08-04-2005, 03:54 PM #1
Christians.... What Bible do you use??
Just curious to see what different Bibles are being used!!!!!
Personally I use the King James Version.
And has anyone read G.A. Riplinger's Book NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS (An exhaustive documentation exposing the message, men, and manuscripts moving Mankind to the Antichrist's one world Religion)
08-04-2005, 04:41 PM #2Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
I've never read the bible.
08-04-2005, 04:49 PM #3
I try use the Darby edition, but I gave my last one away and a new one is pretty expensive. The Darby version is really one of the best translations. For instance, many Bibles translate Jehovah and Jah to LORD (Adonai), but the Darby edition preserves the original names whenever possible. It also has the best footnotes out of any bible, bar none. A Darby teamed up with a Strong's Concordance is as close as you can get to an original Hebrew/Latin copy of the Bible.
08-04-2005, 05:00 PM #4
I use the NIV (new international version) I think it is probably the most used by evangelical Christians today. It is recognized by scolars around the world as very accurate.
As with all translations from Greek and Hebrew, sometimes it is very difficult to translate as there are some words that we don't have and vice versa. I have read other bibles as well. I have not read the book you talk about, unfortunatly I am not much of a reader but I do read the bible 5 days per week.
It's kind of nice having a post like this on here as I do have some knowledge in this area.
For any other Christians on this site, what do you think about a Christian using anabolic steroids ? I am in Canada and it is not such a big deal (legally) but am I still abusing my body (Gods temple) ? I have been ok with it until lately and I feel that I am on my last cycle or at least the harsher drugs that seem to affect my mood and my sex drive.
This question is more directed at committed church attending Christians, thanks.
08-04-2005, 05:18 PM #5
so do you think that someone 400 years ago had a better understanding of ancient greek or someone today?
08-04-2005, 05:23 PM #6
I have a feeling 400 years ago the bible was completly different. It has been altered so many times.
08-04-2005, 05:45 PM #7
I like the Young's Literal Translation..........
Unless of course I'm beating a brown guy with the Bible........then I prefer a large
print King James........something about beating the hell out of a guy with the translation of a English King
Last edited by Badgerman; 08-04-2005 at 06:09 PM.
08-04-2005, 06:00 PM #8
Anyone intrested that uses a bible other than the King James please tell me what your bible says in verses: Luke 12:31, Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Acts 8:37, and 29:29!!!!!!!
08-04-2005, 06:10 PM #9
What difference does it make what translation you use if you don't do what it says anyway???
08-04-2005, 06:16 PM #10
How bout you Sammy........how do those Okinawans like the feel of a big hardcover KJV slappin the side of their head???
08-04-2005, 06:18 PM #11Originally Posted by sammycasper
08-04-2005, 09:05 PM #12
I am back finally. I like the New King James. I also use the king James, NIV, and NASB.
08-04-2005, 09:38 PM #13Originally Posted by Badgerman
You can't have a war over what doesn't exist!!!!! If you look up those verses in the NIV you can't tell me what the say because they aren't there!!!!!!!!!!!!!
08-04-2005, 09:42 PM #14
There really are significant variations in the KJV and the NIV. Here's what one rabidly fundamentalist christian group has to say about this situation, and for once I agree with them:
A quick comparison of Bible versions shows that they are really not the same. Some leave out entire verses, others disagree on whether Jesus should be called God's servant or God's Son. But how do you decide which is completely correct?
The experts want to impress you, so they make it sound complicated. But the bottom line is that there are two different texts from which Bibles are translated, and only one can be correct. Choosing the right one is not the realm of Greek and Hebrew scholars, either. Instead, it boils down to one, simple question.
08-04-2005, 11:23 PM #15Originally Posted by sammycasper
Luke 12:31 but seek his kingdom, and all these things shall be added to you.
Matthew: 17:21 But this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting.
18:11 For the Son of man has come to save that which was lost.
Acts 8:37 is an interpolation. It is not in the original texts.
28:29 And he having said this, the Jews went away, having great reasoning among themselves.
I assumed you meant Acts 28:29 because there is no Acts 29. The Darby Translation is only "missing" 3 verses, all of which were invented/interpolated for the KJV.
08-04-2005, 11:46 PM #16Originally Posted by BOUNCER
that I bet!!!!!!!!!
08-04-2005, 11:53 PM #17Originally Posted by thestudent
08-05-2005, 12:19 AM #18Originally Posted by scriptfactory
OK this is what My bible says:
Luke 12:31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. (in your version it says his kingdom, who is his? Does your version also refer to Lucifer as the "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:12?)
If Acts 8:37 wasn't in the orginal text then why does your Bible acknowledge that it exist by going from Acts 8:36 to Acts 8:38?
08-05-2005, 12:33 AM #19Originally Posted by sammycasper
now, the KJV is good. there are problems with all translations, including the KJV.
if you want similar to what you gave, heres a few passages left out of the KJV that appear in the original manuscripts:
1. mt 24:36: "nor the son"
2. acts 4:25: "by the Holy Spirit"
3. Rom 8:28: This should read "and we know that God works all things
together for good" KJV leaves out "God".
so as i said, problems with all translations, KJV included.
08-05-2005, 12:57 AM #20Originally Posted by sammycasper
Acts 8:37 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
It is not, however, in the original texts! This is why Darby chose to "omit" it, or rather not include this later addition as it is man made... Darby is an EXTREMELY literal translation of the Bible. It is often hard to read because of this, however everything contained in the pages is aimed at truth rather than readability or "making sense."
Also, the reason it goes from Acts 8:36 to 8:38 is consistency. Every Bible tries to maintain consistency with the other versions, even if they disagree on certain points.
08-05-2005, 01:10 AM #21Originally Posted by scriptfactory
question, does the darby use terms like jehovah?? jehovah really shouldnt be in the bible as it was never used. ill look into darby though, never heard of it. i like looking at different translations, as none are perfect, and looking at the hebrew/greek and comparing to get best as i can iterpretations.
08-05-2005, 04:15 AM #22Originally Posted by max2extreme
Jehovah/Yahweh appears several times in the Bible.
Psalms 83:18 WA YA3LAMUW ANNAKA ISMUKA WA7DAKA, YAHWAH AL3ALIYYU 3ALA KULLI ALARDI.
That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth. -DarbyIs. 26:4 TAWAKKALUW 3ALA ARRABI (YAHWAH) ILA AL'ABADI LI'ANNA FI YAH ARRABI SAKHRA ADDUHUWRI
Confide ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jah, Jehovah, is the rock of ages. -Darby
08-05-2005, 05:42 AM #23
do a search for my name and the word jehovah. i dont have time to repost it. all our moving stuff just got here so we have a whole house to unpack and put away!! bah. see ya guys in a month! (not really)
08-05-2005, 06:09 AM #24Originally Posted by scriptfactory
08-06-2005, 08:47 AM #25
Is Darby a scholar
08-06-2005, 08:48 AM #26
Where did the name come from?
08-06-2005, 09:52 AM #27Originally Posted by zOaib
08-06-2005, 09:52 AM #28Originally Posted by scriptfactory
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, I personally have not been baptised since I have come to know Jesus Christ. Soon I will, it is a act of symbolism (commanded) representing the death of the flesh and the birth of the new man, witnessed in front of others. It is commanded but not essential.
08-06-2005, 09:59 AM #29Originally Posted by books555
Here is some info on him:
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated in 1819 as Classical Medallist. He was ordained as a priest in the established church in Ireland in 1825, and ministered among country people in remote places. In 1827 he came to believe that the church to which he belonged was hopelessly corrupt; and, on the basis of his independent study of Scripture, he also came to believe that a Christian was obliged to separate himself from all corrupt organizations. So he resigned his position as a clergyman, and began to associate with certain "brethren" in Dublin who shared his views. Because he was unmarried and had inherited a large estate, he had no need of a salary. In Dublin he met Benjamin Wills Newton, who recognized Darby's gifts and invited him to minister among like-minded people in Plymouth, England. By the year 1832 a congregation was definitely formed there under Darby's leadership. This was the beginning of the so-called "Plymouth Brethren" movement, to which Darby would devote the rest of his life. In the year 1837 he went to the continent to promote his teachings among Methodists and Baptists there. By 1840 he had established several congregations in Switzerland and France. In 1853 he went on to Germany, where he established congregations in Dusseldorf, Elberfeld, and in other towns. He was dissatisfied with the existing Bible versions in French and German, and so he collaborated with German and French followers in the creation of new versions in those languages. With some German associates he produced the "Elberfelder Bible," 1 and with French-speaking followers he produced the "Pau Bible."
Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes. This New Testament was first issued in parts, beginning with the Gospel according to Matthew in 1865. The New Testament was completed in 1867. The version is exceedingly literal, based upon modern critical editions of the Greek text, and abundantly supplied with text-critical and philological annotations. The annotations are by far the most comprehensive and detailed to be found in an English version. It was consulted by the translators of the English Revised Version of 1881 (see F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed., 1978, p. 132).
After Darby's death in 1882, certain of his followers in England produced an English version of the Old Testament based upon Darby's French and German translations. In 1890 this was published as the Old Testament portion of The Holy Scriptures. A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby (G. Morrish, 1890). A later edition with abridged annotations (omitting the references to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) was published by Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot in 1939, and reprinted by Bible Truth Publishers in 1961. The Morrish edition of 1890 (with unabridged annotations) was reprinted by Bible Truth Publishers (Addison, Illinois) in 1983.
08-06-2005, 10:07 AM #30Originally Posted by books555
08-06-2005, 02:41 PM #31Originally Posted by max2extreme
08-06-2005, 03:07 PM #32Originally Posted by thestudent
08-06-2005, 03:56 PM #33
...Companion KJV and Green's Interlinear BibleThere are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.
08-06-2005, 10:59 PM #34Originally Posted by thestudent
No scholar would agree with that.
08-06-2005, 11:31 PM #35
I can show that the book of Genesis was written AFTER the time of King David, so that should count for something.
08-06-2005, 11:39 PM #36Originally Posted by Jodster
I would say to pray about it. The lord will point you in the direction that is best for you. He may call you to stop taking them, he may not, I dont know.
Its a hard question to answere because I dont know your situation. Remember, God is infinite, you are finite, He knows the best possible plan for your life.
08-06-2005, 11:47 PM #37Originally Posted by Tock
Not true Tock, The majority of scholars agree that moses wrote genesis. I would like to see the article you are talking.
08-07-2005, 12:10 AM #38Originally Posted by books555
The 36th Chapter of Genesis, verse 31 reads, "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."
So, since there were no kings in Israel until Saul (the immediate predecessor to David and Solomon), whoever wrote that verse in Genesis had to have been acquainted with Israeli government some 500 years after the time of Moses.
It's much more likely that the book of Genesis was written after the time of King David than 500 years previous.
08-07-2005, 03:22 AM #39Originally Posted by Tock
...Or at least that is what makes sense to me....
Have a good one,
AGThere are 3 loves in my life: my wife, my English mastiffs, and my weightlifting....Man, my wife gets really pissed when I get the 3 confused...
A minimum of 100 posts and 45 days membership required for source checks. Source checks are performed at my discretion.
08-07-2005, 03:04 PM #40
Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Genesis 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
Originally Posted by almostgone
Good try, but no banana.
36:31 uses the past tense of the verb "reign" as the author already knew of kings who reigned in Israel. Had the author merely been speaking of kings who would reign in the future, he would have said so . . . unless, of course, the anonymous author made an error. But since this is "the inerrant Word of God," there could be no mistakes, right? Or maybe there is a mistake, which would make the Word of God imperfect, yes?
Which way do you want to have it?
It's sorta like the last few chapters of the book of Deuteronomy, like where it says in Deut. 34:
1: And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,
2: And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,
3: And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar.
4: And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
5: So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6: And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
That sure doesn't sound like something Moses would write.
Verse 1 sounds like someone else was talking about Moses, and verse 5 speaks of Moses' death, which is something that his corpse certainly couldn't write about.
So, who wrote that part? I don't think it was Moses.
If you don't know who did, then how do you know it's authentic?
Last edited by Tock; 08-07-2005 at 03:18 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)