International Children's Bible (ICB)

Depends upon how ACCURATE it is. I can't comment further about that particular version, as I've never read it, but I DO believe that if a child isn't able to understand a regular Bible, it's upta the parents, pastor, or other Christian adult to explain Scripture to a child. Now, while more than one child is able to come to CHRIST, of course, many children simply aren't ready for the MEAT of the Scriptures, and so must remain on Scriptural MILK for awhile.

I am NOT in favor of "dumbing down" Scripture to make it easier for kids to understand. Rather, let the child grow in wisdom and stature until he/she can understand it clearly, with "experienced' people helping along the way.

 

They hanged the name of it because I guess they felt children's bible so not a name for adults to read so they called it Reader Friendly.

 

The Children's International Bible, and its revision, the NCV, are more of a thought for thought than word for word translation. They use more gender inclusive language than traditional versions.

Here is a sample: John 3:16, "God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son so that whoever believes in Him may not be lost, but have eternal life."

Here we can see the translators thought "So God so loved the world" meant God loved the world so much that he..." Modern translators do not agree, they think the idea was God loved the world in this way, so the giving of Christ was the way God loved the world. "One and only" is used by many modern translations, but "one of a kind" would be better for clarity of translation. I do not mind, "may not be lost" because it gets the idea across better than "shall not perish." But you can see the thought for thought liberty the translation takes with the text.

 

Oh, so you yield to tradition to form your views here. I see.

 

Hi Rippon, still spewing fiction at every post I see. I was providing on topic information, not demonizing efforts to bring God's message of love and salvation to the least among us.

 

Van, just how much credence do you place on "traditional versions" of the Bible? If a version is not "traditional" in some sense will you discount it? I think following tradition is wrong-headed. It's usually an attachment to sentiment.

 

Anyone who plans of studying God's word, needs to start with a translation that actually reflects God's word, not the rewrites of men to make the text conform with their doctrine.

 

Yes, there are plenty of translations that do just that. The NIV,ESV,NASB,NET,NLT and so many more.

 

Pay no attention to copy and paste posters who have no idea how to actually study God's word. Calvinism cannot stand up to actual study, it collapses like a house of cards.

Bottom line, the ESV, NIV and NLT are Calvinistically biased bibles, with many verses altered to make the text more consistent with the mistaken views of Calvinism. Stick with the NASB95, NET, HCSB, WEB and NKJV.

 

And you have the creditionals needed to be able to discern the "calvinististic" bias the scholars ftit into the esv/Niv/Nlt then?

Does that mean those 3 versions are NOT valid bible translations, in same boat as watchtower version?

 

Van is trying to sell --but no one is buying. What vanity he displays.

 

Hi Yeshua1, you like to question the credentials of others, but seem unable to support your views with logic or scriptural reference. A third grader knows from or since does not mean before. A third grader would know a person chosen as rich in faith, was not chosen to become rich in faith. And a third grader would know a person chosen through faith in the truth, was chosen conditionally, not unconditionally.

Folks would need the credentials of a loon to deny these obvious truths.

 

So you would say that the Niv/esv/Nlt are not valid versions, correct?

 

So Yeshua1, you would say you ask questions calculated to provide disinformation, correct?

A third grader knows from or since does not mean before. A third grader would know a person chosen as rich in faith, was not chosen to become rich in faith. And a third grader would know a person chosen through faith in the truth, was chosen conditionally, not unconditionally.

Folks would need the credentials of a loon to deny these obvious truths.

 

Is that a yes or a no answer then?

Do calvinists teach another, false gospel, and are those 3 bibles not valid translations, akin to the watchtower one?