Is this a Bible?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Su Wei, Mar 6, 2005.

  1. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Refuel: The Complete New Testament for guys:
    "Description
    Part sports or entertainment magazine, part Bible—totally relevant! This BibleMag is a totally cool new way for teen guys to read the Bible. Formatted like a sports or entertainment magazine, this New Testament Bible comes to life with relevant application. Based on the success of Revolve, and in response to tremendous customer feedback, this Bible is sure to be a hit!
    Includes great topics like:

    Inside Her Head: Real Girls Give Their Opinions
    172 Lists: On Everything
    Look Cool: Tips on Your Self
    Dive In: How to Make Your Faith Real
    240 Ways to Walk the Walk


    Details
    SKU: 0718006763 Publisher: Thomas Nelson
    Date Published: Apr 2004 Pages: 384
    Language: English Description: Refuel-Ncv-NT for Guys
    Translation: New Century Binding: Paper
    Cover Color: Multi-Colored Red Letter: No
    Concordance: No "


    Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys <---This link allows you to browse a couple of pages through this atrocity. Click on the More Information interior images
     
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Su Wei

    Notice that the translation is the New Century Version. This version has undoubtedly the most amazing publishing history of any recent translation of the Bible. Here is an excerpt from an article about this translation:

    The entire article can be found here:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/ncv.html

    I have in my home library several of the editions mentioned in article linked to above, but I have not yet seen the edition that your post describes. My answer to your question, “Is this a Bible?”, is that, in my opinion, this translation is so poor that it is a bit of a stretch to call it a Bible.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I girl brought a New World Translation (NWT)
    with her. I have it now. She switched to
    a heavily comentaried for teens New Century Version. Now she is saved. Betcha
    before she graduates High School we will
    have her reading the KJV1769 [​IMG]

    Which is better a read New Century Version
    or an unread King James Version?

    Which KJV do you use? I have three different
    KJVs on my computer desk:

    Which King James Version do you use?
    Here is a sample test:

    1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

    ... and he went into the citie.

    2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

    ... and she went into the city.

    3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

    ... and he went into the city.

    I know people who say that the KJV1611
    and KJV1873 i have are NOT real Bibles.
    What say ye?
     
  4. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that is a Bible. It might be the only Bible some read.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, Su Wei...

    Although the NCV is not one of my favorite Bible versions, it is a legitimate Bible version. The Edition you speak of is an apparent attempt by Thomas Nelson & Son Publishers to gear the NCV toward teenage boys. A recent edition was geared toward teenage girls, too. Is it wrong to publish any Bible version in these formats? I reserve judgment on that question, as I have not done any extensive reading in either of the two editions. I just pray that our young people may be reached through these efforts. If one young person is won to Christ by these editions, then it is not a waste.
     
  6. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is a Bible, albeit an inferior translation published in an objectionable format.
     
  7. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes, it is a Bible. While the New Century Version is not good for serious study, it is geared more for young people or those that do not read English that well. IMO, it is not really that different from other study Bibles. If it gets teenagers to read the Bible instead of some other garbage, then I am all for it.
     
  8. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry for the double post. Ignore the above post.

    Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
    I girl brought a New World Translation (NWT)
    with her. I have it now. She switched to
    a heavily comentaried for teens New Century Version. Now she is saved. Betcha
    before she graduates High School we will
    have her reading the KJV1769 [​IMG]


    That's like feeding a child frech fries all her life and then thinking that by HIGH SCHOOL she'll want to switch to carrots and brocolli?

    How do you think she'll stomach "real christianity"?
    verses like:
    1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

    John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Which KJV do you use? I have three different
    KJVs on my computer desk:

    Which King James Version do you use?
    Here is a sample test:

    1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

    ... and he went into the citie.

    2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

    ... and she went into the city.

    3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

    ... and he went into the city.

    I know people who say that the KJV1611
    and KJV1873 i have are NOT real Bibles.
    What say ye?


    I understand the point you are trying to make, Mr. Ed. So i did some thinking here's what i undrstand, also based on the article i posted by Pastor Reagan.

    1. "As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling."

    Your above example from Ruth proves this to be true. "citie" to "city" in 1769.

    2. As with the same explaination of printing technology of those days, i propose that the "she" "he" is a new printing error that inadvertantly happened whilst other corrections of that page were being made. Very easy mistake to make for the difference is but one letter.
    It's not like our word documents, we change only the mistakes and typos and the rest of the document is untouched. Back then when they wanted to make corrections (years later) They would have to set the words of the entire page and do it all over again, not just the bits they want to correct. In advertantly, new mistakes can occur.

    3. I simply take this as an innocent human error for the ambiguity caused by the he/she error clears itself up in v16 when she Ruth comes to her mother in law.

    "Ruth 3:14 And she lay at his feet until the morning: and she rose up before one could know another. And he said, Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor.
    Ruth 3:15 Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.
    Ruth 3:16 And when she came to her mother in law, she said, Who art thou, my daughter? And she told her all that the man had done to her."

    4. The problem was noted and finally fixed in 1873. I don't think those who held that bible suffered doctrinally for that "typo".

    5. These are printing errors, nothing compared to the way the infedels of the translators of MVs have gone through the word of God abd systematically taken out, changed, watered down verses that don't fit with their own ideology.

    Thanks for reading. Please be kind in your responses! :D
     
  10. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your honesty! [​IMG]
    That the others actually call this monstrocity (a creature neither man nor beast) a "bible"..... now i've seen it all...

    Once one accepts the premise that the bible needs to be changed to be more "totally relevant", there's no where you can draw the line.
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    You are quite welcome! I am always honest—that’s why I am so unpopular on this message board. :(

    Perhaps I should post instead on a non-Christian message board where honesty is considered to be a virtue.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your honesty! [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Who here wasn't honest?

    Words have meanings. Look up "Bible" in a dictionary.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament
    (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

    How severely can one distort, change, modify, or alter “the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament” before they cease to be the sacred scriptures?

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    printers of the KJB had typos just as you had here, Mr. Ed! :D
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    printers of the KJB had typos just as you had here, Mr. Ed! :D </font>[/QUOTE]1. I don't see my typo. Feel free to
    point out the typo instead of just telling me
    i have one. That is the only way to get it
    corrected.

    2. Please do not call me "Mr. Ed" the name
    of a talking hourse. Thank you.

    Su Wei: "2. As with the same explaination of printing technology of those days, i propose that the "she" "he" is a new printing error that inadvertantly happened whilst other corrections of that page were being made. Very easy mistake to make for the difference is but one letter.
    It's not like our word documents, we change only the mistakes and typos and the rest of the document is untouched. Back then when they wanted to make corrections (years later) They would have to set the words of the entire page and do it all over again, not just the bits they want to correct. In advertantly, new mistakes can occur. "

    I understand about printing. However, that is
    NOT the case in Ruth 3:15. In the NIV for
    'he' is this footnote:

    b 15 Most Hebrew manuscripts, many Hebrew
    manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac, she


    This footnotes means that 'he' appears here
    in some sources and 'she appears in others.
    The problem here is NOT typesetting. The problem
    here is not dropping one letter in English.
    Syriac is written in what? Is it a different
    alphabet than Hebrew? I know the Latin
    Vulgate and the Hebrew manuscripts have different
    letters - we aren't talking about a simple
    missing letter in the English here.

    BTW, I brought it up and you evaded the
    question I asked. I'd still like an anwer.

    Ed: //Which KJV do you use? I have three different
    KJVs on my computer desk:

    Which King James Version do you use?
    Here is a sample test:

    1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

    ... and he went into the citie.

    2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

    ... and she went into the city.

    3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

    ... and he went into the city.//

    The reason i give the test is that frequently
    the makers of KJVs don't even bother to let
    their readers know which edition of the KJV
    thjey have in their hands.

    I note that if i limited myself to the KJV only
    that i'd not be able to figure out this
    strange inconsistancy (which makes no doctrinal
    difference). [​IMG]
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Su Wei said:

    Thank you for your honesty!

    So if we don't agree with you, we're dishonest? Garbage!

    That the others actually call this monstrocity (a creature neither man nor beast) a "bible"..... now i've seen it all...

    So is a true Bible man or beast? Please enlighten us.
     
  17. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craigbythesea asked:

    How severely can one distort, change, modify, or alter “the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament” before they cease to be the sacred scriptures?

    How is publishing the New Testament in a magazine format distorting, changing, or altering it?
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    It isn't. I have no objection to the format, only the "translation" itself.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    printers of the KJB had typos just as you had here, Mr. Ed! :D </font>[/QUOTE]1. I don't see my typo. Feel free to
    point out the typo instead of just telling me
    i have one. That is the only way to get it
    corrected.

    2. Please do not call me "Mr. Ed" the name
    of a talking hourse. Thank you.

    </font>[/QUOTE]1. "I girl" was the typo. you meant "1 girl"?

    2. many apologies for my ignorance. It was truly unintentional. In fact i was trying to be extra polite! [​IMG]
     
  20. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    i take this as a second hyopthesis? That there was another commitee set up in 1769 to do somemore translating? where'd you get that from? what are the names of these men?

    May i ask, for i am ignorant, in which year did these Vulgate and Syriac manuscripts surface?

    And i'm more interested what the majority texts say.


    BTW, I brought it up and you evaded the
    question I asked. I'd still like an anwer.
    .
    .
    .
    The reason i give the test is that frequently
    the makers of KJVs don't even bother to let
    their readers know which edition of the KJV
    thjey have in their hands.

    I note that if i limited myself to the KJV only
    that i'd not be able to figure out this
    strange inconsistancy (which makes no doctrinal
    difference). [​IMG]


    What's the inconsistency?

    one of mine says The New Open Bible King James Version Study Edition Nelson 1672.
     

Share This Page

Loading...