Originally posted by NemesioI'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.
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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by TheBloopThanks for your ground breaking contribution to our discussion. It is people like you who make my job harder.
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...
Originally posted by howardgeei also recommend the butter battle book by dr. seuss -- one for all the ages.
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".
Originally posted by WulebgrHey, I love the NIV and I work in the tech field. I do not think my
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.
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
Originally posted by TheBloopWe 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.
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...
1 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.
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 !!
5 edits
Originally posted by NeithanI 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.
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'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.