Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: roverjbh99 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | I'm Back! | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 56857 | ||
Hank, Thanks! I read the passage mentioned and it cleared up a lot and made me feel foolish for asking my query. Thanka again. |
||||||
2 | Is Isaiah 14:12 relating to the fall of | Is 14:12 | roverjbh99 | 56758 | ||
I think the term Lucifer as a name for Satan came from Jerome's Latin Bible. The KJV footnotes this verse as follows: O Lucifer: or, O day star | ||||||
3 | BEST COMMENTARY ON REVELATION? | Revelation | roverjbh99 | 26080 | ||
I read J Vernon McGee's commentaries a few years ago. They were great! | ||||||
4 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | roverjbh99 | 25142 | ||
I use many translations, including the NRSV, NAS, NKJV, AMP, and RSV. When a reading is not clear, I use the WEB, KJV, NET, ASV, and the ALT. I generally favor the more "critical" translations, because I clearly believe the TR/M-Text has many doubtful passages such as Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7-8, John 7:53-8:11, etc. If are concidering a translation, I recommend the NRSV. It's clear and its based on the best MSS we have and clearly have and marks the doubtful passages I listed above. It also uses inclusive language for humaninity and NOT for the Godhead. |
||||||
5 | NRSV vs. NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 12408 | ||
The NRSV and NAS are simlar, yet different. They come from the same tree. Let me explain. In 1525, William Tyndale came out with his NT. It served as an inspiration to other translations that came out between 1525 and 1611 such as the Bishop's, Great, Matthew's, Coverdale, Geneva, etc. The greatest of these Tyndale clones was the Authorized Version. For 500 years, it was the default bible. By the 1880's-1890's, people realized English had changed and some wished to correct errors in the AV. In 1881 the Revised Version (RV) was released. The OT followed in 1885 and the Apocrypha in 1895. Honoring an agreement that for 14 years no new edition would appear, the Standard American Edition, Revised Version (SAERV) was published in 1901. It was part of a deal that the British translators would put American suggestions in an appendix while the American would publish no new edition for 14 years. It's more commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV). In 1928, the copyright to the ASV was aquired by the International Council of Religious Education of the National Council of Churches. In 1937 the revision was authorized. In 1946 the Revised Standard Version NT was released (It was revised in 1971). The OT was released in 1952 and the Apocrypha in 1957 (It was expanded in 1977). A Catholic edition was released in 1965. In 1974 a revision was authorized, and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) came out in 1989. The New American Standard arose to promote awareness of the ASV. It's a word for word literal translation that came out in 1963 and the whole bible in 1971. An update came out in 1995 which mostly modifed the language. This short answer describes the roots of the NAS anf NRSV. I generaly perfer the NRSV because it is easy to read and to understand, is based on the best texts we have, and pinpoints the variants that exist. The NAS does all of thes things but is less readable in the 1977 edition. The NRSV uses gender neutral language. This is only used for humans and not the godhead. Look at John 12:32 in the ASV: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself. Look at the same verse in the NRSV: And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. See how the the message of this verse shines through? You would not see this message using a gender-specific translation. The NAS and NRSV are equal, but different. Overall, I prefer the NRSV. |
||||||
6 | The cannonization of Jude | Jude | roverjbh99 | 9603 | ||
The reason II Peter, Jude, II and III Jhn, and Rev. were not accepted into the canon is because the church fathers had doubts about the content of the said books. | ||||||
7 | What was the "discharge" Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 9436 | ||
Hank, Many Apologies for my hasty reply. The figure 18 is based on including three books neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Apocrypha. Those books are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. Taking away those three, you get your original number of 15. So, both are correct. Joshua |
||||||
8 | World English Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 7567 | ||
Same here! | ||||||
9 | NASB reading | Col 3:17 | roverjbh99 | 7566 | ||
I hate to bust your bubble, but If you go to http://bible.crosswalk.com you can look up any scripture easely. You could also use software. I reccommend the Bible Search Utility or the Power Bible. | ||||||
10 | Why is the Apocrypha not included? | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 7263 | ||
A reason Protestants don't think the Apocrypha as scripture is that there is no agreement on HOW MANY books there are and were they should be placed. Let me explain. The *base* number of books in the Apocrypha ia 18. That number includes the books our Catholic Brothers and Sisters call Deuterocanonical. Those books are: Tobit Judith Additions to Esther Baruch Letter of Jeremiah 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Prayer of Azarah and Song of the Three Holy Children Bel and the Dragon Susanna Wisdom Sirach That makes 12 books. Add to that number six books Catholics do not accept. We'll call them *other* books. They are: 1 Esdras 2 Esdras Prayer of Manasseh 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Psalm 151 That gets us to our number of 18. Do all translations feature all 18 books? It depends. The King James Bible (KJB) has 14 out of 18 (The Letter of Jeremiah is Baruch 6.) The New English Bible (NEB) does it one better, having 15 out of 18 books. The official Catholic Bible, The New American Bible (NAB) , has 11 out of 18 books. (Azariah, Bel, and Susanna are placed in the book of Daniel itself). The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) has all 18 books. Now on to placement. In the NAB, the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees AFTER the book of Esther, while the Douay-Rheims places them after Malachi. What gives? For these reasons, and more, this is why I do not accept the Apocrypha as scripture. However, I do not rule out using them as morality buliders. I hope this helps. Joshua |
||||||
11 | NAS like the NWT??? I HOPE NOT! | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 7168 | ||
Here's what the author said to the intro to the chart (These are his words not mine): All versions are not saying the same thing! Most Christians recognize the New World Translation (NWT - Jehovah's Witness Bible) for the corrupt work it is. What most Christians don't recognize is the same corruption in their own "Christian" bibles! The Verses the Chart uses are: Hos 11:12 Matt 9:13 Matt 18:11 Matt 19:17 Mark 10:24 Luke 2:33 Luke 4:4 Luke 4:8 John 6:47 John 10:30 Acts 2:20 Acts 8:37 Acts 23:9 Rom 13:9 Col 1:14 1 Tim 3:16 1 Tim 6:5 1 Pet 1:22 1 Jhn 4:3 Rev 4:14 Rev 20:9 Rev 21:24 The URL is: http://www.staggs.pair.com/kjbp/kjb-docs/vrstbl.html |
||||||
12 | World English Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 7106 | ||
So far, I think the WEB/ASV97 is really good (in the NT, that is). As with the old ASV, some of the language is pretty old sounding. Until it's done, I won't make a comparsion to the NAS. | ||||||
13 | Looking to download the NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 6938 | ||
Sorry that first URL was http://www.online-bible.com. | ||||||
14 | Looking to download the NASB | Bible general Archive 1 | roverjbh99 | 6937 | ||
The FreeBible does not have the NAS or any modern version! | ||||||
15 | What is the origin of Purim? | Esther | roverjbh99 | 6923 | ||
Also check out Esther 8-9 on how Purim got started... | ||||||
16 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | roverjbh99 | 4241 | ||
In some bibles, you will see a table of dates. The Bishop who wrote the dates placed the earths age at around 10,000 years. His table of dates has since been proved wrong and is unrelable. | ||||||