Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Cannon45 | 150210 | ||
There are so many new "versions" of the bible today. I have always used the King James Version but found it hard to understand. I have crossed referenced NIV and Amplified...however, when you here people "quote" the bible they use the King James Versions...Do I use both to study???? | ||||||
2 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150227 | ||
Cannon45: __BEST BIBLE VERSION, PART 2__ For what it's worth, here's an alphabetical listing of the versions I use most frequently: Amplified Bible; English Standard Version (ESV); King James Version (KJV); New American Standard Bible (NASB); New International Vesion (NIV); and New King James Version (NKJV). My list is by no means exhaustive. There are other good versions. And there are is a growing number of of bad translations too. Before I purchase or use a translation, I always make it a point to read as widely as possible about it, asking such questions as, Who are the translators and what views do they have about the God-breathed inerrancy of Scripture? What is their translation philosophy: word-for-word, loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between (dynamic equivalency)? What do conservative Bible scholars and evangelical preachers and teachers think of this version? Do I like the style and am I confortable with the overall quality of this version? Do I find it generally clear or are some passages hopelessly obscure or ambiguous? Do it avoid slangy, folksy syntax? Does it make extensive use of ephemeral colloquialisms that may seem chic and faddish today but are not nearly as likely to endure as long as standard English. The "Cotton Patch" version is the best archetype of this kind of assault on both Scripture and the English language that I know of. And the "New World Translation" stands alone in its deliberate efforts to distort and pervert Scripture in order to promote and attempt to justify cultic heresies. ..... Finally, while I believe it an excellent idea to avail oneself of serveral good translations, I also recommend highly the choosing of one version as a "home base" with which one becomes most familiar and from which one memorizes Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | justme | 150323 | ||
Hank: Well done brother! May I ask you something about the EVS? Is this not a revision of the RSV? What do you like about the ESV? I have just broused the ESV and don't know much about it. Thanks alot! justme |
||||||
4 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150330 | ||
Saturday Evening Greetings, Justme. Yes, the English Standard Version (ESV) is a remake of the Revised Standard Version (RSV). According to J. I. Packer, who served as chair of the ESV translation team, the ESV retained some 92 per cent of actual wording of the RSV. In the words of Packer, "We just tightened it up a bit." An example of this "tightening up" is found in Isaiah 7:14. Whereas the old RSV rendered the Hebrew term 'ha almah' as 'young woman,' the ESV renders it 'the virgin.' This, as you may recall, was one of the key passages that plunged the RSV into strong disfavor and led to its rejection by the majority of evangelicals. The ESV is clearly more conservative in its approach to translation than the RSV. It retains all the theological terms in the tradition of the King James Bible. The parts I've read of it are clearly and beautifully written. It is a painstakingly scholarly work and an essentially literal translation with which I find no fault. In my view it stands heads and shoulders above the vast majority of modern translations, especially the dynamic equivalences and the paraphrases. As always, good to hear from you, my good neighbor of Missouri! --Hank | ||||||
5 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | justme | 150332 | ||
Hank:-) Thank you for the information. You confirmed what I thought. The RSV when it came out was blown away because most Baptist (at least the ones I am aware of) thought it was liberal. I have had that bias myself. The NRSV is in my opinion unworthy of the space it takes on the shelf. I think I might invest in a ESV someday. I still call the Updated NASB home, and the NIV a second choice. J. I. Packer is an author I enjoy. I have one of his books titled HOT TUB RELIGION, and it is a must read. He is down to earth and hits the target. Speaking of translations, have you happened to read some of those who have come out to give a written reccommendation of the TNIV? I wonder if any of these people have really spent any time reading a few important chapters, like Romans chapter 1. ? Have a wonderful Lord's Day. justme |
||||||
6 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150337 | ||
Justme: Yes, I have read some of the endorsements of the TNIV and wonder two things: have they read it, and how much were they paid to say nice things about it? --Hank | ||||||
7 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150353 | ||
Isn't the TNIV the one which is "gender neutral"? | ||||||
8 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150360 | ||
NYP: Yes, it is. By the way, if you'd like to read more about the TNIV from all points of view, go to Google and type in the two words, TNIV criticism ..... The battle over the TNIV rages on. --Hank | ||||||
9 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | justme | 150618 | ||
Hank: Wow,I went to the TNIV criticism! The best evaluation was one by Vern S. Poythress, Ph.D., Th.D. titled TNIV's Altered Meanings. In Dr. Poythress's evaluation he brings out clearly the serious changes the TNIV has made. There is a genuine effort to devalue being male, by elevating feminisn when there is no clear reason to show equivalent terms. The TNIV is not just on a slippery slope, in my opinion it's gone over the cliff. I can only imagine the reason for the publication of this gender netural version is for money. The NRSV did a better job of not being so offensive. I continue to be amazed that so many fail to see what I, a small little person in the scheme of history, see as being a poor biased version. Thank you Hank, for the enlightenment. Blessings. Justme |
||||||
10 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 150632 | ||
Justme: Based on what I have learned about the TNIV and the documented evidence that Zondervan reneged on their promise not to produce such a translation as the TNIV is, I believe Zondervan should atone for its breach of promise by doing two things: issue and publish an open apology to the Christian community and cease all further printings of the TNIV. If they refuse, which thus far they have done, then I believe the Christian community should engage in a boycott of all Zondervan publications. I will not purchase any Zondervan publication myself. There are other publishers, and good ones, who could easily fill the gap if an all-out boycott forced Zondervan to shut down their presses and close their doors. What they have done is an outrage that should not be tolerated. --Hank | ||||||
11 | Gender neutral? | Bible general Archive 2 | justme | 150922 | ||
Hank: I learned about a decade ago that durring World War Two the VW owners in Germany, used slave workers from the prisnor of war camps to make their VW auto's. for more than fourty years, they never even considered making any attempt to find those slave laborers and give them a token payment. Other companies who used such slave labor did seek and pay for their slave labor much ealier after the war. It was not until that the world court came after VW did they make any effort to trace and make even a token payment, and then only by force did they pay anything. Now the real bite, I bought at least eight VW's before I heard about this situation. Now, because I am aware of what VW did, I feel resentment for those who allowed VW to import the cars until that made efforts to make good on their past sins. I am wondering if this story from my past, really makes my point. Once aware that meat was used as sacrifice, in pagan worship, and we are aware of it, Pauls said not to eat it. However if we don't know then we are better not to ask, but to receive the food and bless the Lord for it. I must now consider what I personally will do to respond to the knowledge I have about Zondervan. I once worked for Zondervan, before Harper-Row bought Zondervan out. Therefore, it seems an even deeper wound for me. However there are other publishers who are now using the NIV, which I consider to be a worthy, dynamic equivlant translation. If nothing else this shows us that we need to pray that other Christian publishers stand firm, and do not let worldly publishers take over. At this point Zondervan might well have closed it's doors rather than sellout to Murdock, and his group. Thanks again Hank for some worthy imput. Blessings brother. justme |
||||||