Kansasdad Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I like the Douay-Rheims Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest opusdei Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 The flaw in all the logic of comparing the NASB to the KJV? It assumes that the KJV is absolutely flawless. As for the multiple editions...about about the KJV and it's editions? It goes so far as to removing the entire Apocrypha. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> THANK YOU!!! FInally someone with logic. Sorry as I am new this maybe old but I would like to point out that not everyone relies on the NRSB as their personal bible. Like many who are trying to fid the "perfect" bible, I have turned to the Douay-Rheims version, which is considered the most "correct" version of the Bible to be found in English. To answer an already answer question, the Douay-Rheims Bible is a Bible first printed at Rheims in 1584 and then later at Douay (both in France) in 1610. This was done in response to demand for a clear and accurate translation of the Bible into English (Catholics at the time read Latin Bibles, and to practice the Catholic faith in England at the time was punishable by imprisonment and even death). Using the Latin vulgate, the authors of the Douay-Rheims Bible translated the Hebraic, Aramaic, and Greek texts in which the Bible is written into an English version for use mainly by Catholics in England to avoid punishment for practicing Catholicism. As a matter of interest, it wasnt until around 1934 that another version, the NSB, was introduced in English. Therefore, for about 330 years the Douay-Rheims was the ONLY Bible written in Englsih. Hope this long winded response answered your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halifaxchristian Posted August 25, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 722 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2005 I like the Douay-Rheims Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwimac Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 4 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/08/1960 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I prefer the NASB. Frankly KJV-Onlyism is both idolatrous and heretical. It attempts to limit God to one translation once & even, in its most extreme forms believes that the English of the KJV can 'correct' the original autographs and that other Christians who accept other translations are somehow less than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Timer Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The Douay-Rheims Bible contains the Aprocrypha. Compare 1Cor. 15:51 DRB: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. KJV and others: Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 22, 2005 The Douay-Rheims Bible contains the Aprocrypha. Compare 1Cor. 15:51 DRB: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. KJV and others: Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. Most interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 When I look at other bibles ( I read King James and NKJ ) I turn to John 3:16. That passage tells me how much that version is watered down. Most of them are, in one way or another. Hi nite owl, I agree, John 3:16 has been messed up in several new versions. Have you ever seen the confusing mess that exists in John 1:18? JOHN 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation. The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it. Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today. 1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, Luther's German Bible 1545, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21. Even the RV and ASV, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced. 2. "The only begotten God" NASB 3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973 4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten" 5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son". The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son". These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are. 6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God. 7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989 8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001 9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version, 10. "God's only Son" New English Bible 11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible. The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are two gods and one of them is inferior to the other. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the only God. Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God. What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique? But wait, the newest of them all is the up and coming Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here? Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head. Will Kinney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The flaw in all the logic of comparing the NASB to the KJV? It assumes that the KJV is absolutely flawless. As for the multiple editions...about about the KJV and it's editions? It goes so far as to removing the entire Apocrypha. Hi Super Jew, the "assumption" I am making is that God really meant what He promised about preserving His true words in a Book here on this earth, and that there really is such a thing as an inspired and inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible. It is now called the King James Holy Bible. Your "logic" and bottom line belief is that there is no inerrant Bible or inerrant text in any language on the earth today, right? If I am wrong in my assumption of what you really believe, then please disabuse me of my ignorance and tell us all exactly where we can get a "hold it in your hands and read" inerrant Bible and compare it to the King James Bible or the nasb, or niv, or whatever. As for the Apocrypha, this was included in all English bibles for some time both before and after the KJB, but it was never considered part of Scripture. Most modern versions like the nasb, niv, rsv etc. are based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Did these Greek texts contain the apocryphal books too? If nothing else, please "logically" answer this simple question. Is the Bible (in any language) the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God? If so, then which one? Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusisGod2 Posted October 22, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,065 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1958 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I personally love the NASB. I also love King James. I really dont see the beef, there are many who have gotten saved out of the NASB, including myself. QUOTE(NITE OWL @ Aug 22 2005, 09:36 PM) When I look at other bibles ( I read King James and NKJ ) I turn to John 3:16. That passage tells me how much that version is watered down. Most of them are, in one way or another. Whats are you getting at about John 3:16? I think I know because I have seen it debated before, especially by my former Pastor, but would like to hear your say on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brandplucked Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 there is only one perfect translation... But that is the original language. All other attempts to put it into other languages will have their biases. The NASB is perhaps the best attempt to be true to the literal meanings of word usage. None of them are perfect but they are all mostly good for a different perspective of what the original "could" be trying to communicate. Hi Yod, in spite of your implications about "the original language", you should be aware of the simple fact that there are no originals out there, right? You have never seen them and cannot prove whether any of the various contradictory and confusing versions even comes close to the originals. If the original Old Testament was primarily in the Hebrew language, then why does the nasb so often reject the Hebrew readings? The niv does so even more than the nasb. Do you believe that any Bible or any text in any language IS now the inerrant and complete words of God? I am willing to bet you do not. Is your "best attempt" of the nasb correct in teaching that God was DECEIVED in Psalm 78:36? Will K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts