Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!spw2562
From: spw2562@ritcv.UUCP (Steve Wall @ RIT)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible Translations
Message-ID: <20@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 18:15:30 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.20
Posted: Thu Apr 18 18:15:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 06:21:48 EST
References: <875@uwmacc.UUCP> <4680@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 23

> Given the blatant mistranslations of the Living Bible, I see no reason why
> anyone should read it.  Isaiah in particular is full of errors which can
> only have been deliberate.
> 
> I'd recommend the Today's English (Good News) Version; the language is much
> simpler than that of any other true translation, and it doesn't have any
> theological axes to grind.  THe _Good News for Modern Man_ NT edition also
> has nice little line drawings illustrating the text.
> 
> Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

It has been my understanding that the Living Bible was good as far as
a study guide/lesson book, but not a bible.  I'd like some references
to some of the blatant mistranslations, if anyone has any.  Also, I've
been told that the Good News bible was inaccurate in many instances.
Anyone care to substantiate/refute that?

Personnally, I prefer the KJV, mostly because that's what I was brought
up using, but I also own an ASV.  There are a lot of good translations
out there, so nobody should be without one they like.

						Steve Wall
						ritcv!ritvp!spw2562