilitate term a

Hamilton Ramos said:

German: no clue

As far as I know, there are only 3 German Bibles that have reverse interlinear tagging, which is required for this kind of research:

1. Luther 2017 (formal equivalence translation of critical text, mostly NA, loosely based on Luther's translation)

2. Luther 1984 (predecessor of the above)

3. Schlachter 2000 (formal equivalence translation of TR, from Switzerland, Protestant/Evangelical)

4. Einheitsübersetzung 2017, currently in pre-pub (formal equivalence translation of critical text, Roman-Catholic)

My personally preferred version is the Zürcher Bibel. It has no interlinear tagging though. It's a translation from Switzerland (sponsored by the Swiss Reformed Church), based on the critical text, and uses a modern language while being very accurate to the original text.

Hamilton Ramos said:

Do you know a way to know what the best French Bibles are and that are available in Logos 8?

You can search the website for all available Reverse Interlinear Bibles: https://www.logos.com/products/search?Resource+Type=Interlinears&Resource+Type_Interlinears=Reverse+Interlinears+ 

French - At this moment only the Louis Segond 1910 has reverse interlinear tagging. 

German - 1.Lutherbibel 1984; 2.Lutherbibel 2017; Schlachter Bibel 2000 (see Jan's post)

Chinese - Chinese Union Version

Korean - New Korean Revised Version

Portuguese - Bíblia Almeida Revista e Atualizada

Edit:

Spanish - Reina Valera 1960

To do the job you are trying to accomplish fully you need to use ones that use different base texts. Otherwise you may not be seeing differences in the text but differences in the minds of the translators.

In Old Testament studies you need to use both the Hebrew and the Greek texts.
That is Bibles based on: for example LHB or BHS SESB 2.0 for the Hebrew text and LXX Swete for the Greek text. Most are based on the Hebrew but ones based on the Greek are available [LXX].

In New Testament studies you need to use for example: the BYZ The Majority text, the SBLGNT the Critical text and the Scrivener 1881 the TR text. Both the Critical text translations and the TR translations are available but what Majority text translations are there? [I know of one but it is not in Logos]

[[And as others note: the translations need to be in a language you read, be in Logos, and have a Reverse Interlinear]]

Hamilton Ramos said:

Theoretically one could use something like:

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/167403/handbook-of-basic-bible-texts-every-key-passage-for-the-study-of-doctrine-and-theology

and then check the different versions of GNT, and the different Bible Versions in different languages to get a more rounded view.

Yes, and then look up each verse in all of the bibles in your library. That resource states that: "The text used is the highly readable and modern New International Version" Which is a translation of the Critical Text.    [Thanks for the link - bought a copy]   

[Now to see if I can digest the rest of your reply]

Hamilton Ramos said:

Have you had any experience in comparing key Biblical-systematic thrusts on different base texts, and Bible versions?

If so, what have you noticed?

Back in December 2005 our pastor suggested that we read the Bible in a year. Having done that a few years before I decided to do it again.  [[Many do that every year and use a different version if they can find one that they have not used before]]

But I decided to bite off more, hopefully not more than I could chew.  So I read three at once.  KJV (Hebrew /  TR), NASB (Hebrew /  Critical), and the Apostles Bible (Greek LXX / Majority). [not in Logos]  I copied the text of all three into a word document file - side by side. I flagged every place where there was a difference.  I am still working on studies that started with my finding a difference.  May finish all the studies around 2099 or so so I do not yet have firm conclusions.    I have not even thought of performing the tests that you have listed.   

[[by the way I found that Exodus 36 to 40 does not line up between the Greek and Hebrew.  They basically say the same thing but not in the same order.  Someone's master scroll fell apart and they did a good job putting it back together. I printed out both versions one line per verse, cut them up, and matched every verse to the other version. After inputting the verse numbers that matched into a spreadsheet I can now read Ex 36 - 40 in either order: Greek or Hebrew.]]  

[[One side project that I am trying is to compare Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.  My very preliminary conclusion is that if the two do not agree and one agrees with the TR then the "scholars" take the other, the one that does not agree with the TR, as the correct reading.]]

I have a problem with Textual Criticism.  

From Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible

 “Scholars agree that the Alexandrian is the best ancient text, on the whole, and that it reflects the original NT text from early in the 2nd century” ¹

^[1] Weigelt, M. A. (1988). Bible, Textual Criticism of The. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 318). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

I have read some of the books on Textual Criticism and searched others and found nothing on the effects of book burning.

 And have noticed that they talk a lot about getting the OLDEST that can be found.

 And then they pick as the top readings some that have been found in the care of the biggest book burner in history.

 But I have not yet been able to locate anything that an expert in Textual Criticism has said on the book burning and the availability of old manuscripts nor on the crusades that burned a city where very old manuscripts that that biggest book burner did not like might have been found.

 I don’t think there is such a writing.  One of the KEY assumptions of Textual Criticism seems to be that all readings that did exist would still be found today in very very old copies. [not copies of copies but the old ones themselves]  That is that the oldest found must be the first written,

 And as they do not seem to like the ones that were most likely to be burnt they do not want to admit that there was a selection being done by the deliberate burning of some texts that were unliked.

 Also the ground that very very old texts might have been buried in might have made a difference, the dry sand of Egypt or the wet ground of Constantinople. Dry sand preserves while wet ground rots all in it.  Nothing on Textual Criticism that I have seen covers the survivability rates of things buried in different places. [dry sand 3000 years.  wet ground ??? years.]

Just some of my personal problems with Textual Criticism. 

Quotes from prior post by:

Hamilton Ramos said:

Did you ever read of the supposed Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew?
[[Have seen reference to it somewhere but did not follow up on that]]

Note from the Net Bible Mt 28:19 follow:
[[Have seen this. The Net Bible is one on my list of must use Bibles for the notes within]]

Taking into consideration Internal evidence:
1 no one was baptized in the Bible using the long formula
[[The name Jesus may have been seen as the most important and that was the main difference from the baptism of John and was the rest assumed to have been said even though not mentioned?]]

Then we have external evidence:
1 supposedly only the Didache and Justin Martyr mention the long formula (extra biblical sources do not make a doctrine binding).
[[Nor does misinterpreting Biblical sources make a doctrine binding]]

3 The Catholic Church has old baptismal records, and up to a time, the baptism was all as per Acts 2:38, then all of a sudden without explanation they switched to the long formula.
[[See my comment on “no one was baptized” above. Were they saving ink or space on the page? We were not there at those baptisms. And the videos do not exist. ]]

4 supposedly the Hebrew Matthew read: "... baptizing them in my Name"... [which would jibe perfectly with Acts 2:38].
Based on the internal and external evidence, some persons studying this have thought that the long formula is spurious.

[[Arguing from lack of evidence? As is when did Mary’s Joseph die? He did not get much text when we know that he was alive.]]

[[All of the Greek texts that I have access to, Scrivener 1881, BYZ , SBLGNT , Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, list three persons although Google Translate shows Codex Sinaiticus as reading “in the name of Priest and Divine and Holy Priest”.]]

Not to polemicize, just to provide a venue for further research, reflection and comment as necessary.
[[Will have to add this to my long list of studies. But I think, based on all of the Greek Texts, that we are safe when we use the three names in a baptism. If we are wrong we can say that we saw that some few disagreed with what we were doing but we, wrongly, did not see their arguments as conclusive and God in his infinite mercy will forgive us.]]

[[Also found this: Epiphanius quotes the gospel used by the Ebionites a total of seven times. Most of his citations are of reasonable length, permitting us some insight into the nature of the document. It appears to have been harmonized, woven from traditions found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Johannine parallels are not found. Because of these characteristics, which distinguish it from the other Judaic-Christian gospels quoted by the Fathers, scholarship appears justified in positing a distinct document and designating it the “Gospel of the Ebionites.”¹

^[1] Petersen, W. L. (1992). Ebionites, Gospel of the. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 2, p. 262). New York: Doubleday.

Leading to the Question: did they have a different Matthew or just one that they shortened?]]

Search “baptize NEAR Jesus“ in Everything
Library: 17,345 hits in 5,231 articles in 1,533 resources
Personal books: 262, 91, 54
This may take a while.