Search results

But there is quite a variety within the SBC -- everything from soup to nuts. Probably more of the latter. LOL

I don't think I have to state the obvious with respect to the KJV. The 1977 NASB is written in an awkward, stilted manner. The NASB95 is better, but I gave mine away. The only reason I have the ESV is to underline its terrible English.

There you go in classic deflection mode. Read my post # 71 prayerfully and follow through.

I rarely look at those three. They would be poor choices indeed for Bible reading and Bible study. I'll stick with my NIV/TNIV, NLT, NET and the others that you had been blissfully unaware of.

Evasion and misrepresentation defines you Y-1. When I have asked you direct questions you always deflect. I have asked you hundreds of times to show from the text of the NIV where the passages that promote women as pastors and women as heads of households are. And you have never, and I mean...

Better does not = formally equivalent. But I do own a KJV, 1977 NASB, and the ESV.

I have told you repeatedly not to quote a post of mine if you cannot address what's in it. I had clearly said that I was dealing with inclusive versions. Got it now? Reading comprehension is very important Y-1.

That is flatly false. I have asked you straightforward questions time and time again and you don't answer them. You run to the hills. Evasion is your modus operandi.

The ones I listed are the better ones. And, again, you show your ignorance of these translations. You probably don't own any of them, and have accessed passages from them on-line. You are good at making hollow assertions with no facts to support them. Permit me to off a few examples. I'll be...

That applies directly to you Y-1.

No, I don't know anything about it. However, the stated goal is misguided. It seems to concentrate on individual trees and yet missing the forest. A context-for-context translation would be much better.

By the way, those well-known words from 2 Corinthians 5:19 are found in many versions that do not use the word propitiation : NIV, CEB, CSB, ISV, NRSV, WEB, NLT, NET, Goodspeed, Norlie, REB, NJB, MLB and even N.T. Wright's The Kingdom New Testament. They all employ the similar phraseology of...

The term brothers and sisters: 1) NRSV : 99 2) NET : 118 3) NIV : 132 4) CSB : 158 5) CEB : 181 Imagine that? The NRSV uses this term less than these other inclusive versions. The CSB uses the term 26 more times than the NIV! My, my.

Persons 1) NLT : 2 2) NIV : 5 3) NET : 6 4) CSB : 8 5) ESV & NASB : 41 6) CEB : 66 7) NRSV : 71 This has to rearrange your thinking. The ESV and NASB use this word eight times more than the NIV, and more than twenty times than the NLT!

Themselves 1) CSB : 241 2) NET and NLT : 252 3) ESV : 271 4) NIV : 298 5) NASB & LEB : 306 6) CEB : 385 7) NRSV : The NIV is right in the middle. It uses the word less than the NASB. The NLT uses it 54 less times than the NASB.

Theirs 1) NET : 10 2) LEB : 12 3) NLT : 13 4) ESV : 14 5) CSB : 20 6) NASB : 21 7) NIV : 22 8) CEB : 23 9) NRSV : 25 Interesting, isn't it? The NLT uses the word less than the NASB.

Well, this will certainly be a good warm-up for the real thing.

You are not even familiar with the NIV, seeing things that are not in the text. Why would you be considered knowledgeable enough to make a call as to what's valid or invalid? Your assertions are hollow.

Never despise the Word of God.

NIV/TNIV NLT NET But I consult my Goodspeed, Norlie, MLB, NJB, REB, Weymouth and even the CEB among others. I only have a 1958 edition of the Phillips. I once owned the 1973 edition but it got misplaced. All of the aforementioned I physically possess. But I go to Biblegateway to check out...