1. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    23 Jul '05 17:22
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    The KJV is great if you are interested in decorative phrases and
    poetry, but it is not useful for a careful study. First, the knowledge
    (or even known existence) of ancient sources did not exist in 1611, so
    many times, the translations are fundamentally flawed.

    But, more importantly, the words themselves connote different
    meanings today. The way ...[text shortened]... Greek (with transliteration
    and concordance).

    Nemesio

    Edit: the NAS is pretty good, too.
    I'm in general agreement with the principles Nemesio puts forth here, but I've long favored the RSV. It was translated by a team whose doctrinal differences and disagreements prevented any skewing to favor particular interpretations, and the English language employed is better than most.

    NIV was favored by most of my college friends because they were engineers, business majors, and literalists. The language employed meets well with the limited vocabulary and unimaginative minds of technicians, and the translation is skewed towards fundamentalist failures of perception.

    The Bible is a great work of literature. Many translations, including the KJV and RSV convey this achievement; the NIV, NKJV, and several others do not.
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    23 Jul '05 18:381 edit
    I would suggest the "Defenders Bible" it is for skeptics.
  3. Joined
    27 Mar '05
    Moves
    88
    23 Jul '05 23:43
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Thank you. That is exactly the sort of annotation I had in mind. If there were a printed publication like this, it would be perfect.

    Re: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/


    I'm surprised Skeptics need a reference like that...after all, I though all skeptics were able to think for themselves... guess not...





  4. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    23 Jul '05 23:50
    Originally posted by TheBloop

    Re: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/


    I'm surprised Skeptics need a reference like that...after all, I though all skeptics were able to think for themselves... guess not...





    Thanks for your ground breaking contribution to our discussion. It is people like you who make my job harder.
  5. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    24 Jul '05 04:22
    An important text which has more credibility than any bible and which is a far more entertaining read than any bible is a tome entitled "Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales".
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    24 Jul '05 07:16
    Originally posted by howardgee
    An important text which has more credibility than any bible and which is a far more entertaining read than any bible is a tome entitled "Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales".
    i also recommend the butter battle book by dr. seuss -- one for all the ages.
  7. Joined
    10 Jun '03
    Moves
    19229
    25 Jul '05 09:04
    If you really, really want a good translation? New American Standard is one of the best.
  8. Standard memberKellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157644
    25 Jul '05 17:17
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    I'm in general agreement with the principles Nemesio puts forth here, but I've long favored the RSV. It was translated by a team whose doctrinal differences and disagreements prevented any skewing to favor particular interpretations, and the English language employed is better than most.

    NIV was favored by most of my college friends because they were en ...[text shortened]... ns, including the KJV and RSV convey this achievement; the NIV, NKJV, and several others do not.
    Hey, I love the NIV and I work in the tech field. I do not think my
    mind is unimaginative. 🙂 I like NAS too, but when I'm studying I
    use my comparison Bible and read the passages that I'm interested
    in several translations.
    Kelly
  9. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    1258
    26 Jul '05 01:28
    http://www.scepticsannotatedbible.com/

    That's the most in depth bible study on the net I believe.
  10. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    26 Jul '05 07:06
    Originally posted by TheBloop

    Re: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/


    I'm surprised Skeptics need a reference like that...after all, I though all skeptics were able to think for themselves... guess not...





    We don't need it. Does anyone need an annotated Bible? I don't even need a Bible at all. That doesn't mean the SAB isn't useful.
  11. Joined
    18 Jul '05
    Moves
    0
    06 Aug '05 17:321 edit
    You all might find this interesting:

    http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

    Commentary on the SAB. To anyone who thinks it is one of the best studies of the Bible on the net (or even a genuinely decent one) needs to gently remove his head from his anus. It amazes me how far skeptics will go to preserve their skepticism and then criticise believers for having faith....


    Note: I don't claim that anything in the above commentary is any more scholarly than the SAB itself, I'm just demonstrating the exact same tactic in reverse. You can see for yourself how ridiculous it all is.
  12. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48426
    06 Aug '05 17:39
    Originally posted by Neithan
    You all might find this interesting:

    http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

    Commentary on the SAB. To anyone who thinks it is one of the best studies of the Bible on the net (or even a genuinely decent one) needs to gently remove his head from his anus. It amazes me how far skeptics will go to preserve their skepticism and then criticise believers for having faith....

    Recced !!
  13. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48426
    06 Aug '05 17:54
    Originally posted by TheBloop

    Re: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/


    I'm surprised Skeptics need a reference like that...after all, I though all skeptics were able to think for themselves... guess not...







    😀 😵 😀
  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Aug '05 20:195 edits
    Originally posted by Neithan
    You all might find this interesting:

    http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html

    Commentary on the SAB. To anyone who thinks it is one of the best studies of the Bible on the net (or even a genuinely decent one) needs to gently remove his h ...[text shortened]... tic in reverse. You can see for yourself how ridiculous it all is.
    I have reviewed this source's rebuttals to the SAB commentary on Genesis. I find them generally unsatisfactory and sometimes lacking to the point of embarrassment.

    I'll cite one example from http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sabgen.html

    SAB, on Genesis 1:3-5 -- God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19).

    Tektonics' rebuttal : D'oh, as if God needs light-producing objects to make light photons. He won't in Revelation 22:5. Oh, I forgot, SAB doesn't believe in God's creative power anyway. So why does he even bother?

    The Tektonics' response is simple-minded and based upon a typical sort of circular reasoning, suggesting that anybody must have, a priori, belief in the Bible to believe what it says. The rebuttal requires the assumption that God can do anything, such as creating photons from the firmament, while the SAB's argument is that Genesis is scientifically inconsistent in this regard. Since that assumption is the essence of the rebuttal, the rebuttal is only stronger than the SAB argument if you are willing to hold that God can in fact do anything; but SAB obviously doesn't accept this assumption a priori, and so since Tektonics is not operating under the same axioms that SAB uses in its argument, its rebuttal isn't really a rebuttal at all. It's merely a reiteration that Tektonics adheres to different axioms when analyzing the Bible than does the SAB.

    This sort of rebuttal is rather childish and unconvincing, being little more than engaging in name calling.

Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree