Conference yukon::christian_v7

    {Forgive me if this should be a new topic}
    
    I'm thinking of getting a new Bible and was wondering if the NAS is
    still considered the most accurate modern translation in accordance to
    the original Greek/Hebrew?
    
    It seems a lot of churches that do expository teaching use the NAS. 
    I'm currently using an NIV and it's okay for general use, but I'm
    finding some errors in translation when using it for serious study.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I like to use LOTS of translations!  I'm a "sucker" for good ones.  I
    currently have about 12 different ones on my shelf (some used more than
    others -- a few are KJV, NAS, NIV, ASV, Darby, Rotherham, Moffat,
    Wuest) -- as well as a compendium of 26 translations in one volume. 
    (I'd love to get my hands on a Knox.)  I think the NAS is excellent. 
    But I also find there is much richness to be gained by comparing
    translations as you study -- sometimes an "accurate" difference in the
    word chosen can open up new shades of meaning in a passage.  Not a
    direct answer to your question about the NAS, but just a few thoughts.
    
    Mark L.

    What About "The New Amercian Bible," and the "Jerusalem Bible?"

    I use the NKJV and have found it extremenly useful and accurate.  Our
    Paster preaches from the KJV, and many times has to dwell on a point of
    word interpetation that is cleared up in the NKJV.  I spoke to him
    about this once, and he admited that he'd like to use the NKJV from the
    pulpit, but the congretation wasn't ready for that yet.  The KJV still
    holds its own as the pulpit Bible.
    
    When I'm teaching, especially adult classes, I use a ASV that my wife
    found a long time ago.  Its rather large, but is easy to read as I move
    around, and the interpetation is clearer than the KJV.
    
    Recommendation:  Try the NKJV, you won't be disappointed.

>     <<< Note 144.5 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ
>
>    What About "The New Amercian Bible," and the "Jerusalem Bible?"
    
    I have heard recommendations in favor of the "Jerusalem Bible", with a
    caveat (from the same "recommender") not to confuse the "Jerusalem
    Bible" with the "New Jerusalem Bible", as he felt that the latter
    ("New") was not as trustworthy.  I cannot personally speak from
    experience with the JB or NJB, or the "New American Bible".
    
    Mark L.

         re: <<< Note 144.6 by GLDOA::RBROWN "Hmmmm .... A note ..." >>>
                               -< Try the NKJV >-

     > I use the NKJV and have found it extremenly useful and accurate.

     I am in violent agreement with this statement. 8^)

     > ...but the congretation wasn't ready for that yet.

     Not to rathole, but *that's* a pretty sad statement, IMHO. 8^(
    
     > Recommendation:  Try the NKJV, you won't be disappointed.

     I concur. Give it a try, you'll like it!

    I too use several versions in study but like the NAS best.  However,
    Phillips' translation of the New Testament cannot be beat for reading
    Scripture, in my opinion.
    
    jeff

    I am fond of the NAS because of one word, "lovingkindness".  This word
    is a legal term from the OT which uniquely depicts the nature of God's
    covenant relationship with us.  Most other translations call it `love'
    or `mercy'.
    
    Dave

 Up until I began attending the church I do now I used the NAS. But now I
 am using the King James (Life Application Bible) and am beginning to like it,
 especially since the LAB has a dictionary sort of thing that translates some
 of those King James words that give me a tough time.  I still refer to the
 NAS from time to time as a help in figuring some stuff out and since the one
 I have is a study Bible I use the notes.


 My favorite King James Version reference is that made to Lazarus in John 11:39
 "..by this time he stinketh"  :-)





 Jim

> My favorite King James Version reference is that made to Lazarus in John 11:39
> "..by this time he stinketh"  :-)

    We are currently going through 1 Samuel (one chapter per week) during
    our Sunday afternoon ministry meeting.  We recently were in chapter 25,
    and I was the one to preach on it.  I use the KJV when speaking.  I
    spent a fair amount of time deciding how I was going to dance around a
    couple of phrases (verses 22 and 34) as I read the chapter -- had "a
    clearer reading" written in my margin! ("...any man or boy"). 
    
    Mark L.

 Hmm...I can see where those would be a little tough :-)






 Jim

      Hi,
    
        I like the NKJV and also use the KJV.  There is a beautiful
        wide margin NKJV bible.
    
        I don't know about the accuracy of the Phillips NT Jeff,
        but it sure is beautiful to read.
    
        I am a tad bit leery of the NIV, but then again, if I don't
        see the italics identifying that a word is not in the original,
        I am leary anyway.
    
        Thanks for the inputs!
    
                                                    Tony

    
    .-1
    
    Hi Tony,  I'm going to reread the stuff about the Phillips translation
    and determine (again) that it is a translation and not a paraphrase.
    
    jeff

I recently got myself a NKJV, which I like, though I tend to use the NIV
for 'general' use.  The Philips is a translation rather than a paraphrase.
Interesting perspective, but it's a while since I was in that one ...
reminds me, I must look into it again. 

I also prefer to have italics to show the interpolated words... 

Are we coming to a consensus on a 'new' translation? ;-)


							Andrew

   I was going to post this in topic 130 in reply to Josie Estevez' comments
   to Mark Sornson.  Since it deals with Bible translations and not the base
   topic of 130, it is probably more appropriate to enter it here.  Plus, topic
   130 is still write-locked.  :-)


   re:  130.61  -Josie

       >but I still think it's funny how first it was the doctrine and
       >then the translation.

   Why is this funny to you?  The Trinity Doctrine wasn't formed (let alone
   adopted) until the latter part of the fourth century.  Virtually all of the
   versions of the Bible that Christendom now uses came after that.  Same
   arguement; first the [Trinity] doctrine, and then the translation[s].   


       >Agreed! but have they been as different in context, as the NWT?

   There are numerous versions of the Bible, which were translated without
   any connections to Jehovah's Witnesses, that harmonize with the renderings
   of the New World Translation.  If you don't want to exert any effort to 
   confirm this for yourself, that's fine.  But until you do, I believe that
   your criticsm of the NWT is based more on prejudice rather than fact.


   >                     but to translate the Word of God, one *must* have 
   >the credentials (or schooling to do so). Why is it that the NWT is 
   >anonymous? It's not a matter of boasting on one's intellectual abilities, 
   >but simply publicizing the credentials *to translate* if they're in 
   >question, so that people can choose of who's more knowledgable of the 
   >*language(s)*. 

   The New World Translation is certainly not the only translation or version
   of the Bible where the translators have chosen to remain anonymous.  For
   example, the following is from the New American Standard Bible, Reference
   Edition (1971):

     "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations
      because it is our belief God's Word should stand on it's own merit."

   Where are these people's credentials?  Who can say that they had the proper
   schooling to translate the Word of God?  In light of what they have stated
   above, do you think they would reveal their identities and credentials if 
   they were questioned?  Probably not.  Yet, many people trust and use the New
   American Standard Bible.  Indeed, I would like to add this version to my own
   personal library.  Why do the translators of the NWT come under some kind of
   suspicion for remaining anonymous and the NASB translators do not?

   I can tell you for a certainty that many millions of people trust and use
   the New World Translation.  And not all of them are Jehovah's Witnesses.   
   I have a non-Witness friend who, after studying the background of the NWT,
   adopted it as his primary translation in place of the KJV.  He even put the
   reference version on his PC.

   No animosity here, Josie.  I just wanted to give you some reasonings on 
   which to contemplate.


   Steve

    Trinity doctrine that supposedly post-dates the Bible has been answered
    before.  I'm tired of digging it out.  (I need to start keeping a
    catalog of the issues that regurigitate themselves.)
    
    NWT is not a trustworthy translation.

 I believe that if one were to write to the Lockman foundation one could
 obtain the names and credentials of the translators of the NASB.

 If one were to write to the Watchtower, would one be able to receive the
 same information?




 Jim

    re:  .18  Mark
    
    >NWT is not a trustworthy translation.
    
    You should really precede your opinions with "I believe."  Otherwise,
    you risk coming off as a common slanderer.
    
    
    Steve

    re:  .19  Jim
    
    Why don't you write to both the Lockman Foundation and the Watchtower
    Bible and Tract Society and post the replies you get.  Personally, I
    never felt the need to do either.
    
    
    Steve

.22  Brian
    
    >> You should really precede your opinions with "I believe."  Otherwise,
    >> you risk coming off as a common slanderer. 

    >As I understand the above definition form Black's Law Dictionary, Mark
    >would be found "Not Guilty". Moreover, Mark is *anything* but "common"!

   If you'll notice, what I said was not an accusation, but advice.  I didn't
   call Mark anything, I simply advised him what he may appear to be, by stat-
   ing what was a negative personal opinion as fact.


   Steve

================================================================================
Note 144.23  COMET::HAYESJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   If you'll notice, what I said was not an accusation, but advice.  I didn't
>   call Mark anything, I simply advised him what he may appear to be, by stat-
>   ing what was a negative personal opinion as fact.
>
>    >NWT is not a trustworthy translation.

  Worthy of trust.  Opinion or fact?  I do not believe that the above
  statement is an opinion which is why I did not put the words, "I
  believe" before them.  Thanks for the advice, though.  I accept all
  advice, but I do not follow all the advice I receive, for some of
  that advice is not sound.  And my appearance does not often cause me
  too much concern.

  Because you hold your opinion on the NWT, you may consider it to be
  common slander.  That's understandable.  But it doesn't change the
  fact that the NWT is not a trsutworthy translation.

  Mark M.

	Mark, by who's standards does the NWT come up as unreliable?



Glen

 May I suggest that you peruse note 130.*?  I believe there was a discussion
 in that topic regarding the NWT Bible.





 Jim co-mod.




 

Thanks, Jim:

> May I suggest that you peruse note 130.*?  I believe there was a discussion
> in that topic regarding the NWT Bible.

...and that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  I won't begin the 130.*
heated debate at this time, but thanks for thinking of me, Glen.

    I was in one of our prayer rooms the other day and noticed stacks of
    NAS Bible's so I grabbed a few.  I really don't think it reads as badly
    as described in here.
    
    Mike

    <<< Note 144.28 by FRETZ::HEISER "raise your voice in shouts of joy" >>>
                                 -< I like it >-

    I> was in one of our prayer rooms the other day and noticed stacks of
    >NAS Bible's so I grabbed a few.  I really don't think it reads as badly
    >as described in here.
    
    >Mike


I quite agree, Mike.  I love my NAS.  My church uses it both during 
Sunday school and sermons.  I also find that it dovetails well with 
other versions when they're being read aloud.

I've been waiting for it to come out in Life Application but according 
to Tyndale, the Mumble Foundation (help me out here, Jim) that owns the 
copyright to NAS hasn't approved it yet.  Evidently the Foundation is 
controlled by a family and they want to keep tight controls on the 
copyrights.


Sandy

    The NAS is sort of the official Bible of the church I belong to.  I
    haven't heard a pastor yet that doesn't use it.
    
    The accuracy of the NAS pretty much goes hand-in-hand with a church
    that strongly stresses expository teaching.

RE:     <<< Note 144.29 by RIPPLE::BRUSO_SA "Horn players have more brass" >>>

   
>to Tyndale, the Mumble Foundation (help me out here, Jim) that owns the 

 OK...which way did you come in?  :-)


 Its the Lockman Foundation.


 I, too like the NAS and probably would still be using it had I not joined a
 church that uses the KJV (which I am coming to enjoy).  I do refer back to
 the NAS quite a bit.

 


 Jim

	Thanks Jim. Love ya Mark!



Glen

    re .17  & ...
    
    	Oh dear ... more NWT discussions ... and me about to go away for a
    week.
    
    	To Steve Hayes:  I was planning to reply to 130.61 by Josie
    Estevez, but when the topic was locked, I kept my comments to myself.
    
    	Since this topic thread has now been re-opened, I'll post my reply.
    
>>       It's true that Jehovah's Witnesses use the NWT, but in case you
>>   haven't noticed, I haven't once used it in this discussion.
>
>     I did noticed you didn't use it, but isn't the *best translation*
>     in your opinion?
    
    	I like it.  In fact, I like it a lot; but it's certainly not the
    "best translation" to use in THIS conference.
    
    	Over the last 15 years or so, I've had a lot of opportunity to
    examine and analyze the major points (and verses) that the NWT draws
    criticism for, and my opinion is that the NWT renderings are justified,
    but they're obviously not everyone's cup-o-tea.  To some extent, I'm
    just too tired to beat my head against the wall of opposition that
    arises every time the NWT is mentioned around here.  Since a little
    study/digging usually brings to light a verse in a more othodox
    translation that happens to agree with the NWT, I think the discussions
    procede more smoothly if I prove my point from a more 'orthodox'
    translation, and leave the NWT unmentioned.

>>       Orthodox, trinitarian Christendom has been producing new
>>   translations of the Bible over the last, say 200 years, at quite a
>>   clip, both by committee and by single-man effort.
>
>        Agreed! but have they been as different in context, as the NWT?
    
    	I'm not sure how to answer this, but I believe that even the most
    controversial renderings in the NWT happen to fit the context of the
    surrounding passages.  Also I believe that very few translations are
    free from an orthodox, trinitarian slant (except for maybe the Jewish
    translations of the OT), thus they have their own 'in-house' context. 
    So, from this angle, it's probably true that there are few, if any,
    translations which show such a preference for what might be termed a
    more uniformly 'unitiarian' point of view.  [NOTE: "unitarian" isn't a
    term Witnesses ordinarly use, but it does do a fairly good job at
    generically representing the non-trinitarian viewpoint.  Having
    recently obtained a few 19th century Unitarian writings, I find it
    interesting to note how many similarities there are between early
    Unitarianism and modern Witness beliefs.]
    
>        but I still think it's funny how first it was the doctrine and
>        then the translation.
    
    	All you have to do is take the history of Jehovah's Witnesses into
    consideration.  We were originally started as an independent,
    non-demoninational Bible study group in the mid-to-late 1800's.  The
    early Witnesses just called themselves "Bible Students", and weren't so
    much out to start a new religion, as they were out to arive at 'The
    Truth' from a thorough study of the Bible (but which was unaffected by
    the influence of orthodox ideology -- though there was a notable
    influence of early Adventist ideas).  As a group focused on "Bible
    study," it used the many translations and scholarly study aids already
    in existence.
    
    	It wasn't a goal of the first "Bible Students" of the Watchtower
    Society to produce their own Bible translation, thus it's simply an
    historical reality that our doctrinal views took shape first (over
    approximately 70 years prior to the NWT).
    
    	Doctrine, whether orthodox or not, ALWAYS influences translation. 
    Later, it did become a goal of the Watchtower Society to produce a
    Bible translation which was free of influence from many of the
    non-Biblical doctrines that Jehovah's Witnesses believe have been
    introduced into Bible translations by what has now become 'orthodox
    Christianity,' or Christendom.
    
    
>                                             Why is it that the NWT is
>    anonymous? It's not a matter of boasting on one's intellectual abilities,
>    but simply publicizing the credentials *to translate* if they're in
>    question, so that people can choose of who's more knowledgable of the
>    *language(s)*.
    
    	I think Steve already covered the basics; but just to reiterate, I
    think the reason for anonymity was to completely factor the traits of
    the individual translators out of the basis for judging the NWT, so
    that it would be judged solely on its contents.
    
    	Given the penchant critics have for resorting to personal attacks
    in lieu of a more objective analysis of the material at hand, I think
    the translators' decision to remain anonymous was the wisest choice.
    
    * * *
    
    	Re all the talk about the NWT being "untrustworthy" -- my only
    comment is that it's obvious that many here don't trust it, possibly
    because they've been influenced by one or more outspoken critics of the
    NWT.  Just as many people in this conference don't take what Witnesses
    say as truth, at least at a glance, or at first sight, I don't take NWT
    criticism as truth without first investigating it.  (My opinion of many
    critics is that they're very one-sided.  Often, they'll single out a
    few renderings in the NWT which have similar or identical renderings in
    more orthodox translations; yet those other translations don't come in
    for the same criticism for the same reasons; hence, a double-standard.)
    
    	I've looked into it, and *I* trust it; and presume most other
    Witnesses trust it for the same reason.  Personally, I don't spend much
    energy defending it (anymore) in a forum such as this, since I don't
    find the conflict (of a public bash-em-out) worth the aggravation.
    
    
    								-mark.

    I'm looking for some pointers on purchasing a new NAS-based Bible.  I
    really liked the Inductive Study Bible by Harvest, but it didn't have
    red-lettering in the gospels.  Can anyone recommend a good NAS study
    bible?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Wow -- there's a NAS that *doesn't* have red letter?  Every NAS I've
    seen for years has been red letter.
    
    Personally, I prefer non-red-letter -- after all, why do we need red
    letters in the *Bible* tell what the Lord said? :-)
    
    Mark L.

    Whatsa an NAS?

>    Whatsa an NAS?
    
    An abbreviation for NASV. :-)
    
    Markel

    Whatsa an NASV?

    New American Standard Version, a revision of an earlier translation (I
    think of the 1901 American Standard Version).

    Wow, a dual reply!

    Not to be confused with NAS (Digital's Network Application Support),
    NASDAQ, or NAFTA. :-)

 Or Naval Air Station

    nobody lands on my belly button!

 Nah, a naval air station is where you fly into pick up oranges

    By the way, to get back to the topic, :-)
    
>  Can anyone recommend a good NAS study
>    bible?
    
    Yes.  Get a NASV.  Study it well.  It will become a good NAS study
    Bible.  :-)
    
    Mark

People
Can't
Memorize
Computer
Industry
Acronyms

Article 2648 of alt.religion.christian:
From: SPUH004@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Subject: Surprising Info on Bible Translations
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 94 08:41:21 CDT
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham

A printed brochure of this message, plus a sample of current tracts is
available by e-mailing your POSTAL MAILING address to
spuh004@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu. (see bottom of message)
 
ALL TRACTS ARE FREE!
 
God has placed alot of importance upon His Word. Jesus Christ said in Matthew
24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away."
Psalms 138:2 says, ". . . thou hast magnified THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."
1 Peter 1:23 reads, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by THE WORD of God, WHICH LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOR EVER."
 
The first time Satan attacks the human race--it was a direct assault upon the
Word of God! Genesis 3:1 says, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast
of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH
GOD SAID . . ." Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve. And
as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word -- the fall of mankind was
only a bite away. Satans' target of attack hasn't changed! He knows the
spiritual life-line of the human race is dependent on the Word of God, and if
he can place the smallest seed of doubt and confusion in God's Word--MANKIND
WILL LOOK ELSEWHERE!
 
Today, there is more confusion about the Bible, than any other time in history.
The Bible is ridiculed and scorned. It's banned from our public schools. It
seemingly has no answer for 20th century man.
 
And nothing has caused more confusion and doubt about the Word of God than the
many different translations of the Bible now available. Time magazine of April
20, 1981 says, ". . . there is an unprecedented CONFUSION of choices in Bibles.
Never have so many major new translations been on the market."  Since 1880, over
200 different translations have appeared! NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE SO CONFUSED!
I've had people say many times, "This Bible says one thing, that Bible says
another, and that Bible says another. Which one is right? WHAT'S A PERSON TO
BELIEVE?"  Let's get something straight. 1 Corinthians 14:33 plainly says,
"GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION." God is not in the confusion business! BUT
SATAN IS! If he can plant the smallest seed of doubt in an individuals mind,
chances are that individual will never take God's word serious!
 
The question is: If God has placed SO much importance on His WORDS, do we have
the Words of God? If so, where are they? Jesus said in John 14:23, "...If a man
love me, he will keep my WORDS..." Notice, Jesus Christ is not referring to
a "collective" "Word of God", but my WORDS. Where are they? Jesus answered the
temptations of Satan, in Matthew 4:4, ". . . It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."...
Where are they?  If we don't have the Words of God . . . We have no hope . .
. No answers . . . No authority . . . Any opinion, ideology, is just as good as
the next.  Simply put, if we don't have the very Words of God--WE HAVE NOTHING!
 
I believe, without a shadow of doubt, that God has preserved His Word in the 
King James Bible. I firmly believe the other versions are Satanic counterfeits
to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! And I'm going
to prove that statement.
 
Most people believe that the different versions are basically the same. They
believe the newer versions are just revisions in wording, updating of archaic
words, and just made easier to read and understand. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
 
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity and incarnation of
Jesus Christ, the fact that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh, is
1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness:  GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory." The King James says plainly, "GOD was manifest in the
flesh". The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The
New American Standard (NASV) says, "HE who was revealed in the flesh". The
Revised Standard (RSV) reads, "HE was manifested in the flesh." Every one of
them, reads "HE" instead of "GOD". Who does "He" refer to?  "He" is a pronoun
that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context!
Consequently, THE "HE" SPOKEN OF MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
 
A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST! And in case you think it's
because of "better and more reliable manuscripts",--of all the greek
manuscripts only one--that's right--ONLY ONE, has a "he" (without God)! Why
would someone ignore overwhelming manuscript evidence and deliberately deny
the deity of Jesus Christ?  Think that's just a coincident? NOT HARDLY!
 
The KJV, again clearly revealing the deity of Jesus Christ, reads in
Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE
EQUAL WITH GOD" The NIV, NASV, RSV, Living Bible and their "buddies" totally
re-word the verse to attack the deity of Jesus Christ! The NIV reads, "Who,
being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD SOMETHING TO BE
GRASPED," Someone is trying to get you to question, probably the most
important doctrine in the Bible~the deity of Jesus Christ!  WHO WOULD DO SUCH
A THING?
 
Let's try another. Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother
marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."  The NIV reads, "The
CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD'S
FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the
virgin birth!  Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of
God!  A subtle satanic attack at the virgin birth. WHY?  WHO WOULD DO SUCH A
THING?
 
Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are literally
thousands of alterations. Consider Colossians 1:14, the KJV reads, "In whom we
have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:"  The NIV
reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."  The NIV, NASV,
RSV, and others rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out! Friend,
salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away
my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!"
 
Not according to the NIV, the NASV, the RSV, and their buddies! THE NIV REMOVES
"THE BLOOD" 41 TIMES! 41 times they take the "blood" out of the Bible! At least
30 times they remove the word "CHRIST"!  And believe it or not!  THEY REMOVE THE
WORD "LORD" 352 TIMES! You read right! 352 times they took out the word "Lord"!
Somebody doesn't like the lordship! Somebody wants you to be your own god! WHO
WOULD DO SUCH A THING? I'll give you a hint. . . He said to Eve in Genesis 3:5,
". . . YE SHALL BE AS GODS . . ."
 
And of course something has to be done with John 3:16! So the NIV and company
reads "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"--removing
the critical word "BEGOTTEN"! If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens
to the wonderful promise to believers in 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we
the sons of God, . . ." or in John 1:12, Phil. 2:15, etc.? A BLATANT
CONTRADICTION APPEARS!
 
A glaring error is found in the New Bibles in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in
Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your
way--a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make
straight paths for him." It was most certainly NOT written in Isaiah--"I will
send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"--is found in Malachi
3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ."
A better translation! A better reading! Easier to understand! BY A LIE! (See
John 8:44) Somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT?
 
To really show the hypocrisy and satanic influence behind these "PER-versions"--
look at the replacement of the word "hell" with "hades"! See Matt. 16:18, Luke
16:23, Acts 2:31 and many more. And this is a better translation!  In fact,
"hades" is not a "translation", but a "transliteration" (changing the greek word
into the English alphabet)! Making it clearer all the time, huh?  What does that
do to the silly argument of the "archaic", "out-dated" King James Bible that
nobody understands? Trying to put these new versions in modern language? By
removing "hell" and replacing it with the greek word "hades"! Why didn't they
"transliterate" heaven and call it "ouranos"? Because someone is trying to
remove the warning and horror of hell! WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
 
Are you getting the picture? Do you see how it's done? Do you see how subtle
(see Genesis 3:1. . . Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the
field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD
SAID . . .), how seemingly, insignificant the changes are--AND YET HOW DEADLY
THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD'S WORD! Yes friend. Satan has launched an
attack on your Bible!  YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT!
 
Let's try another. Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  The NIV, NASV, RSV and "buddies" reads--
NOTHING! THEY TOOK THE WHOLE VERSE OUT! One of the clearest verses found in all
the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they take the whole verse out!
The Ethiopian eunuch is getting saved and they take the words of salvation right
out of his mouth! Why? Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in
the book of Acts the NIV and his buddies attack it? In Acts 9:5,6: Paul is
getting saved they take out 20 words! In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor
gets saved, the word "CHRIST" is removed! Why do these new bibles so fiercely
attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?   WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
 
Three times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from the Word of
God.  Toward the beginning: Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the
word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Toward the
middle: Proverbs 30::6, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar." At the end, Revelation 22:18,19  ". . . IF ANY MAN
SHALL ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written
in this book: AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
 
And despite these clear warnings--these new versions take out and add text over
and over! They take out: Romans 16:24, Mark 11:25, Acts 15:34, Luke 23:17, Acts
28:29, John 5:4, Mark 7:16, 9:44,46 and many, many, many, many more, as your
Bible is ripped apart! Jesus Christ says, in Matthew 4:4, ". . . It is written,
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." Not surprisingly, the last half of Matthew 4:4--but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God--is removed from the NIV and crew. And
don't let anybody try to tell you that "older and more reliable manuscripts have
been recently discovered" (as reads in the NIV, in order to remove Mark 16:9-20,
etc.) in order to defend these new translations. That is absolutely untrue! The
book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over
400 pages of undisputable documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never
been refuted, nor ever will! And furthermore, it is a well documented FACT that
90-95% of all the greek manuscripts found are in agreement with the King James
Bible! SO WHY ALL THE CHANGES? I THINK WE KNOW! DON'T WE? Genesis 3:1!
 
Your King James Bible is constantly under attack by preachers in the pulpit,
some intentional and some simply out of ignorance.  One way they correct your
King James Bible is by saying "THE ORIGINAL SAYS".  There is one little
problem with that...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE ORIGINALS."  There are no set
of "ORIGINALS" on the face of this earth!  Another way they correct it is by
saying "THE GREEK" says.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE GREEK!" There are
literally thousands of greek texts!  There is no "THE GREEK".  Preachers, by
the thousands will stand weekly in the pulpit and correct your King James Bible
by saying "This is an unfortunate translation" or "a better reading would be."
Did God not know what He was doing when He gave His Word?  Did He need these
modern day "Bible correctors" to come along and help Him out?  NOT HARDLY!
FRIEND, DON'T LET THEM DESTROY YOUR FAITH IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!
 
God has preserved His word for the English speaking people in the King James
Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING..."
Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power:..." King
James. "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Do you know what the
Hebrew word for James is? It's JACOB! You'll never guess what Psalms 147:19
says, "He showeth His word unto JACOB...!" Is it adding up? Could it be any
clearer?
 
The King James Bible is the only Bible in the world with no copyright! Anybody
can print, distribute, reproduce, and quote the King James Bible and never ask
permission from anybody. Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:9, "...THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT
BOUND." All the other translations are "bound" by copyright laws.  New
American Standard--copyright Lockman Foundation.  New International
Version--copyright New York International Bible Society.  New King James
Version--copyright Thomas Nelson Publishers.

There are over 20 million books in the Library of Congress! Do you know how
many do not have a copyright? ONE! THE KING JAMES BIBLE!  Don't that tell
you something? God's word is not bound, it is public domain!
 
IF YOU HAVE A KING JAMES BIBLE.  FRIEND, YOU HAVE THE WORD OF GOD!  And don't
let anybody, or anything take it from you!
 
What about people who don't read English? More foreign Bibles are translated
from the Textus Receptus (the text the KJV is from) than any other text.  Nearly
everyone, has available a Bible true to the King James Bible.
 
Following is a list of 40 changes (among thousands) clearly showing the
"satanic" tampering of the Word of God. At the bottom is a scorecard of the
7 popular "per-versions".
 
1.  Matt. 18:11 -VERSE REMOVED
2.  Mark 1:2 -changes "prophets" to "Isaiah"
3.  Mark 9:44 -  VERSE REMOVED
4.  Luke 2:33 -  changes "Joseph" to "The child's father"
5.  Luke 4:4 -   removes "but by every word of God"
6.  Luke 4:8 -   removes "Get thee behind me, Satan"
7.  Luke 16:23 - changes "hell" to "hades"
8.  Luke 23:42 - changes "Lord" to "Jesus"
9.  John 1:18 -  changes "Son" to "God"
10. John 3:16 -  removes "begotten"
11. John 5:4 -   VERSE REMOVED
12. John 6:69 -  removes "Christ, the Son of the living God"
13. John 9:35 -  changes "Son of God" to "Son of Man"
14. John 14:2 -  changes "mansions" to "rooms", "dwelling places"
15. Acts 1:3 -changes "infallible proofs" to "convincing proofs"
16. Acts 2:31 -  changes "hell" to "grave" or "hades"
17. Acts 4:27 -  changes "holy child Jesus" to "holy servant Jesus"
18. Acts 8:37 -  VERSE REMOVED
19. Acts 16:31 - removes "Christ"
20. Acts 28:29 - VERSE REMOVED
21. Rom. 1:25 -  changes "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth"
22. Rom 8:1 - LAST HALF REMOVED
23. Rom. 16:24 - VERSE REMOVED
24. 1 Cor. 15:55 -    changes "grave" to "hades"
25. 2 Cor. 2:17 - changes "corrupt" to "peddle"
26. 2 Cor. 5:17 -     changes "new creature" to "new creation"
27. Eph. 3:14 -  removes "of our Lord Jesus Christ"
28. Phil. 2:6 -  changed to deny deity
29. Col. 1:14 -  removes "through his blood"
30. 1 Tim. 3:16 -     changes "God" to "He"
31. 1 Tim. 6:10 -     changes "root of all evil" to "root of all kinds of evil"
32. 1 Tim. 6:20 -     changes "science" to "knowledge"
33. 2 Tim. 2:15 -     removes "study"
34. Heb. 1:3 -   removes "by himself"
35. 1 Pet. 2:2 - removes "of the word"
36. 1 Pet. 2:2 - changes "grow thereby" to "grow up in your salvation"
37. 1 John 3:16 -     removes "love of God"
38. 1 John 5:7 - LAST HALF REMOVED
39. Rev. 8:13 -  changes "angel" to "eagle"
40. Rev. 22:14 - changes "do his commandments" to "wash their robes"
 
New International Version (NIV) - all, except 7, 24
New American Standard Version (NASV) - all, except 10, 24, 26, 35
New King James Version (NKJV) - 7, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 37
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) -  all, except 24
Revised Standard Version (RSV) - all, except 9, 24, 31
Living Bible - all, except 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 34
Amplified Bible - all, except 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33, 34
 
Know ye not that A LITTLE leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 1 Cor 5:6
 
WHAT ABOUT THE NEW King James Bible?  The NKJV matches the "per-versions" in
hundreds of KEY places, such as Romans 1:25, 1 Cor. 1:21, 2 Cor 2:17,
1 Tim 6:10, 1 Tim 6:20 and 1 John 3:16. The word "hell" is removed in KEY
verses, such as, Luke 16:23 and Acts 2:31.   Add the word "continue" to 1 John
5:13. Is it TRUE to the King James Text?  Absolutely Not! Not even close...
 
If you would like more information on this subject: Please e-mail your POSTAL
(Snail Mail) MAILING ADDRESS to spuh004@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu and request the
information package on the King James Bible. We would be happy to send you the
material free of charge along with a sample of other tracts.
 
NOTE. Comments, Additional DOCUMENTED information, etc is welcomed!
 
This Message is also encouraged to be e-mailed, uploaded BBS's, etc.
 
A printed brochure of this message, plus a sample of current tracts is
available by e-mailing your POSTAL MAILING (Snail Mail) address to
spuh004@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu.
 
Available Messages:
     Hell: Fact or Fiction
     Warning: 666 is Coming
     Rock Music: The Devil's Advocate
     It's Only Rock'n Roll But It Kills
     The Coming New World Order
     The World's Deadliest Drug
     The Attack On the Bible
     The World's Most Amazing Book
     The Resurrection: Myth, Miracle or Madness
     Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy
     Fatal Attraction
     Satanism and the Occult
     Jesus is Coming
     The Time of His Coming
     Abortion: What They won't Tell You!
     The Clinton Health Care Plan (It'll Make You Sick!)
 
ALL TRACTS ARE FREE!
 
E-MAIL your MAILING address to spuh004@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
 
You WILL NOT be placed on a junk mailing list, nor be solicited, begged, etc.!

You really shouldn't post silly stuff like that...

>Three times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from the Word of
>God.  ...

Then how come most versions of the KJV currently in print take away fourteen
books in the Authorized Version of the KJV?

>The King James Bible is the only Bible in the world with no copyright! Anybody
>can print, distribute, reproduce, and quote the King James Bible and never ask
>permission from anybody.

The Douai-Rheims has no copyright.  The Coverdale has no copyright.  The
Greek editions have no copyright.  The Latin Vulgate has no copyright.
Martin Luther's translation has no copyright.

>There are over 20 million books in the Library of Congress! Do you know how
>many do not have a copyright? ONE! THE KING JAMES BIBLE!  Don't that tell
>you something? God's word is not bound, it is public domain!
 
Baloney.  Thousands of books in the Library of Congress have no copyright.
The U.S. Book of Common Prayer, for example, has no copyright (provisional
versions do, so that they can be removed from circulation, but officially
released ones don't).

/john

Hi John,

You know the answers to thesse.  Do you really need them spelled out?
- How many lines do you need to read between....?

Give them a little latitude; it's uphill work.  Or do you find the tone 
offensive?  I could understand that, though it doesn't really get to me 
personally.  I'd rather search out any meat I can benefit from...

							Andrew

    Salvation is not dependant of a King James Bible.  I've never read more
    than a few lines from one...the thee's and thou's made it difficult for
    me to read (this was a while ago, I could probably muddle through it
    today).
    
    I accepted Christ and His blood sacrifice...on an NIV.  Interesting
    note, however.  Folks do seem to have a problem with the many different
    translations, which makes it easier for them to rationalize (without
    reading any of them) tossing the Word all together.
    
    My aswer to them would be to pick up one, read it, and pray.  God will
    show them the way to the truth if they truly seek Him.  He is not
    limited by differing translations...though if these translations cause
    direct conflicts between verses, then we may have a problem. 
    
    -steve 

re .52

It's not that the tone is offensive, it's that stating clear falsehoods
(such as the bogus copyright claim to being the only Bible and the only
book in the entire Library of Congress without a copyright) is foolish,
and diminishes the entire remaining argument.

/john

    I find that when I am having a hard time understanding a particular
    verse, that it helps me to gain a CLEARER understanding by reading
    several different versions.  I use the New American Standard.  
    
    I didn't read all of the base note, but the part where some
    translations refer to "He" rather than to "God" does nothing to take
    away from Jesus's deity, in my mind.  The capitalized version of He,
    Him, etc. refers to God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit).  There are other
    gods referred to as well, but the one true God is capitalized.  When a
    particular translation refers to God as "He", it is not diminishing Jesus
    deity.
    
    BTW, as I'm sure you're aware, the King James is a translation.  The
    original New Testament text was written in Greek.  Anytime you
    translate from one language to the other, there are going to be
    different ways to express the originally intended thoughts.  In some
    cases, we don't have a single word which corresponds to a particular
    Greek word, so several words have to be combinded to convey the meaning
    (for example the John 1:12 says that "as many as BELIEVED Him, He gave
    the right to become children of God".  The Greek is more of a FAITHED
    Him (Trust & Obey), than believed Him, but we don't have a verb version 
    of faith.
    
    I don't see that the KJV is any more inspired that NIV, New American
    Standard, etc.  God can use them all to speak to us today.
    
    Love in Him (Christ, that is),
    
    Bing

    >You really shouldn't post silly stuff like that...
    
    I thought some of it was interesting, despite the tunneled vision.

>    >You really shouldn't post silly stuff like that...
>    
>    I thought some of it was interesting, despite the tunneled vision.

No [further] comment from me.  ;-)

    As long as Satan can keep Christians arguing about things like which
    Version to use, which includes church splits members leaving, lots of
    bitter feelings, He doesn't have much to worry about now does he.
    
    Sparky  Who_has_heard_this_for_over_20_years_and_still_uses_NAS

    I recently heard that the Lockman Foundation sold their rights to the
    NAS and the buyer plans on rewriting it.  

>    1. The KJV bible *is* copyrighted in England by the Crown. If you print
>    your own version or distribute anything with quotes from it, you must
>    get permission from agencies of the Crown directly.

I believe you are mistaken, and are referring not to the KJV, but rather to
the Book of Common Prayer, the 1662 version of which is under a Crown
Copyright.

I think all that's necessary to determine whether this is true or not is
to have someone look in the front of a KJV printed in England.

/john

    
    Hi Jay and welcome to the conference.  I really don't think that
    churches are going to NIV because Zondervan gets kickbacks, but
    rather like you said it's the easiest to read.  It's one of the
    best thought-for-thought translations.  I prefer NASB which is one
    of the best word-for-word translations.  
    
    :-)
    Jill
    

	I like NASB, too.  I got one because at my first bible study,
	I had a KJV, and when people were reading verses aloud, I realized
	they had a different bible than I did.  I took a peek at the
	person next to me, and dashed out the next week to get the NASB.

	It didn't take me long to realize that not everyone in the
	church/bible study used the NASB ;-), but I still like it.

	I've got the NRSV, but don't care for it as much.  We've got
	the NIV on tape, and it seems closer to the NASB.

	Karen

What I'm doing right now (starting, actually), is using a different version
of the Bible each time I read it through.  I've been reading through in NIV,
and since I get through the New Testament faster than the Old, I'm now
reading the New Testament in another translation - The Message, which is a
contemporary paraphrase.  Next I'm going to read through in the Amplified,
and I'm looking forward to that.  I don't know what I'll do after that -
NASB, NKJV, Living, Phillips, Wuest, etc, etc.  There are so many, and I'm
looking forward to each one.

I've had mixed reactions to The Message.  It is a paraphrase, so it's not in
any way intended to be a study Bible.  It's a translation that's good for
getting a fresh perspective on things.  It would also be a good Bible to give
someone as an evangelistic outreach - it's much more easily readable than
even NIV, let alone some of the more direct translations.  I've noted a
couple of places so far where the author's bias in his understanding comes
through and I think the paraphrase is a bit inaccurate, but that's
unavoidable in a paraphrase.  For the most part, I like it, keeping in mind
what it is and what it's purpose is.

I didn't like The Message - Psalms.  I tried reading it for a while, but it
almost seemed that he went overboard in trying to be different.  I stopped in
the middle.

Paul

	Does it take 2 years to read through the Amplified Bible ?

I don't know.  Depends on how fast you read and how much time you spend
reading. :-)  I suppose you could do it in less than a week if you really
wanted to.  :-) :-) I'll let you know when I start, and how long it takes.

Paul

 I used to use NASB (still refer to it from time to time) but I've got to
where I love the KJV.




 Jim

    I took me only 6 months to read thru the applified bible.  I agree with
    andrew it is a good study bible only. It give alot of definitions for
    alot of words.  I prefer the NIV.

    I've heard some pastors say the perfect Bible would be an NIV Old
    Testament and an NAS New Testament.  Something about the translation
    philosophy of the NIV being a better fit for the Hebrew.  The accuracy
    of the Greek language is well-represented in the NAS.  However, I'm not
    NIV+.
    
    Phillips is my favorite paraphrased version.
    
    Mike (NAS bigot)

    How well God must like you--
	you don't hang out at Sin Saloon,
	you don't slink along Dead-End Road,
	you don't go to Smart-Mouth College.  

    Instead you thrill to Yahweh's Word,
	you chew on Scripture day and night.  
    You're a tree replanted in Eden,
	bearing fresh fruit every  month,
    Never dropping a leaf, 
	always in blossom.  

    You're not at all like the wicked, 
	who are mere windblown dust--
    Without defense in court, 
	unfit company for innocent people.  

    Yahweh charts the road you take.  
    The road *they* take is Skid Row. 

    Can someone post a tricky bible selection in NAS, NIV, KJV, and NKJV?
    Pick about 10 lines that have differences in each version.
    I want to see how they read.
    
    Thanks
    Jill2

    I was at the bookstore looking for something to use with my
    children.  They are 8 and 4.  My idea was to start reading from
    the beginning but they are not that interested and the language
    gets complicated and...  I could take a lot of time and prepare
    sections directly from the bible and leave out the (I hate to
    say boring but) boring stuff.  It has to be simple to follow
    or I think I will lose them.  I only own a KJV and a NIV version.
    I was seriously considering buying a Living Bible to do this with.
    They had a children's living bible which was actually quite nice.
    Even simpler words than the Living Bible.  I checked out some
    passages and it seemed ok.  But it was so expensive.  So I took
    the easy way out and bought a children's story bible which has
    pictures on every page and a very simple paraphase of the "most
    important/interesting" stories.  I read the whole thing and it
    was ok.  They chose one lesson for each story (instead of the
    millions you can find in the real bible) but the lesson they
    chose was well presented and ok.  I actually read about 4 of
    these kinds of bibles before choosing this one.  But once we
    get through this, which should only take about a month, I need
    to try another approach.  Any ideas, any experience?  Realize
    that my kids have a lot of resistance to this.
    
    Jill2

    For young children go to a Christian bookstore and ask them for the
    material that sunday school teachers might use to teach let's say a
    series of lessons on the life of Jesus.  They have pictures that show
    the different histories and give you the story to read and the Biblical
    reference.  Thes are WONDERFUL and I still use them today. 
    
    As far as a Bible, I like the Children's "Life Adventure Bible", it
    really does a great job of explaining basic doctrine text and has many
    activities for children to *do* in reference to Bible times.
    
    P.S.
    I shooda answered this a long time ago. :-) :-( blush

	Jill:-D,

	My son recieved a paperback "Bedtime Bible Story Book"
when he graduated from Lutheran pre-kindergarten this year.
It is by Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, copyright 1989 by Barbour and
Company, Inc. ISBN 1-55748-264-0.  It is arranged in 365
"read aloud" bedtime stories with discussion questions.
Each takes about 10 minutes.  It only took us a few weeks
to read the whole thing, because Jimmy wanted me to keep
reading several stories a night.  We are still using it,
along with other Bible story books.  It doesn't have pictures
for every story.  Jimmy is almost six, but his interest in
the Bible is so strong now that I think he may be ready to
listen to (selected passages from) the real thing!

						Hth, Gby,
						Bob Sampson

    Jill2,
    
    How old are your kids?  Sorry, If you've said before, I can't remember.
    
    Nancy,
    
    Is the Children's Adventure Bible easy enough for a 3rd grader
    to read?  I should go take a look at it for myself but since
    our little ones are the same age, I figured you'd know.  I 
    think it's about time that Nathan graduated from his 'baby'
    Bible.
    
    Pam

Three that our kids have loved:

For young kids (under 4), the Read-Aloud Bible Stories books.  There are now
4 volumes.  Very simple stories, very simple pictures.  We've had to get
second copies of a couple of them because the first copies fell apart from
over-use.

The One-Year Bible for kids.  365 stories, each story on a single page with
pictures, with the day's date on the page.  This is great because it lays out
the whole story of the Bible.  Also, if you miss a day or two, it's clear how
many extras you have to read to catch up to the current date.  We've been
through this a couple of times, but have gotten out of the habit.  We need to
get back into doing it for the benefit of our youngest (who is now outgrowing
the Read-aloud stories).

The Picture Bible.  This is basically a bible in comic-book style.  Looks
just like a comic book, with picture panels and the dialogue in bubbles over
the characters.  Our oldest (almost 10) has read through his copy about three
times.

Paul

My sons enjoy the Eager Reader Bible - a story per page with questions
to help make sure they understood.

    Paul,
    
    Yes, it is.  :-)

>    Paul,
>    
>    Yes, it is.  :-)

I tried, really I did.  I went back and read over my note (several times).  I
looked to see if there were any other notes by me or any other Pauls which
you might have been replying too.

But try as I might, I can't figure out what exactly it is that you're
agreeing with.  Not that I'm surprised by your agreement, mind you, but I
just don't know WHAT.

Could you enlighten me?

Paul

    Bible Study Resources for Devoted Christian Parents:
    
    BOOKS
    -----
    Leading Little Ones to God by Marian M. Schoolland
    William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI
    
    The Bible Illustrated for Little Children by Ella K. Lindvall
    Moody Press, Chicago
    
    The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes by Kenneth N. Taylor
    Moody Press, Chicago
    
    The Tiny Tots Bible Story Book by John & Kim Walton
    Chariot Books, David C. Cook Publishing Co.
    
    Outstanding Women of the Bible: Mary
    Retold by Marlee Alex
    William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI
    
    Outstanding Men of the Bible: Paul
    Written by Anne de Graaf
    William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI
    
    VIDEOS
    ------
    The Amazing Bible Series (from the producers of Music Machine and
    Bullfrogs & Butterflies):
    1. The Amazing Book
    2. The Amazing Miracles
    3. The Amazing Children
    
    Steve Green: Hide'Em in Your Heart - 13 Bible Memory Songs for
    Children, vol. 2, Sparrow Music
    
    Kids Sing Praise vol 2, a live action sing along video
    17 songs for praise, scripture and fun on Kids Sing Praise
    
    Baptist Book Store Presents: Bible Buddies: Singin' the Word (Making
    God's Word Real)
    
    Maranatha! for Kids
    Kids' Praise! 5
    (Psalty's Camping Adventure...Count it all Joy!)
    
    Maranatha! for Kids
    Psalty's Funtastic! Praise Party!

    :-) You asked me if the Life Adventure Bible was good for a 3rd grader,
    the answer is yes. :-)

>    :-) You asked me if the Life Adventure Bible was good for a 3rd grader,
>    the answer is yes. :-)

No wonder I got confused.  I didn't ask that - Pam asked you that, in .78.

I wrote .79, which asked no question.

:-)

Paul

    Speaking of Bibles for children -- has anyone seen the Odyssey Bible?  
    
    I have such enormous respect for the (fictional) John Avery Whitaker,
    and the way he works with children to bring them to the Lord, that I'm
    somewhat prejudiced in favor of *anything* associated with his name.  
    
    Is the Odyssey Bible as good as the other things from "Odyssey"?
    
    /John

    
    re - a few
    
    Yup, it was I who asked the question about the Kids Adventure Bible.
    Thanks Nancy.  I think I'll go check it out.
    
    John,  I haven't checked out the Odyssey Bible yet but I'm planning
    on it since Nathan loves the Odyssey series so much.  
    
    Oh, I might just splurge and get them both! 8*)
    
    Pam

    What I like about the Life Adventure Bible for kids, is that it
    explains the era in which many passages are written.  For instance in
    Acts Chapter 16 it speaks of Lydia as a seller of purple and it then
    tells you about what "purple" means and how it was a commodity in the
    Bible times.  It also explains where it comes from. :-)
    
    

    If anyone is interested in the KJV only arguments (from 50). An 
    interesting book just out is called 'the kjv controversy' by White. 
    Even if you don't care, it has some good information about how the
    bible was copied and stuff.

    For additional information on the AV 1611 (KJV) vs many other versions,
    connect to : http://www.aloha.net/~bstaggs/kjv.html. It is a very PRO
    KJV information page, giving many reasons why this IS the preferred
    version.
    
    Bob

http://www.aloha.net/~bstaggs/kjb.html
                                ^
                                |

 You will probably get a little nasty note back (I just did!) stating that
 the url is wrong, they know what was wrong, please change the v to b.
 ...the admonition is to think of it as King James Bible (not KJ Version).

 Bruce

    Thanks Bruce! I should be getting bifocals soon, and that would correct
    the vision problem, which would correct the wrong address. ;-)
    
    Bob

      Hi,
    
        I have been thinking of maybe getting an NASB, but now (after
        reading through this topic) I am not so sure!  I have been 
        reading an NKJV and still will, but may augment with NASB.
    
        Does NASB primarily rely on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or the
        Textus Receptus?  I feel pretty strongly about using the TR.
    
        Anyway, if anyone has anymore to add on the NASB, feel free.
    
        By the way, I got a pocket NKJV!  Now I can go ANYWHERE with
        a Bible!!!
    
    						Tony

NAS uses the Nesle/Alend Greek text.

I've had a pocket bible for about 3 years now, and I couldn't be without it. 
I've actually nearly worn out this first one - the binding is coming apart.

Paul

 I have a checkbook sized pocket Bible which fits rather nicely into my
 back pocket.  I usually leave it here at work, but also take it with me
 if I'm going to go on visitation.




 Jim

	Jim, you visit other planets??? :-)

      Hi Barry,
    
        Thanks a lot!  I appreciate it!
    
        By the way...just curious, what is the difference between
    	a 'text' and a 'codice.'  I guess I assumed that the textus
        receptus, vaticanus, and sinaiticus were each Greek renditions
        of the NT.  Now you've introduced the critical text and I 
        have to wonder if the vaticanus and sinaiticus are somehow
        not complete NT's, but rather partial NT's and that the critical
        text is a complete NT where it was produced, in part, from the
        sinaiticus and the vaticanus???
    
        What am I missing?
    
    						Tony

 I've been thinking of picking up a NKJV to have around the house.  My church
 uses the KJV exclusively and I have a NASB and NIV (which I don't really 
 care for) which I consult on occasion.

 I've also been thinking of picking up a Thompson Chain reference Bible
 to replace the Life Application Bible I currently use.



 Jim

    I have a Thompson Chain NIV that has been collecting dust.  I use it
    once in a while, but only for the references.  If you have a Treasury
    of Scripture Knowledge and/or Nave's Topical, you really don't need
    Thompsons.
    
    Mike