For my uses, it's NKJV:
For people not familiar with the Bible it's easier to understand than the KJV
For people familiar with the KJV, it's easier to follow along than the NASB.
However, I do find that the NASB is good to go to for clarifying the meaning of a particular word or passage, and the flow of the language is definitely more "eloquent" in the 1611 Authorized version.
- from the topic: Bible Versions
I think Gary hit the nail on the head as far as immodesty being equivalent to any other sin.
While there are certain things which are appropriate at home that would not be appropriate in public in terms of good manners (i.e. you probably would not yell across the room to someone at the church building like you would at home), there is no distinction as far as sin goes.
Amy asked me to post this, so I will.
My concern is with 1 Thess 5:22. If you're a King James Version reader, you know it as:
"Abstain from all appearance of evil."
I often hear people say that this passage is teaching that we shouldn't do anything that even "looks" sinful. While this is true (I'll post on that later), that is not what this verse is talking about.
Consider the following translations:
NASB
22abstain from every [a]form of evil.
Footnotes: Or appearance
NKJV
22 Abstain from every form of evil.
And the context (NKJV)
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
The verse is speaking in the context of either partaking in right or wrong ("hold fast what is good"). The word "appearance" in the KJV isn't a mistranslation, but it does, I think, cloud the meaning. It is the word "appearance" in the same meaning as "President Bush made an appearance at A&M this week", not how we "appear" to others around us.
More to come later!
Gary,
What version of the bible are you using? I've got several different ones that are perfect for reading at work if you'd like to "try" some out.
The one I'm using right now as a "reading" bible is the ESV personal size reference. It's about the size of a paperback book (thick and thin), has a sturdy binding, and is in a single-column, paragraph style that's pretty easy to read through.
check out the following
http://jmarkbertrand.typepad.com/bibledesign/2008/03/personal-refere.html
you'll have to copy and paste, i'm not a hyperlinker (perhaps the wife'll teach me).
If you're a fan of other versions, i've got some of those as well.
RKS
That's fantastic! I know that there are a lot of people that have been hoping for this for a long time. Just a few days ago my grandmother was mentioning that she wondered when/if Mary would ever obey the gospel.
Just to add one more thing:
Baptism for the dead (aka baptism by Proxy) does seek to "solve" one of the biggest hurdles that many have in obeying the Gospel: "what about my grandad/mother/father/etc. that is already dead and wasn't a Christian. I believe, that in an attempt to assuage this fear, some religions (i.e. Mormon) attempt to use this verse to show approved example of "baptism for the dead"
During our class last night at Parkview, we came to the question of what is the "baptism for the dead" in 1 Cor. 15:29.
I stayed up last night reading in different versions, trying to figure this one out. Below is the reading followed by an explanation from a website garnered by Google...I like this explanation.
ESV:
29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
KJV:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
NKJV:
"Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?"
NASB
"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
FROM: http://www.carm.org/questions/baptismfordead.htm
"Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?"
(See also: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pr/pr04.htm)
To me this seems like a reasonable explanation, given that just about every other religion in human history has some belief in an afterlife, but apparently the Corinthian brethren were unsure of a resurrection.
I'm open to anyone's explanation of this pretty difficult passage.
How about I go ahead and kick this thread back up...
any thoughts on the ESV? I bought one a few weeks ago, and it seems to be quite readable.
I'm looking for a translation that's readable for those unfamiliar with the Bible but not based on "dynamic equivalence"...and this one seems to fit
Thoughts?
I'm not sure who you are kbraddock (probably just my bad memory), but I do appreciate your posts.
I liked the article...I must say that this, to me, was the crux of the "elderless" congregation argument
"In Titus 1:5-6a the apostle Paul issues the following charge to Titus: "For this reason I left you in Crete, in order that you might set in order that which is lacking, and that you might appoint elders, as I directed you, in each city IF anyone is..." Paul then lists the qualities Titus must perceive in those who would serve the Lord and His people in this position within the church. Thus, shepherds are to be appointed in each city IF there are those who can be identified as possessing the qualities enumerated by the inspired apostle. The implication is unmistakable -- those who do not possess these qualities are not to be appointed, and if none possess these qualities, then none are to be appointed. That extremely large little word IF makes this whole statement a conditional one. Before the desired result can be attained, conditions must be met. If those conditions can not be met, then the desired goal must be deferred until such time as the conditions can be met. "
After much consideration, I'm going to say that I'm with Gary. I think that the Men's only group is an expedient method of doing business, however, I also wouldn't say that it's the ONLY legitemate way to do it.
Indeed, this is quite a can of worms.
As far as my personal barriers, my biggest one is dissapointment in the "soil" if you will.
We live in a society that is awful hard to preach to...perhaps even more difficult than a society which is "hostile" towards evangelism.
99% of people I talk to are simply indifferent, nobody sees a need for truth, only "faith" in some amorphous diety. We've had the whole "church of your choice" thing crammed down our collective throats for so long that people believe it.
From the parable of the sower, I think the vast majority of people we meet every day are like the compact soil by the wayside that the seed doesn't even breach the surface.
And it doesn't help that probably 75% of everybody is living in an unscriptural marriage..."you want me to give up my marriage?"
Depressing, but still there is that 1% out there that should keep us trying.
RKS
Hmm...I may have an answer:
"Oh, where do you go?"
"Can you tell me more about it, what do you believe in, I'm interested in learning about different groups and their beliefs"
I think that this not only answers the question of "what to say" but also gives us a much better understanding of what people believe (rather than the "official" positions of certian denominations).
I think also, as the discussion progresses, you can find out what things they may question about their own "church"
I don't have any one favorite...but I do come across them regularly and think "I should print that out and post it somewhere"
While I'll try not to be long winded, I'll let someone else do it for me:
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Let_This_Cup_Pass.htm
I hope I'm putting this in the right section:
I do think it's kind of neat for those with children that are kind of hard on Bibles (not to say they don't need to learn to respect a Bible...but accidents happen), or folks that would like to keep one in their car/jobsite/hunting bag/camping equipment. Even when it's not raining, our humidity here is hard on Bibles out of doors.
(copy and paste into browser until Amy teaches me how to link)
http://www.theoutdoorbible.com/p-13-the-outdoor-bible-nas-updated-nt-with-free-burlap-bag.aspx
For my uses, it's NKJV:
For people not familiar with the Bible it's easier to understand than the KJV
For people familiar with the KJV, it's easier to follow along than the NASB.
However, I do find that the NASB is good to go to for clarifying the meaning of a particular word or passage, and the flow of the language is definitely more "eloquent" in the 1611 Authorized version.
