|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 8, 2008 11:44:46 GMT -5
I answered NASB because it was the closest to the NAB. But in reality, there is only one Holy Bible and it is The Holy Bible that has existed since the 4th century. All other bibles may be based on The Holy Bible, but God only chose one institution to reveal His Word to and that Church brought The Word of God to mankind with The Holy Bible. The NASB bible is close to the NAB?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 12:24:38 GMT -5
I answered NASB because it was the closest to the NAB. But in reality, there is only one Holy Bible and it is The Holy Bible that has existed since the 4th century. All other bibles may be based on The Holy Bible, but God only chose one institution to reveal His Word to and that Church brought The Word of God to mankind with The Holy Bible. The NASB bible is close to the NAB? Their both approved by The Church, right? |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:10:29 GMT -5
First article.. raises interesting points... But seems to be a KJB-only site.. Can't be trusted too much. He uses the KJB as the standard, instead of the Greek or anything.. Like "Hell" he says the word "hell" is not in the NIV but it is in the KJB, well.. the word Hell is NOT in the Bible, period. Doctrine and tradition has lead Bibles to include the word "hell", but it is "hades" or something similar. The Lord's prayer.. It seems that some additions came at later dates in Luke's Gospel, because the NIV has footnotes which include the "missing" parts, but say that other manuscripts include them. Again, the addition in Matt 6:13 is of a later date, which is why modern translations, which look at many manuscripts but mainly the most ancient ones, do not include it or have it in footnoes... The guy makes good points but his scholarship is too low to make him authoritative at all. His is more like a grudge rather than an actual study. And about the satanic Bible?? He gives no evidence, and I wonder if he knows what the "Satanic Bible" is... granted, I'm sure the satanists have some type of Scriptures, but it is not just something you can buy, as far as I know, and the "Satanic Bible" is mostly the writings of the started of "the church of satan"... So I'd still like to see which "satanic bible" he means... if an actual satanc scriptures, or LaVey's "satanic bible"... and then I'd like to see actual evidence of it. |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:13:14 GMT -5
The second article is the same..
but I noticed the "lies"...
he, or she (Terry).... says that the KJB supposedly is the easiest to read.. I guess I'm dumb.
he/she says that NIV denies deity of Jesus, but he/she only looked at some of the verses... John _:_ still reads "my Lord and my God"..
he/she says that the KJB is more accurate... well, let the actual Bible scholars speak on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:14:43 GMT -5
I mean, these are KJV-only people (I've been typing KJB, sorry! lol... like DRB... ewww cant even compare!), and you yourself cited an article pointing out KJV's flaws...
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:15:04 GMT -5
actually, all articles are the same. :-p
but thanks though...
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:17:44 GMT -5
The NASB bible is close to the NAB? Their both approved by The Church, right? NAB is used in the Liturgy (well, a revision of it), but the NASB is Protestant and the parts I've read do not seem at all like the NAB.. The NASB is more literal and the NAB is too modern. |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:22:22 GMT -5
But ok, about Lucifer...
They say that KJV reads "lucifer" when the Isaiah says "I saw Lucifer fall" etc.
They say NIV says Morning Star...
Jesus is indeed the "Bright Morning Star" (the article left out the "bright" part)..
And doesn't lucifer mean morning star anyways?
The RSV reads "O Day Star, son of Dawn" and many others have similar renderings, and only 3 of the 21+ translations I have in e-Sword have the word "lucifer"...
See, if the guy/girl was an actual Bible scholar, that mistake wouldn't have made.. because Lucifer *does* mean "morning star"
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:22:46 GMT -5
Here's e-sword's Strong's dictionary:
H1966
äéìì
hêylêl
hay-lale'
From H1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 9, 2008 10:24:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 13, 2008 13:43:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure a good way to tell if the Bible you're reading is a good one or not is if it blasts any group of people in a preface. If it does you should probably find a new one since God's salvation is for all and He loves all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 14:19:54 GMT -5
Didn't you hit the links on the page that take you to the NIV publishers page and shows their site also publishing the Satanic Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 14:20:58 GMT -5
Their both approved by The Church, right? NAB is used in the Liturgy (well, a revision of it), but the NASB is Protestant and the parts I've read do not seem at all like the NAB.. The NASB is more literal and the NAB is too modern. I confused the NASB with the NAB with the ASV. I actually voted on the NAB |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 13, 2008 14:23:26 GMT -5
I voted on NAB cause that is what i use, but i cant wait to get a DR
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 14:23:34 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure a good way to tell if the Bible you're reading is a good one or not is if it blasts any group of people in a preface. If it does you should probably find a new one since God's salvation is for all and He loves all. Amen. That along with an Imprimatur! But hey, that's just me! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 13, 2008 14:25:38 GMT -5
I read the whole Bible, but did not read much of the stuff at the bottom, it would really take forever to read it if i would have.  |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 15, 2008 11:25:27 GMT -5
Actually that is one reason why I love the RSV-CE. There are not too many footnotes unless you go to an appendix section and even then it's not to many. It's good for devotional reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 15, 2008 21:35:39 GMT -5
Actually that is one reason why I love the RSV-CE. There are not too many footnotes unless you go to an appendix section and even then it's not to many. It's good for devotional reading. I love my Good News Bible. There was one version that I saw that was written like a novel. That was interesting to me. No verses lined out, no chapters. Just a story. But, no Imprimatur, no reading for me. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 22, 2008 15:40:34 GMT -5
What do you guys think about the Jerusalem Bible. It was in part translated by J.R.R. Tolkien. YA HEAR THAT? THIS IS THE BIBLE OF FRODO!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Apr 24, 2008 11:31:15 GMT -5
Ok you don't apparently think very much of the Jerusalem Bible. How about the NIV. I think it is currently the number one bible of most protestants. Any thoughts on it?
|
|
