What is the best Bible?

This is not an attack Doc, just a survey.

 

best Bible? I'd go for the ESV or the RSV. But perhaps the best answer is: The one you read.*



*except if you're reading the New World Translation.

 

" . . . the KJV had dozens of typoes and errors . . . " is an attack, not a survey.

 

Hardly. Let's get back on topic.

[ June 29, 2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

You would do well to post support for your assertion since you've been asked to do so (Even though those aware of the issue know these, it would help those who are studying this for themselves.)

 

Hardly. Let's get back on topic.</font>[/QUOTE]Not "hardly," exactly!

 

I guess it depends on your presuppositions eh?? I thought it was just a survey of the facts of the case as demonstrated by Scrivener and others historically.

 

I suspect it is more a matter of reading comprehension. A survey is "What do you think of . . . ." An attack is "The . . . . is full of errors." I suppose it is too subtle a distinction for some here, unfortunately.

 

Its The KJV for ME! hidee Ransom...missed ya...Hubby said I could come here! Tell everyone I miss Them ALL so much.

 

Is this ad hominem?? It sure looks like it Strange from someone suggesting there should be no "attacks" on the KJV. Is it okay to attack people?

More to the point, are you saying that Scrivener was wrong when he made his list of typos and errors? I was not aware that anyone this side of Ruckman denied this. You yourself have admitted these errors exist; you simply do not consider them errors of fact.

By the way, my reading comprehension works just fine.

 

Your response to my post proves the above is, in fact, not the case.

 

Perhaps you can explain then. It seems that I understood what you said just fine. You misunderstood my first post, causing you to say some things that were not true (an error which after being corrected you again failed to acknowledge and apologize for). Then you attack my reading ability, again causing you to say some things that are not true. I am curious as to what I missed in my reading comprehension.

1. What in my post (any of them) showed a lack of reading comprehension?

2. How does your attack on my reading comprehension not constitute an ad hominem argument?

3. Are you disagreeing with Scrivener who identified numerous errors and changes in the KJV's various editions?

[ June 30, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I rest my case. Thanks for proving my point.

 

You proved something, alright.

 

I see. According to Thomas then, we can never critique a Bible translation. Guess we need to shut this forum down then.

 

Please don't misrepresent what I said. It is a terrible sin, not to mention a terrible testimony.

 

Reality check.......

Most people don't really care about this issue, I know that may come as a shock to some, but it is the truth. Having had the opportunity to preach in many parts of the country and always asking if there was a version perfered by the church the answer always was/is, "Whatever you are most comfortable with will be fine." Very funny to me how a non-issue becomes an issue when left to the "experts". Sad too but mostly funny.

 

You are quite right that most people do not care about the issue, but that does not make it a non-issue, (nor remotely funny). In that vein, people then neither care if they might be using a NWT or a catholic edition with deuterocanonical books. (Sadly, this is probably the case). But believers need to be taught where their Bibles came from, what constitutes a good Bible, and how to avoid and/or agrue against abberant doctrine like KJVO. Simply because people "don't care" is not a reason to avoid teaching them the truth of an issue.

 

Thomas appears to have either 1) missed the questions or 2) be unable to prove his assertions. Which is it? I will post them again and hope for some evidence to back them up. I get very tired of personal attacks, especially when no evidence has been offered to support them. Jump in here Thomas; support your claims.

Perhaps you can explain then. It seems that I understood what you said just fine. You misunderstood my first post, causing you to say some things that were not true (an error which after being corrected you again failed to acknowledge and apologize for). Then you attack my reading ability, again causing you to say some things that are not true. I am curious as to what I missed in my reading comprehension.

1. What in my post (any of them) showed a lack of reading comprehension?

2. How does your attack on my reading comprehension not constitute an ad hominem argument?

3. Are you disagreeing with Scrivener who identified numerous errors and changes in the KJV's various editions?</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Please don't misrepresent what I said. It is a terrible sin, not to mention a terrible testimony.</font>[/QUOTE]Okay then, you've critiqued mvs before. But now you disapprove of a critique of the KJV. So then is it okay for you to do it and not others? Hypocrisy is a pretty lousy witness, too.

[ July 01, 2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]