The Gentile Bible

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jesus is Lord, May 16, 2003.

  1. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you think about the "Gentile Bible" ?

    Amazon.com says:

    "A special modern English Bible for Gentiles who want to remain Gentiles.
    Gentiles are non-Jews. Christianity was originally a Jewish religious sect. What contemporary Christians normally call The Holy Bible is comprised of the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament is a record of how God dealt with the Jews and their ancestors. The New Testament is composed of four accounts of Jesus and his ministry (the gospels), an account of the Apostles' ministries (Acts), various letters (epistles), and a long prophecy (Revelation). Some of the New Testament deals with Jewish doctrine or is particularly aimed at Jewish Christians. But why would Gentile Christians need to be interested or involved with Jewish laws or customs.? Therefore, Gentile Christianity would be less confusing and less restrictive if only there was a Bible just for Gentiles. Therefore, the Gentile Bible is confined to the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament portions that are particularly addressed to Jewish Christians are not included. The result, then, is a Gentile Guide Book or a Gentile Holy Bible..."

    I am not talking about the underlying manuscripts (it is a paraphrased KJV, by the way), but what do you think about such thing as a Bible with all "Jewish passages" removed???

    Be blessed.

    Alex

    P.S.
    I know what I think about it... but I am very interested in your opinions.
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    At first thought, it is offensive to God and a violation of the integrity of Scriptures.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  3. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be leery of it, for the mere fact that of the passage removal thing.It brings 2nd Peter 1:20,and Revelation 22:19 to mind.
     
  4. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    ANOTHER BIBLE!!!

    Which one do we use now Paw?

    It used to be the KJB, then the NASB, then the NIV, then the NKJV, then the NLT, and then ... and then...and now GB. I'm confused.(1 Cor 14:33)

    Can we go back to the King James Bible Paw? Sure son, I've been waiting for you to return.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    ANOTHER BIBLE!!!

    Which one do we use now Paw?

    It used to be the Bishops, then the Geneva, then the KJB, then the NASB, then the NIV, then the NKJV, then the NLT, and then ... and then...and now GB. I'm confused.(1 Cor 14:33)

    Can we go back to the Bishop's Bible Paw? Sure son, I've been waiting for you to return.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Pete Richert writes:
    &gt;&gt;Can we go back to the Bishop's Bible Paw?

    Hey, wait a minute:
    what about Wiclif? (1380) [​IMG]
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmm.... a bible changing passages from their original meaning? Bad idea.
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    what about Wiclif? (1380)

    What are you, some kind of modernist? God only approves of King Alfred the Great's translation into Anglo-Saxon (late 9th c.). [​IMG]
     
  10. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marcion would be proud, I imagine.

    Haruo
     
  11. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    and have to add </font>[/QUOTE]Tatian too.

    Haruo
     
  12. ruthigirl

    ruthigirl
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice work. Apparently we always come back to the "what was God's word before the KJV issue". And once again, the KJVOs are silent. My husband was saved out of KJVO. Using the ole noggin' would keep anyone from it. Thanks Pete for putting it into perspective and for putting KJVOs in their place (again).
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have noticed that men and societies are not offended at the idea of God. It is the Christ of God that offends...has anyone else noticed this trend?

    IMHO, man will not be satisfied with the inspired Word of God until it has for its object anything but the Son.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton [​IMG]

    'A 90 year old, fundy, KJVO' :D
     
  14. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... Guess I´ll stick with the original manuscripts ;) ... wait... I know I have them somewhere... ah yes: my waste basket :D (had to throw that in).

    Thanks for your answers.
     
  15. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    To answer the original question, anyone who God's saving plan can be presented without the Old Testament or the Jewish parts of the New clearly has NO UNDERSTANDING whatsoever what that gospel is.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    PAW, Where was the Bible before King James?

    PAW, why aren't you answering?

    PAW, PAW?
     
  17. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's waiting for you to Grow UP!!!!

    Where was the Bible before the KJB?? Why,it was all over the cotton pickin continent of Europe;they came from a "few late medieval manuscripts." Don't be lazy,look for em!!!
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    [​IMG] Thank you from HankD to never-never land [​IMG]

    You have misunderstood my intentions.

    I didn't start this "PAW" business, just perpetuated the foolishness and nonsense of others who used the imagery.

    I used irony, satire and ridicule to illustrate said foolishness.

    Perhaps not the best method.

    So I think that you and I agree that the Bible has existed preserved by God in the manuscript copies and the Traditional Text (a collation/compilation of those copies) and NOT in those translations but reflected by those translations (English, Latin, etc).

    The translations do however bear witness to those manuscripts and any translation is the Word of God by derivation (so say the KJV translators btw).

    HankD
     
  19. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well,maybe not :confused:
    So far so good!!
    Oops,dropped the ball [​IMG]
    Oh no!! Not the "What the KJB Translators said" thing again!! But I will go along with you;if you will notice what the KJB translators said,they said English Bibles from men of their own profession.NOT CATHOLIC BIBLES!!! from the Catholic(Alexandrian)family of manuscripts.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes, it is an embarassment to many.

    They did not say anything about "Catholic" bibles.
    Which are Western btw and not primarily Alexandrian. The KJV translators knew precious little about the Alexandrian texts and , hopefully if they did they would have had the good sense not to have used them.

    However they did sprinkle babies and persecuted those who practised believers baptism by immersion like their Catholic mother so , you never know.

    In fact they used a few Vulgate readings over the Traditional Text (and one in a very important place: The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.) Which I believe to be canonical although supported by latin ancient texts only and a few late Greek texts.

    But I agree with you in that I believe the Alexandrian texts are defective (Namely Aleph and B).

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...