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.
The Gentile Bible
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jesus is Lord, May 16, 2003.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
At first thought, it is offensive to God and a violation of the integrity of Scriptures.
Cheers,
Jim -
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
Pete Richert writes:
>>Can we go back to the Bishop's Bible Paw?
Hey, wait a minute:
what about Wiclif? (1380) -
Hmmmm.... a bible changing passages from their original meaning? Bad idea.
-
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.). -
Marcion would be proud, I imagine.
Haruo -
Haruo -
-
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
'A 90 year old, fundy, KJVO' :D -
Thanks for your answers. -
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.
-
PAW, Where was the Bible before King James?
PAW, why aren't you answering?
PAW, PAW? -
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!!! -
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 -
-
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
Page 1 of 2