planet_kosmos
07-11-2006, 11:54 PM
Hey, just wondering what bible translations you guys use, I use NIV and ESV.

aliengurl7
07-12-2006, 12:04 AM
Literal translation, I like this version best.

dawn of light
07-12-2006, 06:53 AM
I usually use Amplified or New King James. Occasionally I use NIV, but I find some things are too oversimplified. NIV is good for a quick understanding of a passage. I wouldn't mind a copy of the Message just to refer to, but when I read it, it doesn't really seem like I'm reading the Bible.

drumchick101
07-12-2006, 08:12 AM
I really like the message remix. Although it's technically a paraphrase, he did paraphrase from the orginal laguage, not from another translation. I find that more accurate because of how the hebrew and greek languages are. They usally have one word for our long phrases of explaining. Other than that I like the ESV or New Living Translation.

><sarah><

TheFireBreathes
07-12-2006, 01:07 PM
Anyone heard of Da Jesus Book?

skynes
07-12-2006, 02:05 PM
I use NKJV and KJV when I need a concordance reference.

My concordance is a Strongs KJV one, since NKJV and KJV aren't 100% identical, I need an in-between book sometimes to find what I'm looking for.

amodman
07-12-2006, 03:41 PM
I hate The Message...

planet_kosmos
07-12-2006, 11:53 PM
I hate The Message...
your disliking of the message translation is because.....

NightCrawler
07-13-2006, 07:52 AM
I casually read with the NIV. I do extra studies and cross-referencing with Amplified. I want more versions!!

I hate The Message...

I am usually QUITE turned off by it. Way too watered down, missing the point in some passages, and has a tone that I don't like. It feels secular, both in wording and inspiration.

skilltroks
07-13-2006, 03:04 PM
I don't really like the Message either.
I mostly use NLT.

lamb_servant72
07-13-2006, 05:27 PM
NAS and NIV

Jonathan, how do you like the Amplified?

theelectric3
07-13-2006, 10:19 PM
i've been lovin' the Amplified lately. i want to get that translation.

the Bible i read out of the most lately has been NKJ.

i am not a fan of the message translation - esp. the message remix.

unshakeable15
07-14-2006, 11:04 AM
i enjoy the Message for a new twist on passages that have become old to me, but i don't use it for study (because it's not meant for that and i don't have a copy).

Instead, i use NIV or NASB (i think) about 95% of the time.

amodman
07-17-2006, 11:09 AM
i've been lovin' the Amplified lately. i want to get that translation.

the Bible i read out of the most lately has been NKJ.

i am not a fan of the message translation - esp. the message remix.

My God. There's a remix? *shudders*

Really, though, I sometimes find some translations' wordings disturbing. Anyone have any good suggestions on Bibles in general. I need a new one...

dawn of light
07-17-2006, 11:46 AM
These are my two favourite Bibles: (and therefore the ones I would suggest to you)

Amplified - I love it because it oftens gives a whole new meaning to verses that I've read over and over. It's translated directly from the original greek and hebrew and expands upon key words that have multiple english meanings. For example "love" in greek has three different words and three different meanings.

NKJV - I really like this version because it still has the original "sound" like the KJV but it's pretty easy to read. I have a John Maxwell Leadership bible in NKJV. It has a lot of "extras" like good leadership/servanthood practices, etc.

Hope that helps.

lamb_servant72
07-19-2006, 05:41 PM
I asked about the Amplified, because I know alot of people use it to study...but, when I try to do that, I get so sidetracked by all of the words in parentheses, that I lose track of what the verse is about. I guess it takes practice!:)

NightCrawler
07-20-2006, 05:38 AM
NAS and NIV

Jonathan, how do you like the Amplified?

I love it. But it seems to be a bit harder to read in groups, for Bible studies. I think it is only great if you can actually read it for yourself (either in the Book or on PowerPoint or on handouts). It hasn't been group-Bible study friendly, especially when I am the only one with the Amplified there.

Personal or tangible reading, that is where I think it scores best. It has helped me in a lot of personal studies.

dawn of light
07-21-2006, 05:28 AM
I asked about the Amplified, because I know alot of people use it to study...but, when I try to do that, I get so sidetracked by all of the words in parentheses, that I lose track of what the verse is about. I guess it takes practice!:)

Yeah, it actually took a couple years for me to really start to enjoy it. If you want to practice though I would start in the OT, maybe with Proverbs or Psalms. I love Proverbs in Amplified it really brings out the meaning so much. I usually only read the Amplified in the NT if I want to study a verse rather than just read (like a chapter or two).

404not_found
07-23-2006, 10:20 PM
NKJV is the one I use right now but I kind of prefer the NIV. And those are the only two I'm familiar with :D Oh well... the Message I've tried a little but I cant stand it :-X

Amplified sounds good though. I need a new bible anyway, I'll probably pick that one up... along with a NIV for casual reading.

TheFireBreathes
08-06-2006, 07:12 PM
Heh, I can't stand the NKJV. Maybe I was just never a big fan of Shakespear.

skynes
08-07-2006, 12:36 AM
Heh, I can't stand the NKJV. Maybe I was just never a big fan of Shakespear.

What on earth does a NKJV have to do with Shakespeare?

weebird20
08-07-2006, 07:44 AM
hmmm...maybe he is thinking more about KJV which has thee, thou and ye in it...the NKJV has cut all those out though...alot clearer reading :)

i myself prefer NKJV...though i do have many different translations...as sometimes its good to compare passages and verses to get a better grasp of what it says...

disciple
08-07-2006, 10:10 AM
Maybe it's just NIV, but I found a couple verses in Proverbs today that contradict each other. "Don't speak to a fool according to his folly" then the next verse said the opposite. *shrug* I'll look for it when next I crack it open (maybe later or tomorrow morning).

weebird20
08-07-2006, 12:08 PM
Proverbs 26:3-5 (New International Version)

3 A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey,
and a rod for the backs of fools!
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26:3-5 (New King James Version)

3 A whip for the horse,
A bridle for the donkey,
And a rod for the fool’s back.
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.


hmmm...i think this is the verse your mean Disciple...the first in the NIV and the second is the NKJV and there isn't much difference in translation...does anyone know what verse 4 and 5 mean though?

it kinda seems to contradict...but then again...it kind of makes sense...you need to fit your answer to the understanding of the the person you are talking to...any more thoughts on this?

TheFireBreathes
08-07-2006, 07:33 PM
Oh yes. KJV is what I was thinking of...:P

skynes
08-08-2006, 12:50 AM
Here's what I think of that verse:

Do give the fool an answer, if you ignore him he'll think he's right.

Don't drop to the fools level, or people who see you will just think - oh I guess this guy is a fool after all.

dawn of light
08-09-2006, 06:12 AM
I've been confused by those verses before too. That makes sense what you said Skynes.I guess "answering a fool according to his folly" is not necessarily wrong, but there's reasons supporting it and disagreeing with it. We should consider those reasons when speaking. "Am I going to teach this guy something or am I going to look like a fool myself?"

NightCrawler
08-10-2006, 09:25 AM
Or maybe it is a lose-lose situation with fools.

disciple
08-10-2006, 10:05 AM
Or maybe it is a lose-lose situation with fools.
It pretty much is, but that's just me...

skynes
08-14-2006, 01:24 AM
looking at Bibles is go to Acts 8:37

If that verse has been cut out, put in footnotes or something, I drop that Bible immediately.

disciple
08-14-2006, 07:14 PM
LOL, I wish I could drop mine (I know for a fact it has it placed only in a footnote) but it's all I have. Since I can still read the verse, I keep it.

dawn of light
09-11-2006, 06:55 AM
I just got a message Bible the other day. This morning I was reading from James 1 and it didn't even feel like I was reading from the word of God. I know that it's just a paraphrase but it bothered me how much it didn't sound like the Bible. I doubt I'll read it very often.

amodman
09-15-2006, 09:01 PM
Remember folks, the NKJV "Is a fraud (http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html)," according to this site. Though, as is every other recent English version of the Bible except the "original" KJV. Oddly enough, that article (and others like it, attacking and supporting) about the NKJV, along with this "change" chart (http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html) (from the "original"...err, KJV, that's the original Bible, right? ::]) convinced me that NKJV, while far from perfect, is probably the best choice for myself. Shopping at the moment. Nelson's (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=014405&event=1003NKJV|182456|57319#curr) sounds appealing, but we'll see (and that sure is pricy...).

p.s. I went ahead and ordered a bonded (cheap) leather Nelson's...Lord, you guys have no idea how bad of condition my "main" Bible has been in for some time. Which, coincidentally, was NKJV (I hadn't even spent hours reading about translations online...someone just gave it to me).

skynes
09-16-2006, 02:40 AM
One thing that does bother me about translations:

Copyright laws! In order for something to be copyrighted as an original work it needs to have such a degree of difference from anything like it.

e.g. the NIV must be so different from the NKJV which must be different from the NLT which must be different from the AV etc.

So the more recently produced Bibles, in order to get a copyright, MUST make things different to previous Bibles even if the older Bibles are more accurate!


Av1611 is a site to ignore. Or laugh it... I like to mix the two.

dawn of light
09-16-2006, 07:39 AM
Wow you're right. I've never even considered that about the copyright laws. I usually use NKJV anyway. Of course I've sure they don't intentionally change the meaning of something. The translaters probably just change the words around but make sure it means the same thing.

Spiffles
09-18-2006, 03:25 PM
Here's what I think of that verse:

Do give the fool an answer, if you ignore him he'll think he's right.

Don't drop to the fools level, or people who see you will just think - oh I guess this guy is a fool after all.

I think your right..
It reminds me of this saying..
It is impossible to argue with an idiot.. you will only drop to his level and he will beat you with experience. (or something like that it goes)

As for bible translations..

The English language is the worst language.. I dont think it ever translated well from hebrew or latin (the new testiment was originally latin right??)
Like i think its the word love.. we have one word, whereas the hewbrew there is liek 7 different words for love depending on what type of love..(i think its 7, but i my be 5 or 8 or something, whoever knows feel free to correct me if i'm wrong on numbers)

I personally prefer nkjv the most, but niv is ok..
The message is a joke.. I hate not having verse numbers.. it's like trying to read Pliny or Plutarch without the numbers *shudders and cringes* just wrong..
and its just written weird and hard to understand more often then not..I think it was meant to be easier to understand and read, but for me personally, they failed horribly.

skynes
09-19-2006, 12:44 AM
NT was originally Greek. There is a latin copy called the vulgate, it was used by the Catholic church during their - you are too unfaithful to read the Bible so we're keeping it in a an awkward language that only OUR Priests understand.

Till 1611 KJV of course.

amodman
09-19-2006, 11:22 AM
NT was originally Greek.

That is what most Christians say...but I've seen compelling arguements that several gospels and what have were originally in Aramaic (they're on language, duh) and later written in Greek on the Jewish side. Make your own judgements, not that it matters, but some Christians seem be "haughty," for lack of a better term, that their New Testament was written in a New Language, unlike that Old Law-filled Old Testament! Nyargh! I'll stop now, because it's dumb.

skynes
09-19-2006, 01:24 PM
That is what most Christians say...but I've seen compelling arguements that several gospels and what have were originally in Aramaic (they're on language, duh) and later written in Greek on the Jewish side. Make your own judgements, not that it matters, but some Christians seem be "haughty," for lack of a better term, that their New Testament was written in a New Language, unlike that Old Law-filled Old Testament! Nyargh! I'll stop now, because it's dumb.

... Ok fine, an assortment of Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic/Norn Iron. Lol.

I just know Latin wasn't one of them.

unshakeable15
09-19-2006, 07:32 PM
One thing that does bother me about translations:

Copyright laws! In order for something to be copyrighted as an original work it needs to have such a degree of difference from anything like it.

e.g. the NIV must be so different from the NKJV which must be different from the NLT which must be different from the AV etc.

So the more recently produced Bibles, in order to get a copyright, MUST make things different to previous Bibles even if the older Bibles are more accurate!
Why do you think so many Bibles have little additions into the margins or are labeled as "Study Bibles" with commentaries built in. :)

Spiffles, depending upon who you ask, it's 3 or 4 words for Love in Greek (i think that's the language you are meaning). One of the words only appears once, so some scholars don't trust it as they do the others. Agape, Phileo, Eros and Storge.

amodman
09-19-2006, 08:02 PM
Why do you think so many Bibles have little additions into the margins or are labeled as "Study Bibles" with commentaries built in. :)

For different Bibles, yes, but the translations themselves have to be copyrighted as well. Ever seen just a straight NIV/KJV/NKJV/NASB/etc. Bible? I have.

unshakeable15
09-19-2006, 09:18 PM
Very true. Wasn't thinking of those.

On another note, i recently bought an Amplified Bible (since my NASB paperback lost Mark and beyond through overuse and water damage). i like it, but it's annoying that it is lacking section headings, makes it harder to find things (though i can understand a little bit why they aren't there).

NightCrawler
09-22-2006, 01:36 PM
Here's what I think of that verse:

Do give the fool an answer, if you ignore him he'll think he's right.

Don't drop to the fools level, or people who see you will just think - oh I guess this guy is a fool after all.
I think another way of how it could be interpretted is like this, analogically

Don't punch a fighting man, lest you get caught in a stupid fight.
Don't be an idiot to an idiot, lest he will think himself a wiseman or others think you fool.

breakthesilence
11-06-2006, 05:36 PM
Wow you're right. I've never even considered that about the copyright laws. I usually use NKJV anyway. Of course I've sure they don't intentionally change the meaning of something. The translaters probably just change the words around but make sure it means the same thing.

KJV isn't copyrighted so that wouldn't be the source of the difference for KJV/NKJV, if that's what you are thinking of. don't know what it is, but i thought i'd put it out there that KJV isn't copyrighted (and as far as i know is pretty much the only version not copyrighted).


i use NLT generally and reference the KJV sometimes. i like the language of the NLT a lot, especially in the new testament. i also have an NIV/NVI-english/spanish bible that i got for learning spanish better. and i have a message remix that i got for helping my sunday school kids understand some of the passages & that i look to sometimes on a confusing passage for another interpretation.

i hate the language of the message remix though. i think part of the problem is the whole copyright issue, so even if the guy might have wanted to say something one way he had to change it. what i found that was really cool though, since it is a paraphrase there is only one at most two layers of meaning, whereas when you study an actual translation of the bible you can find so many things--just goes to show how wonderfully complex the Bible is and how it couldn't have been written merely by human power. (sorry if i didn't describe that well, i'm having a hard time putting that into words...)



the apparent contradiction between verses 4 & 5 of proverbs 26: wow this is an interesting passage, i never noticed it before but i am going to get to the bottom of this and find out what it means. come to think of it, there are a lot of verses in proverbs that i'm not quite sure what they mean.

here is how the message remix words it (one of those times that i will look to it..)
Don't respond to the stupidity of a fool; you'll only look foolish yourself.
Answer a fool in simple terms so that he doesn't get a swelled head.

i looked up the hebrew lexicon for the word fool, it says the hebrew word translates as fool & often is used with the connotation of impiety (which to be exact means
1. lack of piety; lack of reverence for God or sacred things; irreverence.
2. lack of dutifulness or respect.
3. an impious act, practice, etc.).
so a fool means one who is arrogant and lacks reverence for God.
folly is impiety.
i looked up wise, it means capable of judgment.
in his own conceit(KJV)=in his eyes

amplified bible:
4Answer not a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.

5Answer a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes and conceit.

so... i'm gonna think over and pray over these verses some more before posting what they mean. but this is what i've found so far. any thoughts? (maybe we should start a new thread for this...)

skynes
11-06-2006, 10:28 PM
KJV isn't copyrighted so that wouldn't be the source of the difference for KJV/NKJV, if that's what you are thinking of. don't know what it is, but i thought i'd put it out there that KJV isn't copyrighted (and as far as i know is pretty much the only version not copyrighted).

True, KJv isn't copyright. But NKJV is! In order for the NKJV to get a copyright it needs to be substantially different from it's previous form. Which for NKJV isn't that hard, drop the ye olde english and you're done, which for the most part is what they did... much less change between KJV/NKJV than from KJV/to others.

breakthesilence
11-07-2006, 03:45 PM
True, KJv isn't copyright. But NKJV is! In order for the NKJV to get a copyright it needs to be substantially different from it's previous form. Which for NKJV isn't that hard, drop the ye olde english and you're done, which for the most part is what they did... much less change between KJV/NKJV than from KJV/to others.

right, but there are a few changes (can't recall what they are at the moment) that are a little more substantial than thee to you. if i find them again i'll post. (not arguing just making a statement... i hate how hostile things tend to get so um yeah not arguing anything here.)

skynes
11-08-2006, 09:36 AM
right, but there are a few changes (can't recall what they are at the moment) that are a little more substantial than thee to you. if i find them again i'll post. (not arguing just making a statement... i hate how hostile things tend to get so um yeah not arguing anything here.)

Yeah I know there's some word changes, I accounted for that when I said "for the most part"

breakthesilence
12-02-2006, 08:35 AM
well by that i meant changes that affect the meaning conveyed... but that's a worthless point til i find the verses i am talking about.


i found this the other day:

Pro 26:4, 5 "Answer not a fool. . . . Answer a fool." Contend with a fool, yet reprove a fool.

which makes sense. i guess the word would have been understood by the people for whom it was originally written, but today it's not quite understood both ways which leads to confusion. here is the page it's from (really informative & yeah you should check out the rest of it):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral01.html#b-33

Quadripedman
12-04-2006, 08:54 AM
i have king james and a ncv that my gf and her mom got me THE DAY after i was saved. like, im saved the next day, "here, we went out last night and got you a Bible" i truely do love her...but anyway, i only use the new century version.

Xon_*
12-22-2006, 12:48 AM
There are basically 3 types of translations
1. Formal equivalence (word for word) like KJV, NKJV, NASB
2. Dynamic equivalence (word for word except mostly cultural stuff and more meaning) NIV, Good News, NEB
3. Free (The Message, The Living Bible)

All have their purpose, but the closer you come to the Free type, the more chance there is for the translators/interpreter to bring in their own ideas.

The KJV and NKJV, although I use NKJV for studies, is not the best translations around, simply because of the original texts they are based on. "Recent" archaeological findings mean we now have better quality texts than when the KJV was translated.

Newer versions like the NASB use better sources. Sources=original greek/hebrew/aramaic(etc) text that are older and more in tact.

Doesn't make other translations evil, only there are certain little texts (That don't change our salvation through grace and faith) that are not 100% what the original was. And today we have a better knowledge of what the originals were than ever!

As far as I know (totally sure except cults' bibles :> ) there are no differences that changes the message and purpose of Jesus Christ - and that is what matters most - that we find the truthful message about God and Jesus in the pages of our Bibles!

Purpose: Some bibles are for hardcore study, while others read easier for devotions. I like good "Free and Dynamic" types for devotions and more "Formal" ones for study. But use both for both.

Xon_*
12-22-2006, 01:01 AM
KJV, the only "real truthful" translation?
KJV was based on the Bezas editions of the Greek New Testament, which in turn rested on the translation done by Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536). Erasmus' first work was published in 1516 and contained "countless hundreds of printing errors." None of the manuscripts he used were written earlier than the twelth century. These manuscripts were incomplete and he had to introduce material from the Latin Vulgate (Thanks to Essential Bible Study Principles p 27. course from SATS (http://www.sats.edu.za))

NASV is more literal (more word for word) than KJV. Does this mean that it is more inspired than the KJV?

NASB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible):
The Hebrew text used for this translation was the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia was consulted for the 1995 revision. For Greek, Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision. (Wikipedia on )NASB
Sea link on dead sea scrolls - good source for ancient texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls)

skynes
12-22-2006, 04:59 AM
To be quite honest there is absolutely NO way to prove that older manuscripts are more accurate. It is what people have assumed and nothing more.

Allow me to give a fictional scenario to explain my point:

The early church have their copies of the Bible's contents. One particular cult group takes a copy and makes a really twisted bad copy.

The church knows its fake so they refuse to use it and keep using their good ones. Over time and through use the good copies fall apart, so new copies are needed.

The fake ones never got used, so they remain mostly intact.

Cycle forward 2000 years. Centuries of use means the most accurate and best copies are all fairly new, the older ones fell apart through use.

Then some Archaeologist comes along and finds these 'old' manuscripts which are highly accurate... In reality... He found the corrupt fake ones the church never used cause they knew they were garbage.

Spawn out a dozen new Bibles based upon this 'accurate and reliable' manuscript.


----------------

Since we can't ever go back in time, we can only assume what is the more accurate manuscripts.

dawn of light
12-22-2006, 05:58 AM
There are basically 3 types of translations
1. Formal equivalence (word for word) like KJV, NKJV, NASB
2. Dynamic equivalence (word for word except mostly cultural stuff and more meaning) NIV, Good News, NEB
3. Free (The Message, The Living Bible)
Where does the Amplified fit in here? I'm guessing Dynamic??

Xon_*
12-22-2006, 08:31 AM
To be quite honest there is absolutely NO way to prove that older manuscripts are more accurate. It is what people have assumed and nothing more.

That's true, but when you find just a little piece of text say for instance you find a piece of the book of mark dated to 80AD. that means that the book existed by then or at least that that text wasn't made up later. The closer you can get a text to the original author the better for your validation and authority of the text. Which is good to use against critics :>


Allow me to give a fictional scenario to explain my point:

The early church have their copies of the Bible's contents. One particular cult group takes a copy and makes a really twisted bad copy.

The church knows its fake so they refuse to use it and keep using their good ones. Over time and through use the good copies fall apart, so new copies are needed.

The fake ones never got used, so they remain mostly intact.

Cycle forward 2000 years. Centuries of use means the most accurate and best copies are all fairly new, the older ones fell apart through use.

Then some Archaeologist comes along and finds these 'old' manuscripts which are highly accurate... In reality... He found the corrupt fake ones the church never used cause they knew they were garbage.



Spawn out a dozen new Bibles based upon this 'accurate and reliable' manuscript.

----------------

Since we can't ever go back in time, we can only assume what is the more accurate manuscripts.

The text for the original Bible is completely in our hands today. Finding manuscripts that are older means that we can be sure that we are accurate in our texts. There are thousands of parts of manuscripts that are dated early, but finding complete books that are real early which is the same as one 2000 years later (recompiled and put together from different manuscripts), is quit extraordinary and valuable.

A text that dates close to the original date of the original text is invaluable, since it gives us proof that our text existed by then. If youca n get an extant copy of a book in the lifetime or close to the lifetime of the author, you have support of authorship.

The text most of our bibles are based on was kept by the Vatican for years (Codex Vaticanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus)).

If you are interested here is an article (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html) on the original text. This is a good article for people who believe the bible has been tampered with, which is absurd.

Xon_*
12-22-2006, 08:32 AM
Where does the Amplified fit in here? I'm guessing Dynamic??

I guess a mixture of formal and dynamic ??

skynes
12-22-2006, 09:04 AM
This is a good article for people who believe the bible has been tampered with, which is absurd.

I don't think the Bible has been tampered with (I know you weren't saying I was) but I don't think every little old manuscript that pops up is highly accurate just because its old. I think thats a stupid argument if I ever heard one.

Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.

I dislike this website already. So we're not to use the Bibles claims in our pursuit of truth? Next argument will be telling us not to believe Jesus came back from the dead just because His disciples wrote so.

breakthesilence
12-23-2006, 01:44 PM
I dislike this website already. So we're not to use the Bibles claims in our pursuit of truth? Next argument will be telling us not to believe Jesus came back from the dead just because His disciples wrote so.

there is a valid point there though. texts from other religions will claim their own infallibility. so you don't want to look at those and say oh they say they are right so they must be. if you treated the bible in that same way, saying it's true just because it itself claims to be, well yes that would be circular reasoning.
BUT
we know the Bible is the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit living in us testifies that this is so. the verse which says that the Bible is infallible is good because it assures us beyond doubt, or anyone's misguided interpretation, that it is infallible. in other words, God clearly states this in His word so that no one can possibly argue against it (at least, in the attempt to find the truth. of course it is argued against by those wishing to deny the Bible's authority.)
there are also outside archaeological & historical facts which line up with the Bible, further leading one to be confident that the Bible is God's true Word. and scientific ones too. and i don't just mean evolution vs. creation.

so really, we don't believe the Bible to be infallible just because it says so. we would then rightly be accused of circular reasoning. we know it is infallible because of the Holy Spirit.

skynes
12-23-2006, 04:06 PM
so really, we don't believe the Bible to be infallible just because it says so. we would then rightly be accused of circular reasoning. we know it is infallible because of the Holy Spirit.

the Holy Spirit, being mentioned in scripture, being part of God, vouching for His Words own truthfulness is also circular reasoning.

Xon_*
12-23-2006, 11:31 PM
Skyness, I hear what you are sayin g and I agree. The reason that the we believe that the Bible is infallible is not because it says that it is.

Maybe so for the 21st century reader, but that probably wasn't so for the early believers since there was a lot of fakes around like was said. Here's an extract from an online article that gives the main reasons for the recognition of the canon.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God convincing His followers of what He had already decided upon. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired. Complete article (http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html)

The main reason we have the canon today(apart from God's will), is because of recognition and not just believe without evidence and logic. That's good because people who want to dis the bible authenticity don't really have a leg to stand on.

Spiffles
12-24-2006, 01:57 PM
the Holy Spirit, being mentioned in scripture, being part of God, vouching for His Words own truthfulness is also circular reasoning.

I think what she is trying to say is that it isnt what the bible says about the Holy Spirit, which is how i read what you have said, but the personal conviction that the Holy Spirit gives us. What we actually experience from the Holy Spirit etc..
The Holy Spirit is what makes the bible the "living" word of God. Without the Holy Spirit in our lives, despite what the bible says about the Holy Spirirt, the bible is just a bunch of ancient sources and myths.

We know the bible is true because the Holy Spirit inplants that into our hearts when we accept him, not because the bible says that the bible is true.

skynes
12-25-2006, 01:04 AM
What I meant was that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit vouches for the Bibles truthfulness.

That is circular reasoning.

I know that WE Know that God is 100% truth and cannot lie and that He is very much trustworthy, but to the unbelievers, we will always be crazy circular thinkers. So refusing to use Scripture so as not to appear crazy is a silly idea. The Word of God is our greatest weapon, so it should be the first thing we reach for when our Faith is challenged, not archaeology or science.

breakthesilence
01-03-2007, 03:41 PM
I think what she is trying to say is that it isnt what the bible says about the Holy Spirit, which is how i read what you have said, but the personal conviction that the Holy Spirit gives us. What we actually experience from the Holy Spirit etc..
The Holy Spirit is what makes the bible the "living" word of God. Without the Holy Spirit in our lives, despite what the bible says about the Holy Spirirt, the bible is just a bunch of ancient sources and myths.

We know the bible is true because the Holy Spirit inplants that into our hearts when we accept him, not because the bible says that the bible is true.

yep that's what i meant. thanks for adding that :)

What I meant was that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit vouches for the Bibles truthfulness.

That is circular reasoning.

i don't think so. at least, i just don't see that as circular reasoning. or what i should say (argh i wish i could talk in english) i don't see it that way. i don't even know how to explain. i can't get it in words. sorry... God is so vast, things in God's "realm" are incomprehensible to us... as C.S. Lewis explains (in mere christianity) if you live in a two dimensional world, you can't imagine what three dimensions would be like. you aren't able to perceive it. you can kind of try to imagine, but you just aren't able to comprehend it. similarly, we just can't fathom how God works. we are, so to speak, a two-dimensional world created by a three-dimensional God. now somewhere in there the reasoning of the Holy Spirit fits in i just can't articulate it... [i'm thinking too much man i need physics class again my brain is getting stupid...]

my point about archaelogy & science--yes we believers know the truth of the Bible, but the fact that they do line up adds validity and credibility in the scholarly world to the bible. obviously the bible itself is number one, but it wouldn't work all too well if the other stuff didn't lend credibility to it. mainly what i mean to say is in apologetics with scoffers and unbelievers, having "tangible" evidence is a good thing. a document that is accurate concerning things man didn't even know about (deep sea vents, bacteria, the roundness of the earth, etc) must be, as far as they are concerned, given credit as being from God. either that or it's from aliens. but that would be ridiculous.

skynes
01-03-2007, 03:54 PM
don't think so. at least, i just don't see that as circular reasoning. or what i should say (argh i wish i could talk in english) i don't see it that way. i don't even know how to explain.

To an atheist, what we do is circular reasoning. We take the Bible, the word of God and because God says He can't lie, that makes His Word true. In their mind that makes us use circular reasoning.

my point about archaelogy & science--yes we believers know the truth of the Bible, but the fact that they do line up adds validity and credibility in the scholarly world to the bible. obviously the bible itself is number one, but it wouldn't work all too well if the other stuff didn't lend credibility to it. mainly what i mean to say is in apologetics with scoffers and unbelievers, having "tangible" evidence is a good thing. a document that is accurate concerning things man didn't even know about (deep sea vents, bacteria, the roundness of the earth, etc) must be, as far as they are concerned, given credit as being from God. either that or it's from aliens. but that would be ridiculous.


I wish it was that simple. Unfortunately all the skeptics I run into do nothing but attack the Bibles authenticity, totally ignoring the evidence FOR its authenticity.

Quite frankly they like being skeptics.

Unregistered
01-09-2007, 07:00 AM
I wish it was that simple. Unfortunately all the skeptics I run into do nothing but attack the Bibles authenticity, totally ignoring the evidence FOR its authenticity.

Quite frankly they like being skeptics.

People find safety and comfort in their believes, I think, that is why they'd rather go on believing something that is blatantly not true, rather than give over.

Yip, some people just seem to not be interested in being wrong.
hehe

Xon_*
01-09-2007, 07:09 AM
Most people protect their believes with their lives. I think gives security and comfort.

drewavera
02-25-2007, 08:12 AM
has anyone compared Matthew 17:20-21 between the KJV and the other translations such as the NIV or NRSV? There is something kind of odd in the new versions that concerns me. Pay close attention to the verse numbering...

skynes
02-25-2007, 10:02 AM
has anyone compared Matthew 17:20-21 between the KJV and the other translations such as the NIV or NRSV? There is something kind of odd in the new versions that concerns me. Pay close attention to the verse numbering...

Let me guess, it's not there?

Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are others that newer translations cut out too.

Quadripedman
03-26-2007, 05:37 PM
i dont know what i use lol...im too tired to go and look atm. but if anyone could suggest a good New and Old Testament versions just pm me or contact my on aim. i need to get an Old Testament cause i dont have one....lol...

skynes
03-26-2007, 10:43 PM
i dont know what i use lol...im too tired to go and look atm. but if anyone could suggest a good New and Old Testament versions just pm me or contact my on aim. i need to get an Old Testament cause i dont have one....lol...

I use NKJV, so yeah I'd suggest that. Lol.

If you're the kind of person to be reaaaally thorough. Get a Hebrew Bible. The kind with Hebrew one side and English the other.

A little test I do to determine if a Bible's worth reading.

Go to Genesis 1. Does it say "evening and morning, THE first day" ... "THE second day" etc. As well as Acts 8:37 BEING there (as opposed to in margins or footnotes). If it's got both, it's probably a good one.

If it says in Genesis 1 "one day.. a second day.. a third day" etc. Then don't bother with it. It's a Bible that's been 'updated due to scientific findings'

Quadripedman
03-27-2007, 07:18 PM
thanks. that helps :)

im going to try and get one tomorow.

DarkestRose
05-11-2007, 11:27 PM
I like the NKJV. I use that one by preference.

The Lamma
05-12-2007, 05:54 PM
I use NIV and NKJV. If I have to read through a book that I don't really enjoy because of the style and whatnot, I'll use the Message.

on_a_mission
05-14-2007, 11:24 PM
All the translations listed have their merits, but nothing tops the bible in the original Klingon:
:P

Psalms 117
------------
joH'a' penaD Hoch

pequvmoH 'u' ghotpu'

numuSHa'qu'mo'

'ej reH taHtaH vItDaj

joH'a' penaD !

DarkestRose
05-15-2007, 12:15 AM
Why is there a Klingon translation? Not to be all negative, but it seems supercilious. I mean, the Aborigine people just got a full Bible this year (http://www.christianpost.com/pages/print.htm?aid=27304), but the Klingons had one before them?

on_a_mission
05-15-2007, 05:30 AM
Why is there a Klingon translation? Not to be all negative, but it seems supercilious. I mean, the Aborigine people just got a full Bible this year (http://www.christianpost.com/pages/print.htm?aid=27304), but the Klingons had one before them?


I was only trying to provide a bit of levity there. :) It may make you feel better to know that the Klingon Bible Project (http://www.kli.org/wiki/Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project) has only translated a few books and/or sections of the bible. As to why this is being done before other translations are done? Well, there is not a big queue of languages awaiting translation by some master linguist and Klingon slipped in front of other languages. How does anything like this get done? Interested people take the time and put in the effort to make it happen.

But, then if you were to ask a Klingon, he would probably say that the ORIGINAL text was written in Klingon and everything else IS A TRANSLATION ! ;D

The Lamma
05-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Its not like the guys who know Klingon know any other languages other than English and/or Hebrew.

rock_out_loud7
06-27-2007, 03:12 PM
New Kings James is what I usually use, but I think I wanna try something a bit simpler.