Search results

I'm really looking forward to "Strange New Worlds." How about you?

Should professional sports be played without the presence of fans?

Regarding Psalm 53: as usual, I prefer the NIV. *oops * ;)

Regarding Psalm 43 (NLT): for whatever reason, I think I prefer how the NLT renders this passage of scripture. :)

Regarding Psalm 43 (CEB): plain, simple, straightforward, understandable language. However, not as lyrical or poetic sounding as we're accustomed to hearing in the Psalms.

Please forgive me, but I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning in this post. And I don't want to assume that I understand. Perhaps you'd be willing to elaborate?

Time for a cup of Taster's Choice. Thank you, NASA. :)

It's like trying to prove to a prideful atheist that God does, indeed, exist. ;)

Regarding Psalm 28: strikes me in a similar vein as Psalm 23. In this case, a little shaky in the beginning, but better as it went along.

Unusual. Certainly not traditional. Sounds strange to the ear, due to its unconventional phraseology. Still a valid rendering, though,

I'm basing it on what you've posted so far. (I know, just "the tip of the iceberg," eh?);)

1) The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 2) The HarperCollins Study Bible, 3) The New Interpreter's Study Bible, 4) The Access Bible.

I think they do an outstanding job on the Psalms.

Well, when James T. Kirk graduated from the Academy, and received his commission as "Ensign," it was located in the city of San Francisco.

Velcro. Just as useful on Earth as it was in outer space. So practical.

"Captain" Kirk, and "Commander" Spock will advocate that it be under the direction of the Department of the Navy. "Lieutenant Commander" Scott, "Lieutenant" Sulu, and "Ensign" Chekhov would concur. ;)

Well, my general impression at this early stage is favorable. "So far, so good," one might say.

"Dinner." Hmmmm ... that's an way of putting it. Simple, modern, understandable. An interesting choice. Not bad. :)

Overall, I found it a bit odd or unusual in it's rendering of certain passages. That it was not what I was accustomed to seeing or hearing in other Bible translations I've customarily used. Now, this doesn't mean that I believe it's a poor translation (or an inaccurate translation). If that...

I don't doubt that the CSB is one of the better translations currently available. Nevertheless, I'm not particularly fond of it. It's obvious they're attempting to be more "literal" than the NIV, and I appreciate the effort. However, it just doesn't work for me.