Featured Bibles that are deliberately bad?

There are passages in the KJV (and many others) that you would probably not want your child reading.

 

"Deliberately Bad" from the OP

There are probably few versions that set out to be "deliberately bad". Most of those books should not qualify to even be called 'bibles'; but very few have been named here.

Mostly what has been named are merely "bad" in the poster's opinion, and mostly it seems to be based on a few select renderings. People have different criteria for what constitutes "bad".

Some versions may have been created with the intent to be controversial, but intent is difficult to prove.

 

What verses have been "left out"?

 

So, what did it mean to Judeans in the 8th-century BC? Were the Jews then expecting an unwed virgin woman to conceive the Messiah? Are they looking for that today based on Isaiah's writing? Are you asserting that a miraculous Holy Spirit-induced birth actually took place during the reign of Ahaz? (Case reopened.)

 

Here are several that I would say, don't touch;
The Jehovah's Witnesses bible
The Satanic bible and
the skeptics bible
The Queen James bible (the homosexual bible)

These three are completely missing the mark of who God is as well as His laws and grace. The NIV also has more than 20 missing New testament verses, some of which I consider as very important. I know the King James is not easy to understand but in the popular Bibles it is, in my opinion, the closest to the truth.

 

Nope, rather that there was a dual fulfillment, as happens many times in the prophetic word of the lord, as therr was an immediate child birth, and that could be debated aet either young woman, or a virgin, but in Hebrew would mean same thing, chaste woman still, yet the holy spirit clearly took that promise and applied to jesus and used cleared greek term of Virgin!

 

The key to me is how it was translated into the LXX and thus Matthew. The Greek word there is the word for virgin, with no arguing possible. Therefore the inspired word in Isaiah, almah, means virgin. So yes, 8th century BC Jews were looking for a miraculous virgin birth to conceive the Messiah--or should have been, because Isaiah's prophecy was crystal clear.

As for Jews today, I've never heard that they were looking for a virgin birth for the Messiah, but they should be.

As for the possibility of a virgin birth in the time of Ahaz, for you to think I'm asserting that means you haven't read my posts. If you'll go back and read my posts you'll see that I asserted just the opposite.

 

Before I am misunderstood, I believe that Isaiah 7:14 is a messianic prophecy -- but only because the Holy Spirit through Matthew says it is. It is a bit ironic that folks appeal so strongly to the LXX for this passage but would disavow the LXX's trustworthiness virtually everywhere else.

By your own admission, it is not really possible to come to that conclusion on the evidence of Isaiah's text alone. This is confirmed by the fact that the Jews didn't look for a virgin conception for Messiah then, nor now.

You are imposing later outside sources upon a definition for Isaiah's term, while at the same time emptying any contemporary meaning of the prophecy to Ahaz.

 

None of this is a problem to me. The Jews of contemporary to the OT prophets and the Jews of Jesus' day understood correctly almost no Messianic prophecies. Just look how no unbelieving Jews in Jesus' day figured out that He fulfilled the Bethlehem prophecy. Prophecy in the OT was rarely understood by those who heard it.

I'm not sure how you think I'm doing this. Go back and look again at what I said. I pointed out the plural "you" in the passage. I didn't impose any outside source on the contemporary meaning, unless you mean the Matthew fulfillment, and since that was inspired by God I don't consider it an "outside source."

 

the holy Spirit Himselfinspred both to record down the texts, so he is the ultimate Commentary on how to understand the passage in Isaiah!

 

Exactly! :thumbs:

 

Which is the most evil, a bible that is obviously wrong, such as the NWT, or a bible that hides its agenda in niches within scripture so people do not realize they are reading a deliberately twisted translation?

 

In a real sense, the theory of both translation and how to interprete the etxts rests upon both the inspiration and illumination of/by the Holy Spirit Himself!

 

Do you have in mind a version that does that?

 

Apparently you agree with me? Or perhaps you do not agree? Do you agree or not, and if you do, give an example. If you do not agree, explain why a deceptive bible is ok with you?

 

Why can't you just answer a simple question? What version do you have in mind with your question?

 

Why not answer my question. I provided three versions. Yeshua1 and TND zip. All these folks who answer questions with questions and find fault with others trying to discuss weaknesses in well accepted translations simply indicate an effort to derail any actual discussion. Agenda driven translations that misstate what is said to support man-made doctrine are very bad indeed.

 

What versions support what "bad doctrines?"

other than catholic/mormon/NWT, what respectable christian versions do have that "agenda?"

 

What version,or versions do you think do the latter?

 

To repeat sir, I provided three versions. In this thread, the question you asked had been asked three, count them three, prior times. And oddly enough, the question was repeated three times, by Yeshua1, TND, and you Rippon, after I had answered it. This systematic behavior by so many so often betrays yet another hidden agenda. Care to discuss?