Politically Correct Bible - New Version

[Doc Tinker]

What do you think of the latest revision of the New International Version Bible. It's written to be gender non-specific.



You can read a news story about it here:



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bible020531.html



Doc

 

[Wirenut]

I'm upset about this. I'll be darned if you'll ever catch me reading that version. I look at it as trying to change history and change what the book actually says. I don't even like the ones that are made easier to understand by being reworded. I'll keep my King James version.

 

[Pit Bull]

You ever play that game where someone whispers a story to the person next to them and then that person retells what they heard to the person next to them. By the time the story is retold by the last person to the originator of the story it does not even resemble what was originally told. I say why not change it again? Since no one who is alive today knows what really happened compared to what has been transcribed over and over.

 

[jthorpe]

I prefer the New King James version. I was given the NIV and I used it for about two weeks before I put it on the shelf. I would have thrown it away, but it WAS a gift and it has my name on it.



Jack

 

[Barry]

I still preach from the King James so as to not offend those folk that have a death grip on that version. When I study however, I use the Amplified Bible. It is translation correct and very easy to read. It takes the pivotal word of the text and amplifies that word so there is no doubt in your mind what the text is saying. Read one sometime... ... ... ... ... you'll like it!!!

 

[pwknapp]

It was amazing when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and translated that they were exactly the same as the current translations.

 

[RustyJC]

Barry,



The Amplified is indeed an excellent study Bible. Although I have the NIV and (I apologize) the Living Bible among other translations on my bookshelf, I quit using them and pretty well standardized on the KJV and Amplified.



Rusty

 

[nickleinonen]

that is a crock of poop.



the one i have floating around is the niv study version. i like the king james ver but it is way too hard for me to read. it is hard enough for me to read the niv. . dyslexia is a real pain in the ass...

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by nickleinonen

that is a crock of poop.

I believe the Biblically-correct term is "dung".



Hey, whatever works for you. If you get more out of the NIV, that's great! I'm not one of those fanatics who believe you'll burn in hell if your eyes ever fall on anything other than the 1611 KJV! Within reason (i. e. , New World translation, etc. ), reading any translation is much better than not reading the Bible at all!



Rusty

 

[DonBaggett]

I preach from and study the NKJV. I have a copy of a number of translations, and, as has been said, I am for people reading the Bible, especially any translation that doesn't intentionally change the text. We have manuscripts in original languages that go way on back, so there is a way to know if a translation is accurate. As to the "gender neutral" translation, I have a problem with that, because the Bible is just not gender neutral. I wish our culture would change to fit the Bible, instead of the other way around. And, I love my truck!

 

[Barry]

Don, I like your style!

 

[jthorpe]

Originally posted by Barry

Don, I like your style!

I'll second that.

 

[DLeach]

Food for thought

I have a fundamental problem with reading a "version" instead of a "translation". Are we supposed to believe over the time the bible was written people where talking like 16 century englishmen? I dont talk in thees and thous and i dont think it was ment to be that way either. I also dont like the idea of ommiting the Lords name name except for about 3 times in the KJV. Call me Crazy but ill stick to "translations" instead of "versions" any day. Aloha!!