Good As New Bible Really Out There

Goodness... Don't I wish that were true!

The people who will actually decide our election this year (10-15% swing voters) are very sensitive to media reporting.

Maybe. But I, as some one who does listen to multiple sources, find that they are usually as accurate in the facts they present as AP. They simply edit from a conservative viewpoint rather than a liberal one. They are for the most part the other side of the coin so to speak.

The key seeing bias in reporting is realizing that the writer may be telling the truth about all of the facts being reported... they are just selective in which facts they want to present.

I know they try but the mainstream media can't disprove their bias. All of us are biased and tend to see events colored by our biases. Over 80% of the Washington press corps vote Democratic. Twice as many of them self identify themeselves as "liberal" as our general population... and that's with people like Jennings thinking he is a moderate.

As opposed to the mainstream media?

I would say worldnetdaily is just less polished and practiced at it.

They are definitely not in the category of Star or National Enquirer as someone suggested.

Biased? Yes. And why not? There is no such thing as completely neutral, unbiased journalism. No one just reports the unedited facts.

 

This is NOT a WND discussion. Please take that elsewhere.

 

I thought the reliability of the source was being questioned? I am simply arguing that they are as reliable as other sources that are better received.

 

The fact has been well established that this is a real story. Lets stick to that issue,please. We can start a thread in the News Forum to discuss the WND if you wish.

The issue at hand is the Good as New "Bible"

 

Most know that I am not a KJVO I use the ISV. But I'm saying right here this is a ***version. the stars stood for per. I use many versions NIV ESV NASB. But this is a ***version.

 

how so?

does the change of names in KJB/ISB/whatever make THEM ***versions also? e.g.:

Mizraim ==> Egypt
Jacob ===> James
Jesus ===> Joshua
Isaiah ===> Esias
Hosea ===> Osee
Yerushalayim/Salem ===> Jerusalem
Shlomo ===> Solomon

as for Rocky, how close is that to the Aramaic/Hebrew original? which term, "Peter" or "Rocky", better conveys the meaning of the original?

 

Do some research into this book - it is blasphemous

Check out this link from the OP

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623.shtml

 

They changed a lot. An accurate version will try its best to try to accurately translate from the original languages. It didnt especially on the matters that deal with baptism and sexual matters.

 

To be fair, it did get baptism "right" by calling it "dipping".

However, that does mean I in ANY WAY defend this book.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]This is a NEW modern version.

 

No,no,it's not;remeber what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 1:9?

Same old wastebasket with a fresh coat of paint!

 

It's funny how boiling frogs react when they see a more fully cooked comrade. How often do you really get to see around the next bend of the road you travel?

It is a [another] NEW modern version. Same old wastebasket, perhaps another shot across the bow of apostasy, another chance to repent. God is good!

Lacy

 

AA and Lacy,

Been missing you all. Would you pop over to my "Simple Question" thread and help me out?

 

I missed you too. I don't hang out here much. It's like a soap opera. You can quit watching for 6 months then come back and nothing new has happened. Anyway, I took the bait, though I doubt you'll be satisfied with my answer.

In Christ, Lacy

 

I like your description Lacy - it is kinda like a soap opera .

Good to see you back.

 

May God bless your studies.

Lacy