Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[OzSpen]

A New New Testament by Hal Taussig

A New New Testament: A Bible for the Twenty-first Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts: Taussig, Hal: 9780544570108: Amazon.com: Books

A New New Testament: A Bible for the Twenty-first Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts [Taussig, Hal] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A New New Testament: A Bible for the Twenty-first Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts

www.amazon.com

jaybo,

This book, A New New Testament (Mariner Books 2015) is endorsed by Marcus Borg, a postmodern Jesus Seminar author whose god is that of panentheism, as he describes in The God We Never Knew (Harper Collins Publishers 2015) and Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time (Harper Collins Publishers 2015).

My recommendation is: Don't touch the book. It will lead you away from orthodox Christianity.


Oz

 

[D-D-W]

No thanks, I already got one. Do you get a cut?

Only in Heaven for standing up for the facts.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,

This book, A New New Testament (Mariner Books 2015) is endorsed by Marcus Borg, a postmodern Jesus Seminar author whose god is that of panentheism, as he describes in The God We Never Knew (Harper Collins Publishers 2015) and Meeting Jesus Again For the First Time (Harper Collins Publishers 2015).

My recommendation is: Don't touch the book. It will lead you away from orthodox Christianity.


Oz

I am not afraid of reading this book (or any other) regarding Christianity. I have no problem being led away from "orthodox Christianity". God reveals His truths in a variety of ways.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Only in Heaven for standing up for the facts.

That remains to be seen.

 

[OzSpen]

I am not afraid of reading this book (or any other) regarding Christianity. I have no problem being led away from "orthodox Christianity". God reveals His truths in a variety of ways.

God doesn't reveal his truths through heretics!

 

[jaybo]

God doesn't reveal his truths through heretics!

God reveals His truths through whomever He chooses! He can even make a donkey speak His truth when He wants to. BTW, do you ever read any other books other than the Bible? Do you listen to the news? Do you watch sports? Or practice any other "heresies"?

"The New New Testament" includes many "books" that were left out of the canon (which was decided upon by the Catholic "church fathers"). I am not concerned so much with reading "heresy" as learning what other writings that aren't in the official Catholic canon have to say. It won't affect my faith in Jesus.

 

[jerry63935]

God doesn't reveal his truths through heretics!

nor did God appoint you authority over versions of the Bible.. i use kjv i also like the nkjv and the csb i do not like the NIV there is no authorized version.. many person has been saved under preaching from the kjv. around here most use kjv / with what your claiming they would chew you up and spit you out.. the best version is the one the person likes provided it does not take away the cross the blood and salvation along with the virgin birth

 

[OzSpen]

nor did God appoint you authority over versions of the Bible..

jaybo,

Before God, this is my responsibility, following the example set by the Berean Jews: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11 NIV).

In addition, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).

Oz

 

[D-D-W]

God doesn't reveal his truths through heretics!

Actually sometimes He does. So said the man plotting to kill our Lord:

John 11:50
nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. 51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,

Certainly it is not the norm, but on occasion HE does so choose.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,

Before God, this is my responsibility, following the example set by the Berean Jews: "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11 NIV).

In addition, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15 NIV).

Oz

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Regarding the Berean Jews, the Scriptures that they examined are what we call the Old Testament. So that means we shouldn't examine the New Testament, correct? Do you see how absurd your argument is?

The same applies to Paul instructing Timothy. There was no New Testament available to Timothy.

If you have some valid objection to reading "The New New Testament", a publication that includes the entire New Testament, plus other manuscripts from the same period that are not part of the canon established by the church father, then state your objections. Quoting Scripture, out of context, that relates to the Old Testament (and the Septuagint at that) doesn't mean much.

 

[Free]

If you have some valid objection to reading "The New New Testament", a publication that includes the entire New Testament, plus other manuscripts from the same period that are not part of the canon established by the church father, then state your objections.

Reading for apologetic value--to understand what books some falsely believe should be added to the NT--there should be no issue. The implication of the title alone is that there are legitimate books missing from the historically accepted NT, and that there needs to be an update to the NT to include the books that were, rightfully, kept out of the NT in the first place.

Here is a good scholarly review:

https://danielbwallace.com/2013/03/17/a-new-new-testament-are-you-serious/

 

[jaybo]

Reading for apologetic value--to understand what books some falsely believe should be added to the NT--there should be no issue. The implication of the title alone is that there are legitimate books missing from the historically accepted NT, and that there needs to be an update to the NT to include the books that were, rightfully, kept out of the NT in the first place.

Here is a good scholarly review:

https://danielbwallace.com/2013/03/17/a-new-new-testament-are-you-serious/

Thanks. I'm reading it out of curiosity, not to establish a new belief system. So far, the "books" are entertaining but, to my mind, they are clearly not equivalent Scripture. The scholarly review that you linked to is clearly biased. But that's to be expected. I spent enough time in academia to expect that kind of rebuttal regardless of the subject.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Well here's something I came across today reading the Complete Jewish Bible translation. In 1 Kings 7 it gives the translation of Solomon's sea in feet (instead of cubits). It says it was 17.5 feet across. The New Living says 15 feet across and yet both translations say it held 11,000 gallons. Thus, you can see why in an earlier post I tend to shun these types of translations. But in this case, the Jewish one is the (more) accurate one. Only someone like me would take such notice, but it's telling.

 

[OzSpen]

Well here's something I came across today reading the Complete Jewish Bible translation. In 1 Kings 7 it gives the translation of Solomon's sea in feet (instead of cubits). It says it was 17.5 feet across. The New Living says 15 feet across and yet both translations say it held 11,000 gallons. Thus, you can see why in an earlier post I tend to shun these types of translations. But in this case, the Jewish one is the (more) accurate one. Only someone like me would take such notice, but it's telling.

So, are you saying - based on this one example - you are the superior Bible translator? Pull the other leg!

 

[jaybo]

Well here's something I came across today reading the Complete Jewish Bible translation. In 1 Kings 7 it gives the translation of Solomon's sea in feet (instead of cubits). It says it was 17.5 feet across. The New Living says 15 feet across and yet both translations say it held 11,000 gallons. Thus, you can see why in an earlier post I tend to shun these types of translations. But in this case, the Jewish one is the (more) accurate one. Only someone like me would take such notice, but it's telling.

Are you serious? You shun "these types of translations" because of the diameter of Solomon's sea?

Here is the section from the NET Bible: "He also made the large bronze basin called “The Sea.” It measured 15 feet from rim to rim, was circular in shape, and stood 7½ feet high. Its circumference was 45 feet. Under the rim all the way around it were round ornaments[at] arranged in settings 15 feet long. The ornaments were in two rows and had been cast with “The Sea." “The Sea” stood on top of twelve bulls. Three faced northward, three westward, three southward, and three eastward. “The Sea” was placed on top of them, and they all faced outward. It was four fingers thick and its rim was like that of a cup shaped like a lily blossom. It could hold about 12,000 gallons." 1 King s 7:23-26

I have removed the references to the footnotes but if you really want to read them, here is the link: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NET

Here is the same section from the King James version...

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.

25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

27 And he made ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits the breadth thereof, and three cubits the height of it.

Does that make it crystal clear for you?

You're obviously not aware the measurements in OT times were imprecise. A cubit was the length of a forearm from elbow to fingertip, which obviously can vary greatly between people.

What is the point of your post?

 

[D-D-W]

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

That verse caused at least one state back in the 1800s to insist that the actual value of π was 3.0 exactly and not 3.14159.... and insisted all school text books (including college level) change π to 3.0.

 

[jaybo]

That verse caused at least one state back in the 1800s to insist that the actual value of π was 3.0 exactly and not 3.14159.... and insisted all school text books (including college level) change π to 3.0.

So ..? Measures and quantities in the ancient world weren't precise. What is the point of all this? That Bible translations differ, especially in weights and measures? Astonishing! How can I maintain my faith in terms of such egregious differences in translation?

 

[Episcopius]

It will be rough, Oz, but I bet you can maintain your faith

 

[tim-from-pa]

So, are you saying - based on this one example - you are the superior Bible translator? Pull the other leg!

Thanks for putting words into my mouth by judging me. Please don't be a pot calling the kettle....

 

[tim-from-pa]

Are you serious? You shun "these types of translations" because of the diameter of Solomon's sea?

Here is the section from the NET Bible: "He also made the large bronze basin called “The Sea.” It measured 15 feet from rim to rim, was circular in shape, and stood 7½ feet high. Its circumference was 45 feet. Under the rim all the way around it were round ornaments[at] arranged in settings 15 feet long. The ornaments were in two rows and had been cast with “The Sea." “The Sea” stood on top of twelve bulls. Three faced northward, three westward, three southward, and three eastward. “The Sea” was placed on top of them, and they all faced outward. It was four fingers thick and its rim was like that of a cup shaped like a lily blossom. It could hold about 12,000 gallons." 1 King s 7:23-26

I have removed the references to the footnotes but if you really want to read them, here is the link: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NET

Here is the same section from the King James version...

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.

25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

27 And he made ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits the breadth thereof, and three cubits the height of it.

Does that make it crystal clear for you?

You're obviously not aware the measurements in OT times were imprecise. A cubit was the length of a forearm from elbow to fingertip, which obviously can vary greatly between people.

What is the point of your post?

Well, the mathematics is wrong, so what else could be wrong? Just sayin'... (and mathematics is very important in the bible as a side note).