How many Bible versions in your home?

ah, so that's where that mantra came from!

 

Actually, it is the inverse of Euclid's axiom "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Rather well known to those who have studied basic mathematics.

 

Thompson NKJV

Scofield KJV

RSV (first bible i used when i got saved)

NIV

Living Bible

Hebrew Bible

 

You've definitely got that right, Brother! It's easy to download from the net and easy to have access to while on the net. I noticed, though, the KJV is getting harder and harder to find on the net. Anyone know why?

BrotherTony

 

FW, you sure need a lot more than your KJV, don't you? One Bible, 4 other books you mention, and an undetermined quantity you do not mention. So the ratio of non-KJV to KJV is at least 4 to 1; likely 7:1 to 10:1...approaching Jehovah's Witnesses who have their ONE Bible, but the basis of their claims is their publications intended to brainwash into thinking there is one truth and, of course, they have it. It should not surprise anyone that you have quite a collection of volumes you think you must not question and must reject all criticism of.

I have expessed my opinion of Riplinger and the others on this board, and had the terms censored... otherwise I would repeat it here.

 

Well, Cynic, your comments almost went right over my head just like these crop dusters flying around here! But, I think I know what you're saying and let me clarify...I have one Bible and that's all I *need*! The other books are just books...nothing more, and I'm almost positive every one of them contain error...course, now, I've not read them all like the Farmer has ! But, I'm pretty sure about my assumption...why do you think we had to get those 'other books' to check out the ones I named? TRUST NNE EXCEPT JESUS AND THE TRUTH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!!!

 

Preacher, (and others who have only one Bible) I came across this saying yesterday and thought you might like it!

"A man who owns only one watch knows what time it is, but a man who has two watches is never quite sure."

 

A man with only one watch cannot know if it is running fast or slow - he only *thinks* he knows what time it is, but really he is is own authority, for he has decided for himself that his watch cannot be in error. A man with many watches can not only know what time it is, and thus follows the authority of what time it really is, but can also easily tell when one of the watches is falling behind.

 

Ok, I know this IS getting off topic but....just how does the man with many watches *know* he has the right time without becoming his own authority and deciding for himself which one of his many watches is the correct time? So, to me, both men have basically decided the same thing in the end but the 'many watches' man has to buy more batteries and spend more time setting all of his watches!!! (ha,ha,ha)

 

Think about what the man is trying to accomplish: is he simply trying to determine which watch is right, or is he trying to determine what time it is? If he has 20 watches, and 6 say "3:59", 7 say "4:01", 5 say "4:00" and 1 say "4:02" and 1 faulty watch says "4:30", he can say with great certainty "it's 4 o'clock". He does not need to pick any single watch. However, the man with only one watch has nothing to compare to, and when his watch says "4:30" (maybe he's holding only the faulty watch), he cannot say "it is 4 thirty", he can really only say "my watch says it is 4 thirty, but maybe it's really 4:00".

Yes, using and comparing different versions takes more studying than just deciding on a single one. But is that a bad thing? Even Granny told me to study.

[ July 25, 2002, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I have King James Bibles to study from.
I have a nkjv to show others what is wrong with the nkjv.

 

That's funny ...I do just the opposite

 

Swedish Bibel 1917 (3 or 4) ;Bibel 2000 (Swedish);
NT-81 (Swedish NT);
Swedish NT from 1879 printed by a British Bible society;Swedísh NT from 1850

Finnish Biblia from 1776; Finnish KR-33/-38 (a half a dozen); Finnish KR-92; Aapeli Saarisalo's New Testament in Finnish from 1969

Norwegian New Testament (2000 AD), translated from the KJV

Russian Synodal Translation 1876 (2)

Luther's 1545 German Bible; Eugen Slachter's NT w. Psalms

Spanish Reina Valera Bible

Holy Bible in the Original Languages in one volume (Ben Chayim Masoretic text & Scrivener's TR)

Textus Receptus Greek NT (Scrivener); UBS-3 (Analytical Greek NT by Friberg)

Septuagint w. Brenton's English translation

Theodore Beza's Latin New Testament

King James Bible (3); King James Life Application Bible; William Tyndale's Bible (NT plus part of OT, modern-spelling ed. by David Daniell); New King James Version; New American Standard Bible; Young's Literal Translation; Darby Bible; The Interlinear Bible w. LITV (by Jay P Green Sr.); Wuest's Expanded Translation of the NT;

Italian Diodati Bible

Plus the NIV Old Testament in connection with Kohlenberger's Interlinear Old Testament. NRSV New Testament in connection with 2 NT interlinears.

Interlinears:

Kohlenberger's OT interlinear; Jay P Green Sr.'s Interlinear Bible; Ricker Berry's intelinear; Alfred Marshall's interlinear; The NKJV Greek-English interlinear by Hodges & Farstad et.al.; The New Greek English Interlinear NT by Comfort & Brown; Word Study Greek English NT by Paul McReynolds McReynolds

Plus on the harddrive many of the above as well as a whole lot of others in different languages.

I cannot say I have a specific favourite, apart from the Textus Receptus which I love dearly. Ricker Berry's interlinear has been very useful. And Beza's Latin NT I feel is one of the more accurate translations of the Textus Receptus. A real gem on the harddrive is the Osterwald 1996 Bible in French, of which I have downloaded the NT and half of the OT so far. It is based on the TR and the old Masoretic Text.

Harald

 

DocCas Wrote:

"Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other" is not an axiom of Euclid. The genius of Euclid's work is that he only had five axioms which are the following.

1* For evry point P and for every point Q not equal to P there exists a unique line L that passes through P and Q.

2* For every segment AB and for every segment CD there exists a unique point E such that B is between A and E and segment CD is
congruent to segment BE.

3* For every point O and every point A not equal to O there exists a circle with a centre O and a radius OA.

4* All right angles are congruent to each other.

5* For every line L and for every point P that does not lie on L there exists a unique line M through P that is parallel to L.

Things being equal shows up in the field of engineering as the zeroth law of thermodynamics, but there it is not an axiom either but is proven given eailer axioms.

 

Euclid codified "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other" and if not equal to each other, the process is wrong. Used for self- clarification, the mathematical base is apparent, to be found in the axiom to Bk I of Euclid. If a = b, and b = c, then a = c, but if in the real world it does not, we erred in our thinking.

ax·i·om n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim. 2. An established rule, principle, or law. 3. Abbr. ax. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. American Heritage Dictionary

 

That is a good question. Wow I had to stop and go look around again and it amazed me at how many versions I do have at home. I use the NIV the most, I have some difficulty reading the KJV. I feel as though my IQ is very low when reading it! LOL PRACTICE!!!! Love in Christ Angieinstlouie

 

Okay, I think I see what is going on. I sat through a class once we different mathematicians argued over the difference between an axiom and a postulate. Interesting enough, the book I am looking at currently doesn't even use the word axiom but instead calls the five axioms I listed the five Postulates and "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another" shows up under "Common Notions". Most people use axiom and postulate interchangably.

 

Here is some more information to confuse the matter

"Note "postulate" is Euclid's term for an axiom, especially an axiom of geometry. His term for non-geometric
axioms is "common notions". In our verison of Hilbert's system, we consider basic set theory to be given; in other
words, the notions of set theory are our "common notions"."

Here it would appear they define both the postulates and common notions as axioms; one being geometric and the other non geometric.

http://public.csusm.edu/public/aitken_html/m410/euclid.html