Bible versions-Is there only one?
- Thread starter Aerials1978
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In 2011 the NIV updated their scripture to include gender neutral language, as this isn't the word of God and they changed wording to be more socially inclusive I view it as the work of the devil!
if you have been reading the NIV for many many years then you wouldn't notice this in the older versions.. although the new versions are gender changed I assumed this was common knowledge for Bible readers.
if you have been reading the NIV for many many years then you wouldn't notice this in the older versions.. although the new versions are gender changed I assumed this was common knowledge for Bible readers.
-
1
- Show all
As stated in another post, I believe 'twisted' to be changing words that are to be suited for an audience for social acceptance not for sound doctrine, in other words for politics sake.
I don't think any Christian should be reading paraphrase bibles.. not unless that person is very young or has reading difficulties. A person who can read without difficulty should be reading word for word.. because it's the words of God that we follow right?
I don't think any Christian should be reading paraphrase bibles.. not unless that person is very young or has reading difficulties. A person who can read without difficulty should be reading word for word.. because it's the words of God that we follow right?
L
I've talked to lost people and have never heard that one.
And it's easy to settle the mind of one who does pose that question. Answer; Reading levels, and language changes through out history.
I have never met an atheist who has read then entire Bible of any version, much less multiple versions.
Straw men, burn easily.
And it's easy to settle the mind of one who does pose that question. Answer; Reading levels, and language changes through out history.
I have never met an atheist who has read then entire Bible of any version, much less multiple versions.
Straw men, burn easily.
-
1
- Show all
EXACTLY. That is the point that seems to be irrelevant to those who promote modern Bible versions.
The goal of the King James translators was to translate word for word what they found in the Hebrew and Greek (as much as it was possible). When that would not have provided an idiomatic translation they added words IN ITALICS to help the reader obtain a clear understanding.
However, in the case of *tongues*, they should have consistently omitted *unknown* (which is not in the text) and used the word *language(s)* throughout for glossa/glossais.
Here's a good example of using italics for words inserted by the translators.
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. (1 Cor 14:27)
εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω·
Literal rendering: If with a tongue anyone speaks, [let it be] by two, or [by] the most three, and in turn, and one let interpret.
The goal of the King James translators was to translate word for word what they found in the Hebrew and Greek (as much as it was possible). When that would not have provided an idiomatic translation they added words IN ITALICS to help the reader obtain a clear understanding.
However, in the case of *tongues*, they should have consistently omitted *unknown* (which is not in the text) and used the word *language(s)* throughout for glossa/glossais.
Here's a good example of using italics for words inserted by the translators.
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. (1 Cor 14:27)
εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω·
Literal rendering: If with a tongue anyone speaks, [let it be] by two, or [by] the most three, and in turn, and one let interpret.
L
I never met one, in over 20 years.
I met one who thought he knew about them Bible, but I pointed out to him that the Bible didn't say any of the things he thought it did, and does say many things the thought it didn't say.
I have never met a biblically literate atheist. Not even one.
I met one who thought he knew about them Bible, but I pointed out to him that the Bible didn't say any of the things he thought it did, and does say many things the thought it didn't say.
I have never met a biblically literate atheist. Not even one.
-
1
- Show all
Gender change? You are making it sound as if they've given the apostles a sex-change.
If you mean it may use "people" in some places instead of "men" I think you are over-reacting.
When the meaning is the same it shouldn't matter.
Mark 5
NIV
11 ‘Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
KJV
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
If you mean it may use "people" in some places instead of "men" I think you are over-reacting.
When the meaning is the same it shouldn't matter.
Mark 5
NIV
11 ‘Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
KJV
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
-
1
- Show all
