Versions that are Invalid:

[Ed Edwards]

Which of the following Versions ARE invalid?
Please do not mark a Version invalid unless you have
studied the version a bit and consider it invalid.
Please do not mark a Version simple because you
have 'heard' is is bad. Please do not mark a Version
as being invalid just because you consider some
other version better than others. All we want is
a learned insight as to which versions are invalid
and to what scope do people on the BB
consider them invalid. Thank you.

BWT = New World Translation
should be: NWT = New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses version)

 

[El_Guero]

Ed,

Are ya' for or against the original languages?



Wayne

 

[Ed Edwards]

Brother El_G...:

The software limits me to 10 (and no more) options.
So I only put ten Bibles that I have on the shelve
over my Computer desk.

 

[El_Guero]

My kind brother Ed . . .

What? You have the KJV and the NIV, but no Greek NT?

We should correct that issue soon . . .

But, having that JW trash and not having the original . . . that we must correct immediately . . .

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...50708&netp_id=126382&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

Hebrew: http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...36929&netp_id=264652&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

God bless

Wayne

Brother El_G...:

The software limits me to 10 (and no more) options.
So I only put ten Bibles that I have on the shelve
over my Computer desk.

 

[Amy.G]

I'm not familiar with the Readers Digest Bible.

 

[Jim1999]

Reader's Digest Bible,,,a condensed version of the RSV

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

THE READER'S DIGEST BIBLE (Reader's Digest
Association, 1982, ISBN 0-89577-106-3)

Condensed from the Revised Standard Version (RSV)
by a team lead by Bruce M. Metzger;
of Princeton Theological Seminary.

 

[Amy.G]

A condensed bible? Can I vote again?

 

[Ed Edwards]

There is a quirk of the BB's polling software.
You can set the poll so the vote of each person is
shown. But it has a problem, only the person who has
NOT voted can see how folks voted; the person who
has voted cann NOT see how folks voted.
Strange, eh?

Be sure to read how who is voting what
BEFORE you vote :BangHead:

 

[Ed Edwards]

A condensed bible? Can I vote again?

No. It is illegal to have multiple BB identites, so you
cannot vote again.

 

[Amy.G]

Actually, I was kidding.

 

[Ed Edwards]

my bad :smilewinkgrin: I was serious and u was kiddin'

:tonofbricks: u can start droppin'

 

[Amy.G]

Oh, I guess I'll let you slide this time! Thanks for the poll. :wavey:

 

[Jim1999]

I rather like the Reader's Digest Bible. It is like reading a novel; no chapters or verses, and complete paragraphs.

One can almost read the entire book in one sitting and readily understand it. For the type of person that would pick up this book and casually read it, what is left out will not affect them finding truth in Christ.

Mind you, one better know their Bible if they want to find particular verses.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

I rather like the Reader's Digest Bible. It is like reading a novel; no chapters or verses, and complete paragraphs.

Same with THE MESSAGE by Peterson.

Unlike READER'S DIGEST BIBLE, THE MESSAGE by Peterson
tells 'the rest of the story' :applause:

 

[Marcia]

Same with THE MESSAGE by Peterson.

Unlike READER'S DIGEST BIBLE, THE MESSAGE by Peterson
tells 'the rest of the story' :applause:

"The rest of the story" with Peterson's views added and mixed in with God's word, that is. :tongue3:

 

[Hope of Glory]

If you look at Patterson's book as a commentary, it's OK. Not the greatest, but OK. However, I cannot see it as a "version", since it's a paraphrase at best.

 

[Pete]

Well to keep with the rules and just vote against ones I have come across, my votes go to the NWT and The Message, with perhaps a vote for the Readers Digest one if I ever see it

The NWT I wouldn't use at all (oops, correction, I did quote the NWT once on the BB to make a point about something :tonofbricks: ), I have The Message in E-Sword and might use parts of it here and there, but never without a 'real' version. It's more a K-Mart commentary.

 

[EdSutton]

No. It is illegal to have multiple BB identites, so you
cannot vote again.

"It may not be 'permitted' by the BB, and is no doubt 'unethical', and may even be 'illicit', but I'm pretty sure it is not 'illegal' to have multiple BB identities, at least in the standard use of the meaning of the word 'illegal'." Signed - Language Cop

Folks, I apologize, here. Language Cop must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, and obviously has wa-a-a-y too much time on his hands.

Ed

 

[robycop3]

Ed,

Are ya' for or against the original languages?



Wayne

Why should anyone be against the original languages? After all, SOMEONE used each of them, or God's word wouldn'ta been written in'em.