ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Good Version Of The Bible

Why so many versions of the Holy Bible ? I know many were written to make the reader understand it more clear from kings James to something like New International, as others, but I think some versions take out the whole point or meaning from God's meassage. What would be a good one to stick too?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---vilmavivi_ on 6/19/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (15)

Post a New Blog



Interesting to read opinions, but not facts.
I have used every translation under the sun, and I also use the Greek. The KJV is not that hard, when it says "thou" it means you. "Thee" was taken out of the English language under Dr Johnson, but just means you.
Gen 1:3 (I think) says "and the Spirit of God moved the face of the waters". NRSV "and a wind from God", denies the Trinity and sounds like a bad case of flatuluance.
---mike8384 on 11/5/07


\1\ nick: Though appearing to mean well, you've got some SERIOUS History ERRORS in what you said. I'm assuming you thought it's OK to post (without getting your facts straight), but it doesn't really glorify God when we do so. Errors:
1) You've mixed up Tyndale with Erasmus! Tyndale was the one who said he'd make a translation in English so even a farm boy could understand as much Scripture as officials of the Church!
2) Erasmus collated a handful of GREEK MSS. [cont.]
---danie9374 on 2/21/07


\2\ He then had various editions of it printed along with his own correction to the LATIN Vulgate translation. He NEVER made an English translation from the Greek. Tyndale did that, as did Luther into German from one of Erasmus' editions.
3) The 'Textus Receptus' is a GREEK TEXT (not English)!
4) The KJV translators, simply followed Tyndale's translation (which had been based on Erasmus' text) in much of the NT; only consulting the TR themselves in some places.
---danie9374 on 2/21/07


\3\ Anyway, nick, please be more careful about what you write next time, I just noticed a 'typo slip in my own post' I need to correct, but these were quite a lot of 'errors of fact' for one posting; which could lead to much confusion.
---danie9374 on 2/21/07


Just noticed an obvious 'typo error' in my post to Greg below: In '[2]', I meant SECOND (2) Samuel 21:19, not First (1) Samuel; sorry!
---danie9374 on 2/21/07




[1] Greg: FIRST, there's a huge diff. between Textual Criticism (TC); which many true Believers are involved in, and so-called 'higher criticism' which often assumes God had nothing to do with Scripture! Also: the man's name was Wescot (not what you wrote). And both he and Hort were New Testament TCs! Neither did any serious TC work with Hebrew passages! I also want to know which version & edition of Scripture you use? Why? BECAUSE, both my KJV and Geneva [cont.]
---danie9374 on 2/21/07


[2] Bibles have the same thing you are complaining about in new versions! Which Bible does NOT have the name "Elhanan" here? OK, maybe your problem is WHO was killed instead? Yes, in the MT it simply says "Goliath the Gittite" in 1 Sam. 21:19, but the parallel passage (1 Chronicles 20:5) says "Elhanan the son of Jair" killed the brother of Goliath! Just because we have a few problems here and there with man-made COPIES, doesn't mean the original wasn't perfect!
---danie9374 on 2/21/07


they dont even make a bible with all of the books. the best one to stick to would be the original greek/hebrew texts, language is a metaphor for experience. different languages are just metaphors for other languages.. each new language is evolved with complexity. 1 word in the language of old could mean 18 words in english.
---christopher on 2/20/07


Man, Jesus, Obeying you, Talking to you, Listening to you, The payment is Great coming from YOU. A little Tribute, from Me to JESUS!
---catherine on 2/19/07


Who Killed Goliath? Just ask any 3-4 year old Sunday School child and he will probably give you the correct answer, David the shepherd boy who later became King David. Yet these higher critical experts have let to figure it out. Check out 2 Sam 21:19 in the new bibles they don't know cuz they follow a corrupt text of Westcoot and Hort.
---Greg on 2/19/07




during the period of the reformation there was a man named erasmus. he was a scholar who took all of the current manustripts of his day and put together a translation for "everyone from the man plowing in the field" to anyone else. what he came out with was referred to by the people as the "recieved text"(in english) or the "textus receptus". if you are a kjv only baptist you may have heard of this translation because it is the one from which the kjv was derrived.
---nick on 2/16/07


Erasmus faced some competitors for his translation of the scriptures, and he actually rushed to get his copy out first. that is a good thing becuase he wanted every layman to have a copy of the bible in their hands but...it made for a not-so-accurate translation. it is common knowledge that the kjv is not the most accurate translations and also that it is the hardest to read (whether you have the spirit of god living in you or not). If you read the kjv only you are missing out.
---nick on 2/16/07


there is nothing wrong with reading the kjv and deffinately not with the niv, nasb, nlt. those are just the ones i have read. there are others. so unless you understand the origional languages in their fullest meaning then you should probably check out more than just one translation. pick up a copy of the amplified bible if you want to really bring out the meaning and understand a passage.
---nick on 2/16/07


Lee, The Douay Rheims use the latin vulgate rather than the Hebrew scriptures for their translating, so I do not recommend the Douay Rheims. I use the most accurate source documents for translating: the Aleppo Codex, the Constantinopolitan MSS, and the Syriac version. The best English version on the market is the 1560 Geneva Bible dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I. It was this "Thanksgiving Bible" which the pilgrims brought to America upon the Mayflower.
---Eloy on 1/27/07


Eloy - *I would not recommend any English translation written after the 1611 King James Version.*

Perhaps then you would like the Douay Version - the English translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible produced by Roman Catholic scholars in exile from England at the English College in Douai, Holland.

The New Testament translation was published in 1582 at Rheims; the Old Testament was translated shortly afterward but was not published until 1609-10, in Douai.
---lee on 1/27/07


I strongly recommend comparing versions. Even the Jehovah's witnesses version!. A fair judgment on a version can't be done without reading the whole or a good part of that version. After doing some of that, I like the KJV in english and the Reyna Valera in Spanish. (I strongly recommend reading from cover to cover either one). I Really dislike the ASV, NIV. The NKJV is alright to me, but I Rather ten times use the KJV. The Spirit of God which dwells in us should teach us all things.
---George on 1/27/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


The 1560 Geneva Bible is best, and I would not recommend any English translation written after the 1611 King James Version.
---Eloy on 1/26/07


Now what exactly do you mean by more corrupt manuscripts of the text are now being used?

The newer manuscrpts that have surfaced since the writting of the KJV are older that those used by the KJV and therefore morelikley to have less copying errors. This does not mean I reject Mark 16:9 and following but until we find the orginals or autographs as they were called I wouldn't start writting of manuscripts just becasue you don't like how liberal modern scholarship has become.
---Hannum on 1/26/07


danie9374, I did not imply that the Majority Text was used for the KJV (at least not as the modern term "majority" text implies). The so-called "Majority" text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all. Just another farce. The KJV did however utilize all available texts and refused to use the corrupt manuscripts that the modern versions embrace.
---tofurabby on 12/27/06


danie9374

Great reply!!

Please check your christainet email
---John_T on 12/26/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


[1] Tofu said regarding Greek MSS: "the 95% used to translate the KJV." and then: "Too bad the other modern versions used them [5%] as a priority over the other 95% of available (error free) texts." These statements are WRONG in a number of ways: 1) The KJV translators didn't have access to ANYWHERE NEAR the quantitiy of MSS available today! I think it's being quite gracious to say they could have looked at [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/26/06


Don't know why, but the FIRST "[1]" of my '[5]-part posting' didn't show up on Christmas; hopefully it will now. Parts 2 and 3 prob. made no sense at all to you without this first part! ;-)
---danie9374 on 12/26/06


lee: Though I certainly question Tofu's justification for such a comment (which you quoted from him), the second half of that same 12/24/06 posting doesn't make much sense as written; so wasn't very helpful (at least, in my opinion). We should at least ATTEMPT to show WHY something is so, rather than just say something has been 'proven'; with no evidence. Yeah, I know, it takes more work and postings to do so!
---danie9374 on 12/25/06


Danny. Thanks for your answer.
Someone said the KJV was perfect so I quoted the "love of money is the root of all evil" to prove that it does need correction if we are to take it at face value without going to the Greek. I stand firm that no translation is perfect.I see far too many mistranslated words to totally rely on any translation.
---john on 12/25/06


Send a Free Entertainment Tract


[2] _20_ mss. (out of OVER 5,000 we have access to today)! 2) Of the small number they could have used, even those mss. differ between themselves in many passages! So, The Greek Text the KJV translators used was never 'error free' as Tofurabby has said. Furthermore, 3) The KJV was NOT based on what we call the "Majority Text" (or MT) as Tofu implies! The MAJORITY of Greek manuscripts (MT) excludes Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and most definitely [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/25/06


[3] 1Jn. 5:7 from being part of the original text! It also supports numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" [all recent versions] instead of "book of life" [KJV] at Rev. 22:19). 4) I don't mind those who wish to argue for use of the MT, that's fine; what bothers me are those who claim the KJV is the same as the MT. It's definitley NOT. The KJV was actually based on the Textus Receptus; and even it's various editions DIFFER from each other in many passages! [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/25/06


[4] The worst idea to come from all this translation controversy is a blind belief that the KJV (and by extension, the TR edition it was mostly based upon in the NT) is 100% perfect in all its words! BTW, I don't know if Tofurabby considers himself a KJV-only disciple or not, but MANY of those who are, often love to quote parts of Dean J.W. Burgon's book The Revision Revised. HOWEVER, he was definitely not like these KJV-onlyites we have today. He was a scholar who also said [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/25/06


[5] in that same book: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out... that the Textus Receptus needs correction." I doubt you'll ever find that quoted by someone pushing KJV-ONLY usage.
---danie9374 on 12/25/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


tofurabby - *The other 5 percent (of the Greek manuscripts) was intentionally corrupted and is garbage compared to the KJV.*

But how do you know that?

Linguistics scholars use even secular manuscripts - commericial documents, personal letters, etc. to determine the meaning of the Greek words used in the manuscript documents.

And what has been proven is that there are errors in the Greek manuscripts the King James translators used.
---lee1538 on 12/24/06


lee1538, Thanks for the info, God Bless!
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


Mrs._Morgan - if you were to dig deep into the history of the Jerome's Vulgate you would find that there were several different versions and they differed sufficiently with each other.

If you really want to have a 'perfect' Bible, suggest that you acquire a copy of the Greek, either the Nestle-Alan or the United Bible Society compilation as what they have is regarded as extremely close to what the originals possessed.
---lee1538 on 12/22/06


Lee asked: "Would you say that the Greek source is more accurate than the King James?"

I would agree that 95% of it is. At least the 95% used to translate the KJV. The other 5 percent was intentionally corrupted and is garbage compared to the KJV. Too bad the other modern versions used them as a priority over the other 95% of available (error free) texts.
---tofurabby on 12/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


The NIV leaves many users confused and uncertain. To depend upon this translation is basically being unfair to yourself and it does not give you a clear understanding of information it contains.
---Mima on 12/22/06


\1\ john: Your comment on 1 Timothy 6:10 is an OVERSIMPLIFICATION of how to interpret that passage. Since Paul used the Greek term 'philaguria' (trans. 'love of money'; literally: 'love of silver'), it indicates a TIME when people could use silver (or gold, etc.) 'buy things' instead of bartering or obtaining them directly! And "love of money" might also include an extended meaning of 'love of power here well. As I've said before, people should check the notes in the [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/22/06


\2\ free online 'NET Bible' when concerned about differences in translations. They may not agree with their decision, but it often helps a great deal in understanding the problems. Their notes for 1Tm.6:10, say it could be taken as 'a root of' (as many modern versions do), but say the phrase 'of all evils' clearly makes it definite, so they translated it similar to KJV; they used PLURAL 'evils' instead. It goes on to say: "This seems to be not entirely true to life... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/22/06


\3\ (some evils are unrelated to love of money), but it should be read as a case of hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point more strongly)." Again, you might not agree, but this shows there's much more to take into consideration! Those translations which have 'a root of' instead, must also ADD to the sentence 'kinds' or 'sorts' before 'evils', so I believe that was NET Bible's main reason for sticking with the Greek Text as written.
---danie9374 on 12/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


*For Clarification: When I said "...and (Psalms 8:5),Which says man is a little lower that the angels, NOT God, like many corrupted translation erroneously say." ---I meant that (Psalms 8:5)True meaning is that man is a little lower than the angels. Just wanted to make that clear. God Bless!
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


(I.)Jarad, "The NIV and the KJV and most translations portray the same message." --Jared, I have to disagree. Many of the more recent Translations have corrupted the TRUE meaning of many Scriptures, Scriptures like (1 Peter 1:18,19),Which deals with the important quality of the Blood of Christ, in which some newer versions do away with, and (Psalm 8:5),Which says man is a little lower that the angels, NOT God, like many corrupted translation erroneously say.
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


(II.)Jared, I stick with the more archaic versions like KJV, Vulgate, and Darby, for example, or else risk missing the FULL message that the Lord is conveying in the Holy Scriptures. God Bless!
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


"There is no 100% correct translation because there is no 100% correct human." ---Are you saying you believe there are mistakes in the Bible? A certain popular minister said that same thing, I strongly disagree with that, Once again older versions like Vulgate,KJV, Darby, are perfect.
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


mata, I agree. God Bless!
---Mrs._Morgan on 12/22/06


Speaking of translation errors.
"The love of money is the root of all evil"
Tell that to Adam and Eve. Did they do evil because of money? So how can money be the root? Translators error. There is no 100% correct translation because there is no 100% correct human.
---john on 12/21/06


mata: In your SHORT list of 'so-called' errors in NIV, two depend upon which Greek Text is used; and ALL English versions I checked (not just NIV) done in the last 100 years or so, do not have a 2nd 'broken' in 1 Cor.11:24 AND use 'light' instead of Spirit at Eph.5:9 (refers to 'light' used twice in preceding v.8). BUT, for Mt.27:4, ALL Greek MSS have NO ARTICLE before 'blood'; so KJV should have left it out to be literal. The CONTEXT shows it MUST be speaking of Christ anyway; whom Judas betrayed!
---danie9374 on 12/21/06


the newer debate on this blog are pointing out one very important thing. maybe the KJV isn't as much of a Formal Equeviance as we once thought maybe? The NIV and the KJV and most translations protray the same message. But our understanding of Greek has improved over the course of nearly 400 years this may mean that maybe what we though 400 years ago might be wrong. This doesn't mean Scripture is wrong or the Message has changed, Jesus is still Lord in KJV, NIV and in most translations.
---Jared on 12/20/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


mata - by no means rely on what I state. You can do your own research and verify what I have stated.

The SDA really has a problem in defending their extra-biblical and non-biblical doctrines. For instance, they need the KJV with its bad Hebrew translation of Daniel 8:14 to support their Investigative judgment - a view that essentially denies the finished work of the Christ on the Cross.
---lee1538 on 12/20/06


New Age/False Teachings. Did you judge the bible this quick. It seems like an awfull harsh judgement, considering where it has supposed to come from. When I came across it I didn't care who wrote it, if it told the truth then I wanted to hear it. What you call the "new" age is the time you are living in, you cannot change that. What you call the "old" age is gone, do you think you can live in a time other than NOW?
---peter8365 on 12/20/06


Lee, I have read your blogs on this issue and we dont even know if your true. easy to say this and that yet no proof. I have used KJV for many years and have found it to be truth n easier 2 follow. I know u r anti SDA teachings, who are you to say what is truth? They SDAs seem 2 give out very humble biblical answers, where u r arrogant and so insulting of others teachings. sure wont follow u absolute.
---mata on 12/20/06


mata - *NIV is full of errors*

Is not it simply a matter of what you regard as the standard?

For what reason do you base your belief that the King James is that standard, in view of the fact that even the translators themselves regarded their work simply not as the ultimate possible?

Would you say that the Greek source is more accurate than the King James?

Think about it! all that you are offering is an opinion not based upon facts or anything tangible.
---lee1538 on 12/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


KJV I use and stick by it..NIV is full of errors: note: 1Cor11:24NIV This is my body which is for you. KJVThis is my body which is broken for you.Mat27:4NIVinnocent blood:KJVthe innocent blood.(Jesus is the only one with innocent blood)Eph5:9NIVfruit of light KJVfruit of spirit. some say KJV hard to understand. compare with n/t KJV more easier and makes sense in its wording.
---mata on 12/19/06


Course of Miracles was channeled by Helen Schucman. She called it the "Voice". With automatic handwriting, she dictated the Voice of Jesus. Helen was an atheistic psychologist from Columbia U. Course of Miracles teaches a New Age/false Christology and false religious psychology.

Any biblical references she may have used are a counterfeit. It is occultic.
---Cindy on 12/19/06


*Did you know it was Christ that delivered A Course In Miracles?*

Peter, did you know that at the end of her life the writer of ACM, Helen Schucman, disavowed its teachings? After realizing its error she wanted to formally enter the church but her atheist husband prevented her from doing so. She died a miserable soul. A priest who was with her as she lay dying said she spewed psychotic hatred not only for ACM but for all things spiritual.

con't
---augusta on 12/19/06


2. He said that she cursed, in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, "that book, that g-d book", adding it was the worst thing that ever happened to her. He said she was in such a deep black hole of rage that it was truly terrifying to witness and made the hair on his neck stand up.

I got rid of that book, Peter, and I hope you will too.

blessings,

augusta
---augusta on 12/19/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Did you know it was Christ that delivered A Course In Miracles? He couldn't say a whole lot back in the day without being accused of blasphemy. Isn't that why he was killed?
---peter8365 on 12/19/06


Cindy- you have discerned wisely! Also stay away from the message bible. It's filled with new age. Mess-age bible is what I call it.
---craige on 12/18/06


It's not my decision, but I don't think that YOU should be so quick to judge it. Did you hear the saying "don't judge a book by it's cover". The Bible was written by many different people (many different perspectives) of what Jesus was trying to say. That is why it contradicts itslf. Peace be with you.
---Peter8365 on 12/17/06


No, Mark, it has no biblical basis whatsover, it's New Age, all the way. I believe it was 'channeled'.
---Cindy on 12/15/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


LOL...so, I'm online doing a Google search on the whole harlot/innkeeper issue with Rahab that I mentioned on another blog and I stumble upon this blog. I had no idea it had been discussed so recently here.
---AlwaysOn on 12/15/06


Cindy, i've never read it but what if that book is actually not a false book and it does have biblical principle but some are too stuck in tradition to even conceive something like that could be true or have biblical principle
---mark on 12/15/06


That's how the ideas of Christ was in the pharsee's eyes(sorry for the spelling), they were so caught up in what they thought jesus would be and in their traditional views and acts, that they totally missed it
even the disciples during Christ's human lifetime couldnt believe the things that were saying, hence why peter said that Jesus would never die mathew 16:21-22
---mark on 12/15/06


A Course in Miracles is New Age/false teaching. It has no biblical foundation or truth.
---Cindy on 12/15/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


A COURSE IN MIRACLES (look it up). PEACE.
---Peter8365 on 12/15/06


Tofu, Jared, others: Sorry, but I've simply had to work on a reply to MM about Christ's blood being human.
Regarding SALVATION, let me say this just for now:
1 Corinthians 1:18 describes just ONE ASPECT of one part of our salvation in Christ. Even the AV(KJV) says in Romans 13:11b "For now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." So 'salvation' does not always refer to our immediate 'position in Christ' at conversion. Think about that for now.
---danie9374 on 12/15/06


I have read that innkeeper and harlot were synonomous in other sources than Joshephous. but I agree they might be trying to wax the image of Rahab. I think most people know and believe she was a prostitute and not just an innkeeper. But I think you are pretty shallow in your bibliography if you believe that Joshephous is the only source for that idea.
---Jared on 12/14/06


Jared, apparently you missed the fact I quoted from a source with just as scholarly a group of writers as those translating the NIV who said 'innkeeper' is based ONLY on a simple 'conjecture'; not any real Hebrew, Biblical, archaeological or realated historical evidence, except for Josephus who wrote later than 70 A.D. and others after him! I can't help but wonder from your recent replies: Do you believe God was speaking in Heb.11:31 and Jam.2:25 where Rahab is called a 'prostitute', or not?
---danie9374 on 12/13/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Jared, anyone else: I really wanted to get back to the issue of SALVATION and how various passages concerning it are translated in different versions. I hope to get back into the study of that before getting side-tracked by any other issues.
---danie9374 on 12/13/06


** Why so many versions of the Holy Bible ? I know many were written to make the**

The same question was wailed way back at the time of St. Augustine in the 400's. He replied something to the effect that each translation commented upon the others.
---Jack on 12/13/06


So what is the difference between harlot and prostitute? From my understanding it is the same. and as for innkeeper they aren't pulling it totally out of thin air. many people that have studied ancient cultures have thought that harlot and innkeeper could mean simmilar things.
---Jared on 12/12/06


She did run a business we don't know totally what type of business that was, and in many ancient cultures women that pursued any business were considered to be on the fringes of social norms, today women that push the social norms get called names such as these too, even if they aren't sexually active.
---Jared on 12/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


I just think maybe we need to give those that study these things a little more respect because not everyone can spend their life pondering over which word to use where. And "dynamic" translations are good for knowledge, "formal" are good for study. But to build understanding we need alittle of both.
---Jared on 12/12/06


[13] in their own writings! They weren't 'experts' in either the language or history of Scripture. Josephus wrote his works in Greek for Gentiles! Yet those Jews who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek (the Septuagint); about 250 years earlier, used the word 'pornE' (prostitute) in all four places! They had more integrity, in my opinion, than Josephus. But beyond that, for someone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, this can't even be a possibility; their [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/12/06


[14] 'study note' in effect, acknowledges that by adding: "but see Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25." Both Hebrews and James as inspired Scripture agree with the Septuagint here. They didn't get this by direct revelation (as in some kind of 'additional information'); they wrote it because: 1)That's what they read and understood about Rahab in their own Bibles (either Hebrew or Greek) and 2)More importantly, the Spirit allowed them to write it ['pornE'; prostitute] as Scripture!
---danie9374 on 12/12/06


greetings,For mike.You stated you have used every translation under the sun.Do you have an opinion on a traditional work called the Rotherham Emphasized Bible by Joseph Bryant Rotherham?
---earl on 12/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


[10] Jared: First, I'm not saying NIV is some terribly 'bad' translation; my own mother prefers using it for general reading. What I do say is this: I don't believe any Bible you 'study' from should be 'dynamic' (as they call it) translation. On the 'note': Although it's not in the NIV Text itself, I was still surprised to find it suggested as an alternate meaning! I've done some more research on this, and now see it's not based on any textual errors (so forget that idea in my previous posts). [Cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/12/06


[11] However, their note never says Rahab could be both; as you surmised, only one or the other. The NIV Text notes at Joshua 2:1 and 6:17(for vv.22,25 also) read: "Or possibly innkeeper". That's INSTEAD OF; not 'also'. What I didn't mention before, is the end of the 'study note' at Jos. 2:1 which (as many; seems influenced by 'liberal thinking') states: "Josephus and other early sources refer to Rahab as an 'innkeeper' (see NIV text note)," [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/12/06


[12] but for someone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, this cannot be a possibility!; even they, in effect, acknowledge that by adding: "but see Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25." As to their conjecture, the Theological Wordbook of the OT states: "for this little evidence exists". Why? Because their 'evidence' is late (when compared to Scripture) references by Josephus (and those like him) who clearly had reason to 'soften' what's said of Rahab [cont.]
---danie9374 on 12/12/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.