Is this a Bible?

Refuel: The Complete New Testament for guys:
"Description
Part sports or entertainment magazine, part Bible—totally relevant! This BibleMag is a totally cool new way for teen guys to read the Bible. Formatted like a sports or entertainment magazine, this New Testament Bible comes to life with relevant application. Based on the success of Revolve, and in response to tremendous customer feedback, this Bible is sure to be a hit!
Includes great topics like:

Inside Her Head: Real Girls Give Their Opinions
172 Lists: On Everything
Look Cool: Tips on Your Self
Dive In: How to Make Your Faith Real
240 Ways to Walk the Walk


Details
SKU: 0718006763 Publisher: Thomas Nelson
Date Published: Apr 2004 Pages: 384
Language: English Description: Refuel-Ncv-NT for Guys
Translation: New Century Binding: Paper
Cover Color: Multi-Colored Red Letter: No
Concordance: No "


Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys <---This link allows you to browse a couple of pages through this atrocity. Click on the More Information interior images

 

sorry for the double post. Ignore the above post.

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I girl brought a New World Translation (NWT)
with her. I have it now. She switched to
a heavily comentaried for teens New Century Version. Now she is saved. Betcha
before she graduates High School we will
have her reading the KJV1769

That's like feeding a child frech fries all her life and then thinking that by HIGH SCHOOL she'll want to switch to carrots and brocolli?

How do you think she'll stomach "real christianity"?
verses like:
1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


Which KJV do you use? I have three different
KJVs on my computer desk:

Which King James Version do you use?
Here is a sample test:

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

... and he went into the city.

I know people who say that the KJV1611
and KJV1873 i have are NOT real Bibles.
What say ye?

I understand the point you are trying to make, Mr. Ed. So i did some thinking here's what i undrstand, also based on the article i posted by Pastor Reagan.

1. "As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling."

Your above example from Ruth proves this to be true. "citie" to "city" in 1769.

2. As with the same explaination of printing technology of those days, i propose that the "she" "he" is a new printing error that inadvertantly happened whilst other corrections of that page were being made. Very easy mistake to make for the difference is but one letter.
It's not like our word documents, we change only the mistakes and typos and the rest of the document is untouched. Back then when they wanted to make corrections (years later) They would have to set the words of the entire page and do it all over again, not just the bits they want to correct. In advertantly, new mistakes can occur.

3. I simply take this as an innocent human error for the ambiguity caused by the he/she error clears itself up in v16 when she Ruth comes to her mother in law.

"Ruth 3:14 And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one could know another. And he said, Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.
Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.
Ruth 3:16 And when she came to her mother in law, she said, Who art thou, my daughter? And she told her all that the man had done to her."

4. The problem was noted and finally fixed in 1873. I don't think those who held that bible suffered doctrinally for that "typo".

5. These are printing errors, nothing compared to the way the infedels of the translators of MVs have gone through the word of God abd systematically taken out, changed, watered down verses that don't fit with their own ideology.

Thanks for reading. Please be kind in your responses!

 

Thank you for your honesty!
That the others actually call this monstrocity (a creature neither man nor beast) a "bible"..... now i've seen it all...

Once one accepts the premise that the bible needs to be changed to be more "totally relevant", there's no where you can draw the line.

 

printers of the KJB had typos just as you had here, Mr. Ed!

 

printers of the KJB had typos just as you had here, Mr. Ed! </font>[/QUOTE]1. I don't see my typo. Feel free to
point out the typo instead of just telling me
i have one. That is the only way to get it
corrected.

2. Please do not call me "Mr. Ed" the name
of a talking hourse. Thank you.

</font>[/QUOTE]1. "I girl" was the typo. you meant "1 girl"?

2. many apologies for my ignorance. It was truly unintentional. In fact i was trying to be extra polite!

 

i take this as a second hyopthesis? That there was another commitee set up in 1769 to do somemore translating? where'd you get that from? what are the names of these men?

May i ask, for i am ignorant, in which year did these Vulgate and Syriac manuscripts surface?

And i'm more interested what the majority texts say.


BTW, I brought it up and you evaded the
question I asked. I'd still like an anwer.
.
.
.
The reason i give the test is that frequently
the makers of KJVs don't even bother to let
their readers know which edition of the KJV
thjey have in their hands.

I note that if i limited myself to the KJV only
that i'd not be able to figure out this
strange inconsistancy (which makes no doctrinal
difference).

What's the inconsistency?

one of mine says The New Open Bible King James Version Study Edition Nelson 1672.