|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 7:49 pm
Mr. Bono Vox I read the Authorised King James Version, the words do something for me ordinary English doesn't. However during debates or back in the day of YF I used CEV or NIV as it was easyer for everyone else. xp CEV?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:47 pm
Adjective Mr. Bono Vox I read the Authorised King James Version, the words do something for me ordinary English doesn't. However during debates or back in the day of YF I used CEV or NIV as it was easyer for everyone else. xp CEV? contemporary english version
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:48 pm
I believe the Kind James version is the correct version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:55 am
NRSV. At bible studies, though, I like for people to bring different translations. This offers great opportunities for conversation and can provide deeper insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:54 am
for the old testament i like the Jerusalem (catholic) version best, it has excellent scholarship, and explanatory notes in the expanded version.
the NIV is politically biased toward the red states, and the NRSV is politically biased toward the blue states; if i want something objective in the NT i go to Nestle-Aland's Greek, and compare the other two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
