Is it true that the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, Good News Bible, are all perversions of the Bible ? - nasb what is wrongwith it
The King James version is probably more accurate than others, but I would not say that it is perversely different. Instead, they are translations, are easier to read.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Nasb What Is Wrongwith It Is It True That The NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, Good News Bible, Are All Perversions Of The Bible ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, the description of "perversions of the Bible is" certainly a subjective question. All Bibles are a little different texts in their original language and the "original Bible" () which is also a subjective description. Some people consider it as a kind of difference is a perversion, while others do not. one, remembers the most a "perversion" of the Bible is The Living Bible - but the intention behind it, not * that * perverting the Bible, I would say that it is a perversion.
Jim http://www.christianwebprogramming.com/b ...
No, they are perversions of the Bible, even though the NIV translation is not very good and the Living Bible is a paraphrase.
The Word of God never changes, but the language is human, creating a need for new translations of the Bible from time to time. VR is almost incomprehensible to many modern readers. The fault of the education system if you will, but it is a fact, Jack.
In my view, are the best modern translations in the NASB and the English Standard Version.
You are not really "perversions" that looks like its kind of ridiculous conspiracy.
But they are certainly not very precise. First New Testament books were written about 200 years after Jesus' death. So until then be made orally. "
It is a game called Chinese Whispers old playground in one round, moves into a simple declaration by a group of people and does not end at the end otherwise identified. This gives you a clear idea of what you can expect a "word of mouth story" that after 200 years.
Then they were translated from Hebrew into Greek. Even today, the translations often have to change to keep the words to the meaning of the original, because often there is no direct equivalent word in the "new language".
Then it was translated from Greek into Latin and then in English (sometimes, in the original Greek, but often in America). And this time we have a much clearer picture of what happened, and we know that this is not alwaysaccurate.
For example, translated the Greek word meaning "young" as "virgin" in a correct translation would be "good". "Girl" is a much more ambiguous word can mean a virgin, but often simply means "young".
We also know that some parts have been omitted or changed, because they do not fit with the theology of the time. There were also times when Bibles were copied.
At that time, all documents were copied by hand, especially by the monks. And a little bit like Chinese whispers that have changed somewhat, as it continues. And of course, changes have been on the changes.
Stopped with the advent of printing was, but there were plenty of slightly different versions of the Bible in circulation then. Said Jacques 1st King of England has decided to produce a final version.
But his version was produced in the framework to ensure that the Bible is used in England provided the structure and theology of the Church of England at that time. Most modern versions of King J derivedAmes version.
So - decide for themselves how the historical truth, they are all.
Well, yes!
The Bible is really true that a group of boys together in England.
English is the true way of salvation in Jesus.
Some are harmful than others, with the NIV is the worst of them, and probably most commonly used.
Try to find in the NIV Matthew 17:21 and see what I mean.
Living Bible and Good News are paraphrases, not translations. Other translations of the good times tested.
I wonder why you want to order a Bible, which may be reluctant Protestant forever?
There is a site called Bible verses. com, which will answer your questions about translations of the Bible.
In a sense, * all * the translation is a perversion.
Perversions compared to what? What others have said that it was a sacred text?
Everything indicates that they are merely different versions of the same fiction.
Post a Comment