Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Using the oldest manuscripts as best? | Mark 16:20 | justme | 79758 | ||
When a verse is edited out of scripture because the earliest manuscripts don't have the verse, is it ethical not to have a side note. In Christianity Today of (April 2003) this month there is an advertizement attacking "some popular modern versions..." for "the name Lord, Jesus, and Jesus Christ is deleted in many modern Bible translations?" Then at the botton of the add it says "New research now available in the book" and under this in bold slanted letters "Touch Not The Unclean Thing", Is this kind of "Christian advertizement" not kindling a spirit of false rumors? | ||||||
2 | Using the oldest manuscripts as best? | Mark 16:20 | flinkywood | 79765 | ||
Justme, modern textual criticism is in flux, which annoys many English speaking Christians, a fractious bunch by any definition. For my money it's the NASV, though I also read the NKJV, KJV, LITV, and now the ESV. Here's a link that might help answer your question. http://www3.sympatico.ca/jrm/kjv.htm Colin |
||||||
3 | Using the oldest manuscripts as best? | Mark 16:20 | justme | 79866 | ||
flinkywood: I agree with you that from my word and verse study the Updated NASB is by far the more reliable, and does give notes to alternative readings. I wanted to bring to the attention of the Forun that this North Star Misistries is unethical in not informing their readers that they have an agenda to discredit anything but the old KJV. I did call Lockman Foundation and informed what this web sight was saying. They were going to deal with them. The KJV only group has a perfect right to say they belive that KJV is the best, but slaming and lieing are untollerable and just is not ethical from any stand piont. Thanks for the web sight. Blessings. justme |
||||||