WayneB Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I am reading the intro to The Message Bible and do you know what the guy who paraphrased says? It says "And at some point along the way, you may find it helpful to get a standard study Bible to facilitate further study." It also says that it is not intended to replace study Bibles, it is to get people who won't read the BIble interested in reading it. I thought that was interesting. That is the point of a paraphrased Bible, which is NOT the same as a commentary by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LCPGUY Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Since the objective would be, in my opinion, to get a new Christian well grounded in the essential doctrines they should start with an accurate version, with nothing omitted or watered down. Therefore, I would recommend either the KJV or the NASB. Just my 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted July 13, 2004 About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Shouldn't we judge any scripture against the original language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Going back over my walk and growth in Jesus Christ, the first Bible I read from cover to cover was The Message. Then I read and studied the Quest Study Bible in the NIV from cover to cover a few times. Currently, I read and study God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted July 13, 2004 About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Shouldn't we judge any scripture against the original language? Good point Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WayneB Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 4 Topic Count: 232 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 7,261 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 79 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/19/1959 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Since the objective would be, in my opinion, to get a new Christian well grounded in the essential doctrines they should start with an accurate version, with nothing omitted or watered down. Therefore, I would recommend either the KJV or the NASB. Just my 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT and the Message and I live a Holy, sanctified, victorious, spirit-filled life, whod a thunk it? I actually got saved by reading a version other than KJV! Whod a thunk it! WOW! To think that God isn't boxed in by man's translation of the Bible, whod a thunk it! Sorry, I am being a smary pants! I hear what you're sayin here, Called but suppose a minister were to use the NIV to determine deoctrine based on some of the scripture quoted by jm? It is no the average believer's use of translation for study that bothers me so much as leadership using obviously inaccurate texts. In Christ Truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 About these comparisons between KJV and NIV: Looks to me like a circular argument. Shouldn't we judge any scripture against the original language? Good point Steve. I would second that. Comparing two translations in nonsense. Only the original manuscripts can be used as a plumline, and we do not have those to go by. You judge copies, not by other copies, but by the orginals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Way Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 728 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 I read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT and the Message and I live a Holy, sanctified, victorious, spirit-filled life, whod a thunk it? I actually got saved by reading a version other than KJV! Whod a thunk it! WOW! To think that God isn't boxed in by man's translation of the Bible, whod a thunk it! Sorry, I am being a smary pants! I hear what you're sayin here, Called but suppose a minister were to use the NIV to determine deoctrine based on some of the scripture quoted by jm? It is no the average believer's use of translation for study that bothers me so much as leadership using obviously inaccurate texts. In Christ Truseek I find that the fruit of the KJV has been revival and spiritual outpouring. The fruit of the newer translations has been liberalism in the church and complete apostacy of certain denominations. Most "seeker-friendly" churches will read from the NIV at the pulpit. I live in a new area and we were recommended to the "mega-church" in our area by a local resident. I listened to a sermon of theirs online. He preached from the NIV and stated that one of his favorite authors was Zig Ziglar. Hmmmm. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Anyways, not sure how this relates, but it just goes to show a relationship. If a new believer wants to read out of a NIV that is fine. I, myself, did so and benefited from it. The attitude of your heart towards what you are reading is so important. You can have the most accurate translation in the world, but if you haven't crossed the Red Sea in your heart, then you will not dwell with God. But, having been a believer for 10 years and learning what I've learned, I'd start 'em off on a NKJV. The Lord was so gracious as to use me to lead a friend of mine to Him. My friend was by no means "a good reader." He was actually quite a poor reader. But, I bought him a NKJV and he would read and pray. 1 year later he moves and is very active in his new fellowship. The NKJV is not hard to read. The KJV takes a little bit more thought, but I find this to be a good thing. I don't want to blast through the divine word of God as He speaks to me. I find the majestic beauty of the KJV brings me into a state of reverance and awe. This might just be my experience. Anyways, I would never give out a Living Bible or Message. At least give them a translation (i.e. the word of God), not some man's interpretation of it. Even if it is the NIV. If you can't read the NIV then you must speak a foreign language or be blind and in that case get it in braille, hehe. Blessings to you all! PS. Why does every "which translation" discussion always end up this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmwhalen Posted July 13, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 997 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2004 Called writes:" I read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT and the Message and I live a Holy, sanctified, victorious, spirit-filled life, whod a thunk it? I actually got saved by reading a version other than KJV! Whod a thunk it! WOW! To think that God isn't boxed in by man's translation of the Bible, whod a thunk it! " _______________ That is not the question on the post. I am sure there are many people who have been saved by hearing(Romans 10:17) parts of the Word of God through other versions, (and that includes "tracts", for example). But that does not make them the word of God, anymore than if I found a diamond ring in a trash can would make the trash can a jewelry store. Strong's Concordance, for example, contains every word in the Bible, but that does not make it the word of God. The dictionary contains the word of God, but that does not make it the word of God. The "New World Translation", which says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the words was A(emphasis mine) god....", contains the word of God, but that does not make it the word of God. The question was what version should a new person read. The simple answer is read the word of God. Re. "man's translation of the Bible", so what is "God's translation of the Bible"? Your statement implies that anything written by man cannot be God's word, does it not? Then we have never had God's word, for God's words were written down by man! This is the concept of PRESERVATION! "Boxed in". I have heard this statement many times, or something very similar, such as "limiting God". Although this may sound reasonable, and even "catchy", it is not germane to the issue. The Mormons could use that rationale(and many cults, in fact, often do) and say "You are boxing God in by limiting His revelation to the Holy Bible", and thus justifying "The Book of Mormon". The Catholics can say, "You are boxing in God by limiting Him to His written word-we have tradition and the catechism". And on and on it goes. You have it just the opposite. God's word is TO LIMIT US, to "box us in", not the opposite! In Christ, John Whalen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts