Bestseller Book.....New Age Versions of the Bible
- Thread starter SaintJoeNow
- 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.
I realize SaintJoe is long gone, but I did look up this book written by a home economist. I found a great review, I will copy and paste some of it here, the rest, you can read on your own. Hmm! Not coming through. Worth clicking on the link if that works.
A REVIEW/REFUTATION OF Gail Riplinger
A REVIEW/REFUTATION OF Gail Riplinger
Last edited:
Actually, to tell the truth, at Amazon:
Out of 231 votes as of this date, the book has more positive reviews than negative reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/dp/0963584502
Generally Postive Reviews:
125 people gave = 5 stars.
13 people gave = 4 stars.
8 people gave = 3 stars
Generally Negative Reviews:
2 people gave = 2 stars.
83 people just gave = 1 star.
That's 146 primarily postive views vs. 88 negative reviews.
I also owned the book myself. It considered it as a resource book of comparing the KJV vs. Modern Translationss to see if the changes were for the better or for the worse on my own. I discovered the changes were for the worse. I didn't need her to add any commentary to tell me that; And I certainly did not really agree with everything she says.
I would give the book 3 stars because I am not a big fan of her comments but I value many of her comparisons (but not all) between the KJV and the Modern Versions that any honest per can see for themselves.
Last edited:
And for those who have listened to that debate, now take sometime to listen to brother Kinney's rebuttal of James White's looney thought process and arguments for the modern Versions.
James White's Shell Game: Now You See it... by Will Kinney
[video=youtube_share;1qM-XkAcMzI]http://youtu.be/1qM-XkAcMzI[/video]
Last edited:
The Original Autographs were also written by men. But those men were holy men of old and they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, every word in the King James Bible is what God intended. That's the miracle of Inspiration. Every word in the Bible is inspired because it came from the Holy Ghost.
And just as God inspired His word. He also has kept and preserved His word. And we have it today. It is the AV1611.
Therefore, while the Holy Bible has many writers, it only has One Author.
If the Bible you hold in your hand is not inerrant, then you have a problem. A serious problem.
If you trust that God can save your soul from the burning Hell, which He certainly can and has if you believed on His only Begotten Son. Then why is it that you do not believe that He can preserve His perfect and inerrant words?
It is sad concerning your lack of faith in God Almighty's ability to keep His promise which He gave in Psalm 12 of preserving and keeping His pure words.
Therefore, I rebuke you for your lack of faith Sophia.
No, Jesus and His apostles did not use the Septuagint. They used the Masoretic.
https://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/targums.htm
V
I totally agree with you, Brother Jason. I have been studying the KJV for over 30 years. But if someone else is being led by the Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus with another version, who in the world am I to hinder them?
And if a member wants to share something, there are better ways than whacking a huge leather-bound KJV Scofield Reference Bible upside someone's head.
And if a member wants to share something, there are better ways than whacking a huge leather-bound KJV Scofield Reference Bible upside someone's head.
Last edited:
You can't help yourself can you
Don't worry, I'm also one of those people who HAS to have the last word - know dem feels.As for your other post to me where you continued the discussion, the basic difference in our positions, and why I don't see a problem where you see one, is because my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not subsist in the individual words used in an English translation, and my belief in the word of God does not subsist in a guarantee from the Lord that he would providentially protect his word in a specific given collection of Scriptures in major world languages (which He does not give). The reason we have different views about the need for a single infallible benchmark translation in English is because we have different presuppositions.
And no, it is not about picking and choosing your own Bible. I do not choose my translations on the basis of doctrine or 'what I like'. To me, and many others, it is about wanting to read that which the prophets and apostles of God originally wrote. That's all.
Anyway, thanks for the chat. Looks like ChosenByHim wants to continue the argument, so I'm sure I'll have my hands full anyway. God bless
I will never understand why Psalm 12 gets used as the knock down argument. I mean, sure, it's the only passage where you can draw a link between God's words being pure and truthful (which you can have with or without written Scripture) and him 'keeping' or 'preserving' them. The problem is the context of Psalm 12 is clearly indicating that David is talking about God keeping/preserving/safekeeping the poor and needy who are oppressed by the wicked, not his words. If plain English context doesn't do it for you, the rendered grammar of the Hebrew surely will. I believe the Geneva actually translates it as him in the second half of the verse - not sure why they went with a singular, but it's clear from the marginal note the translators saw it as referring to people.
I've often wondered whether people get caught about by the word 'preserve', and forget that in Early Modern English, preserve is a word you often applied to people, whereas now it's only use in relation to things (almost always food).
I've often wondered whether people get caught about by the word 'preserve', and forget that in Early Modern English, preserve is a word you often applied to people, whereas now it's only use in relation to things (almost always food).
If I didn't believe there was a perfect Word of God that I can trust with every word being perfect and true, I would not be a believer today. For if I cannot trust one word, what makes me trust the words that Jesus had died for my sins, was buried, and was risen three days later? In other words, the Bible is a package deal. You either believe all of it. Every word. Or you don't believe it. I see the Word of God as perfect. I cannot add or take away from the Word of God. You can't change it. I have to submit to what it says and not to what I would like it for it to say with another new Modern Version or some fancy new Greek interpretation I discovered (When I know that nobody speaks Biblcial Greek anymore). I mean, what do you think people did for hundreds when there was no Modern Version and they just had the KJV? Again, if you lived during that time, you would not being having this debate. It would be silly. We also have to remember that Jesus said.... Beware of the scribes. Who are the scribes? People who had tranSCRIBED the written Word of God. They are the scholars today who create new Bible versions and who change the Word of God very subtly. Yes, I am grateful that the Modern Versions can help me to understand the "Early Modern English." So they have some use to them. But I also have to be crazy wildly careful not to place my entire faith or authority in them because they add the devil's name in many passages where it is not supposed to be there. They change words like "Godhead" (Trinity) to "divine nature." They eliminate 1 Johnn 5:7 which is the clearest teaching on the Trinity. They eliminate "Walk after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 which is the key focus point of Paul's argument in Romans 7 leading up to Romans 8. They change "Son of God" to "son of the gods" in Daniel. Sorry, I believe in the Son of God and I believe He was the One being spoken about in Daniel with his three friends.
New Age Bible Versions is just a resource reference. Ignore her comments if you don't like them. But you can't ignore the plain side by side comparisons of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. Well, unless of course you don't want to see it, then it really doesn't matter if you read the book or not. If people's minds are closed, we know too often how a person here will never see something. So I challenge you. Either get the book at the library or... just Google KJV vs. Modern Translations and do a bunch of comparing of the verses yourself. Ask yourself. Are things changed for the better or for the worse? If it is for the worse, then how is that a good thing?
New Age Bible Versions is just a resource reference. Ignore her comments if you don't like them. But you can't ignore the plain side by side comparisons of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations. Well, unless of course you don't want to see it, then it really doesn't matter if you read the book or not. If people's minds are closed, we know too often how a person here will never see something. So I challenge you. Either get the book at the library or... just Google KJV vs. Modern Translations and do a bunch of comparing of the verses yourself. Ask yourself. Are things changed for the better or for the worse? If it is for the worse, then how is that a good thing?
Last edited: