Good As New Bible Really Out There

This one sounds true - but as a matter of course I always double check WorldNetDaily before I react.

I am not surprised,anything to make a buck (or a "few bob" ).

 

What really bothers me is the endorsements!!!

Look at this one [from source above]

 

The British are already plagued by the "People's Bible", a work of similar ilk. Its rendition of the Song of Solomon would make a typical "Hustler" article.(For our non-USA readers: "Hustler" is a very obscene magazine published by Larry Flynt & sold in the USA. I don't know if it's sold in other lands or not.)

 

Marcia asked:

It comes from Worldnet Daily. Is that a legitimate source of news?

Get a second opinion.

 

It's not hard to double check WorldNetDaily, as they usually have links to their source in the articles on their site. I don't think I have ever read and article on WND's site that was not true. Here are the sources for the WND story for the WND skeptics:

http://one.gn.apc.org/Translation.htm

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3833693.stm

 

Always a good idea when the source is a tabloid. The caveat is to make sure that the second source is not a tabloid either (just because it's in the "Star" and the "Enquirer" doesn't make it any more accurate).

 

> Barabbas becomes "Barry."

shdn't that be Barney?

hey, accuracy's important right?

 

I am not sure that this book deserves the normal protection of the BB rules - it does not appear to qualify as a translation.

Thoughts?

 

As you should when considering a story from the liberal "mainstream" media.

Case in point- the recent claims that the 9/11 Commission denied that there were Saddam-alQaeda links and the apparent refusal to give coverage to the rebuttals from the Commission and others.

Worldnet spins from a conservative angle to about the same extent as CNN, AP, the NY Times, etc do from a liberal angle.

 

I would call it a paraphrase, like The Message is not a translation but a paraphrase.

 

As you should when considering a story from the liberal "mainstream" media.

Case in point- the recent claims that the 9/11 Commission denied that there were Saddam-alQaeda links and the apparent refusal to give coverage to the rebuttals from the Commission and others.

Worldnet spins from a conservative angle to about the same extent as CNN, AP, the NY Times, etc do from a liberal angle. </font>[/QUOTE]So the "rule of thumb" should be, whenever possible, verify the source, regardless of where you first read the news. There have been times that many local news broadcasts have reported on "urban legends" as if they were factual.

 

Lets debate the merits/problems with WND elsewhere and keep this thread on topic please.

BTW - there is a closed thread here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1663.html#000008

with some comments you might be interested in.

 

I am not even sure that this one qualifies as a paraphrase.

 

HomeBound, Christ4Kildare closed the other thread so I couldn't ask you this question there, where you posted, so I am forced to ask it here were you have not posted:

HomeBound, I have asked you this question in at least three different threads but you always refuse to answer it. Is the reason you refuse to answer it that you know you can't answer it because it proves your "perfect preservation" theory is wrong?

"HomeBound, which KJV is perfect? The original edition of 1611 or the one you use, the 1762/1769? You are aware, are you not, that there are differences?

I will just post a couple for you, and you can tell me which reading is the perfect word of God.

In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

Thank you."

 

IMO, it qualifies as trash.

A dove is not a pigeon. Both species live in my'hood, and they're quite different birds.

St. Peter becomes "Rocky,"

"Rocky" is generally a nick for ROCCO; "PETE" is for Peter, and "Cebe" for Cephas.


Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie,"

"Magdalene" means "resident of Magdala" and was more a "handle" than a name since Mary(Miriam) was a very common Jewish name. "Magdalene" was not her name, nor was "Maggie", which is, at least in the USA, short for "Margaret" or "Marguerite".


Aaron becomes "Ron,"

"Ron" is short for Ronald, not Aaron.

Andronicus becomes "Andy"

Although "Andy" is generally short for Andrew, this IS a legit possibility. I don't know anyone named Andronicus to ask.

and Barabbas becomes "Barry."

"Barry" is a FRENCH name, adopted into English. It certainly didn't come from "Barabbas".

Christ4Kildare, I'm basing my statements on names & nicks upon USA usage. Please update me if I'm wrong according to British or Irish usage.

I believe all English speakers, regardless of nationality, will agree on the definition of "trash", which this "bible" appears to be.

 

I don't beleive this is a Bible. I don't think it is even a paraphrase.

I am going to coin a phrase as far as I know - I think this is anti-Bible.

 

I like that description!

 

Scott J said:

As you should when considering a story from the liberal "mainstream" media.

Well, this goes without saying. The problem is that an awful lot of people are less critical of WorldNetDaily than the mainstream, because it's "Christian," when in reality their news "reporting" is frequently second-hand, unreliable and sensationalistic.