"Ralph" <msjones@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:Y2Bmg.72830$qd2.52204@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rj5l92l38d6furcnqr2l210uudq1gkhsph@4ax.com...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:27:40 -0400, "Ralph"
<msjones@earthlink.com> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:215j92dmv06jc9ta538oi8412n7rq921rp@4ax.com...

On 21 Jun 2006 05:44:27 -0700, "Master_Shake"
<jimgoebel@gmail.com> spake thusly:

I have no clue what the best one is.

I prefer the NASB, the Phillips, and the NIV.

As far as them being 'corrupt', they're no more corrupt than the KJV.
I had a KJV that had several verses missing.

Its sad that the KJV Only-ists worship the KJV more than God.

It isn't about worshipping the KJV and it is extremely
disingenuous for you to say that. All that comment
shows me, is that you are unable to refute anything
that those who read the KJV have said to you and so,
you decided to lie, by attacking them this way. It
does nothing but make you look foolish. (:

Personally, I love the KJV. And I used to read it all
the time. Now I mostly use the NKJV. But the
difference for me, is about two things.

1) Which texts the Bible is translated from. Most
modern English Bibles, like the ones you named
above, are translated from the corrupt Alexandrian
Text and I when someone knows that, then they
shouldn't stick with those translations, since that
is to prefer their translation over the correct texts.

2) How literal the translation is. I look for a literal
equivalence, not a dynamic equivalence, which the
NIV, for example is. I don't want people telling me
what they think something means, when they translate
it and no matter how much they claim otherwise,
anything other than a literal equivalence, is simply
adding someone's doctrine into the translation,
since as I said, at that point, they are assuming that
what is proper, is to avoid telling you the exact
words and to rather tell you what they suppose
that it means. A paraphrase such as the NLT,
is the worse in this regard, since a paraphrase
has very little exact wording in it.

Which means that the KJV has problems as it came from the TR.

First of all, even if that were true, that doesn't negate
the fact that the Bible's she listed are based on a
seriously corrupt text. Surely you aren't stupid enough
to think that you somehow proved that those translations
are good, by attacking the KJV?

Secondly, your ignorance is not proof of anything except
your ignorance. The TR is part of what is called the
Majority Texts, which is what you want your Bible to
be translated from.

No it isn't. Just because a text is in the majority doesn't say squat
about the validity of the text. Five hundred copies of an error are just
that, copies of an error. The TR is acknowledged to be fraught with
errors, just as many of the early texts were full of errors.

""""""

I want my bible to come from the earliest and best text.

"""""""""

Remember: you didn't say that.

BTW, Majority means consensus among the majority of all texts. It would
exclude what you imagine to be additions.

"Ralph" <msjones@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:Y2Bmg.72830$qd2.52204@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rj5l92l38d6furcnqr2l210uudq1gkhsph@4ax.com...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:27:40 -0400, "Ralph"
<msjones@earthlink.com> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:215j92dmv06jc9ta538oi8412n7rq921rp@4ax.com...

On 21 Jun 2006 05:44:27 -0700, "Master_Shake"
<jimgoebel@gmail.com> spake thusly:

I have no clue what the best one is.

I prefer the NASB, the Phillips, and the NIV.

As far as them being 'corrupt', they're no more corrupt than the KJV.
I had a KJV that had several verses missing.

Its sad that the KJV Only-ists worship the KJV more than God.

It isn't about worshipping the KJV and it is extremely
disingenuous for you to say that. All that comment
shows me, is that you are unable to refute anything
that those who read the KJV have said to you and so,
you decided to lie, by attacking them this way. It
does nothing but make you look foolish. (:

Personally, I love the KJV. And I used to read it all
the time. Now I mostly use the NKJV. But the
difference for me, is about two things.

1) Which texts the Bible is translated from. Most
modern English Bibles, like the ones you named
above, are translated from the corrupt Alexandrian
Text and I when someone knows that, then they
shouldn't stick with those translations, since that
is to prefer their translation over the correct texts.

2) How literal the translation is. I look for a literal
equivalence, not a dynamic equivalence, which the
NIV, for example is. I don't want people telling me
what they think something means, when they translate
it and no matter how much they claim otherwise,
anything other than a literal equivalence, is simply
adding someone's doctrine into the translation,
since as I said, at that point, they are assuming that
what is proper, is to avoid telling you the exact
words and to rather tell you what they suppose
that it means. A paraphrase such as the NLT,
is the worse in this regard, since a paraphrase
has very little exact wording in it.

Which means that the KJV has problems as it came from the TR.

First of all, even if that were true, that doesn't negate
the fact that the Bible's she listed are based on a
seriously corrupt text. Surely you aren't stupid enough
to think that you somehow proved that those translations
are good, by attacking the KJV?

Secondly, your ignorance is not proof of anything except
your ignorance. The TR is part of what is called the
Majority Texts, which is what you want your Bible to
be translated from.

No it isn't. Just because a text is in the majority doesn't say squat
about the validity of the text. Five hundred copies of an error are just
that, copies of an error. The TR is acknowledged to be fraught with
errors, just as many of the early texts were full of errors.

""""""

I want my bible to come from the earliest and best text.

"""""""""

Remember: you didn't say that.

BTW, Majority means consensus among the majority of all texts. It would
exclude what you imagine to be additions.

"Ralph" <msjones@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:Y2Bmg.72830$qd2.52204@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rj5l92l38d6furcnqr2l210uudq1gkhsph@4ax.com...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:27:40 -0400, "Ralph"
<msjones@earthlink.com> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:215j92dmv06jc9ta538oi8412n7rq921rp@4ax.com...

On 21 Jun 2006 05:44:27 -0700, "Master_Shake"
<jimgoebel@gmail.com> spake thusly:

I have no clue what the best one is.

I prefer the NASB, the Phillips, and the NIV.

As far as them being 'corrupt', they're no more corrupt than the KJV.
I had a KJV that had several verses missing.

Its sad that the KJV Only-ists worship the KJV more than God.

It isn't about worshipping the KJV and it is extremely
disingenuous for you to say that. All that comment
shows me, is that you are unable to refute anything
that those who read the KJV have said to you and so,
you decided to lie, by attacking them this way. It
does nothing but make you look foolish. (:

Personally, I love the KJV. And I used to read it all
the time. Now I mostly use the NKJV. But the
difference for me, is about two things.

1) Which texts the Bible is translated from. Most
modern English Bibles, like the ones you named
above, are translated from the corrupt Alexandrian
Text and I when someone knows that, then they
shouldn't stick with those translations, since that
is to prefer their translation over the correct texts.

2) How literal the translation is. I look for a literal
equivalence, not a dynamic equivalence, which the
NIV, for example is. I don't want people telling me
what they think something means, when they translate
it and no matter how much they claim otherwise,
anything other than a literal equivalence, is simply
adding someone's doctrine into the translation,
since as I said, at that point, they are assuming that
what is proper, is to avoid telling you the exact
words and to rather tell you what they suppose
that it means. A paraphrase such as the NLT,
is the worse in this regard, since a paraphrase
has very little exact wording in it.

Which means that the KJV has problems as it came from the TR.

First of all, even if that were true, that doesn't negate
the fact that the Bible's she listed are based on a
seriously corrupt text. Surely you aren't stupid enough
to think that you somehow proved that those translations
are good, by attacking the KJV?

Secondly, your ignorance is not proof of anything except
your ignorance. The TR is part of what is called the
Majority Texts, which is what you want your Bible to
be translated from.

No it isn't. Just because a text is in the majority doesn't say squat
about the validity of the text. Five hundred copies of an error are just
that, copies of an error. The TR is acknowledged to be fraught with
errors, just as many of the early texts were full of errors. I want my
bible to come from the earliest and best text.

O.K. then pick up a copy of the Code of Hammurabi and some of the
Egyptian texts.

Earlier is better. That doesn't even hold true on the secular world.

The TR is no more "fraught with errors" than the Alexandrian or Gnostic
texts.

If you think that God just might be in charge, the TR or close sources
have proven the most common except in the RCC cult.