Which translation do you use and why?

[Borealis]

I don't see many revivals where the Douy went - South America, Philiipines, Spain, Italy, Mexico, etc. - still in darkness for the most part except for when a missionary showed up with a King James Bible.

I'll say it again...the Douay-Rheims is NOT and never was the official, authorized Bible of the Catholic Church; that is the Vulgate. And once again, there weren't very many English Catholics around to do missionary work, since the Anglicans and Calvinists tended to persecute them. Take a look at the missionary work that was done in Canada by French Jesuits, who didn't use an English bible of any kind.

How come so many millions got saved and were raised on that one book and they didn't complain but all you modern, educated folks have such a problem with it? This stuff about archaic and clumsy, etc. is nonsense, excuses and poor at that. God is not fooled.

The Beatles sold more records than Mozart; which one is the better musical talent? Truth is not a popularity contest.

I'm not saying the KJV is a bad Bible. I believe it is flawed in some ways, and I believe the Douay-Rheims is the best English translation because it's based on the Vulgate, which is the best translation in any Western language since it was done with texts that weren't available in 1600.

Look what those old saints did with a KJV in the past and look at what we are producing now with all these modern version? You are not going to tell me saints are more spiritual today than back then are you - have you never read history?

Some are, some aren't. But then, we're using different definitions of 'saint' anyway.

I'll never convince you folks - but maybe someone who is readin but not posting will see the shallowness of your reasoning.

Perhaps they will. But perhaps they'll realize that what I and others are saying is just as valid as what you're saying. In the end, truth comes to those who truly seek it.

The word of God is for the simple - I guess you folks are fancy so you don't need the book that God used.

This may come as a surprise to some hard-core KJV-onlyists (I'm not necessarily including you in that group), but Jesus Christ didn't speak English, nor did he write anything in it.

 

[JohnJones]

Correct me if I am wrong, Oblio my dear friend, but it is my understanding that the LXX only exists in two manuscripts,

The Orthodox Church has been using the LXX since she was born on Pentecost 33AD, I was not aware that we have lost the OT during that time.

If you are saying that you know of more manuscripts of the LXX than just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, I'd love to hear about them! Otherwise, I fear this is an unsubstantiated claim. If you are claiming that the GO has a sort of "Textus Receptus" of the LXX which differs from modern "critical" editions, I'd love to hear where I can find one! Where is the "traditional" LXX? I've got the traditional Latin Vulgate, as opposed to the New Vulgate or any other new translation masquerading as a "critical" edition--now I'd like to have the traditional LXX if such a thing exists.

 

[Oblio]

If you are claiming that the GO has a sort of Textus Receptus of the LXX which differs from modern 'critical' editions, I'd love to hear where I can find one!

I am not sure what you mean, the LXX is Greek (albeit a bit older that the Koine that the NT is written in).

 

[JohnJones]

I am not sure what you mean, the LXX is Greek (albeit a bit older that the Koine that the NT is written in).

What I mean is this:

A Received Text is a text based on manuscripts actually used by the church throughout history.

A 'Critical' text is a text that scholars have compiled using manuscripts that they essentially found in ancient trash dumps in the 1840s and since, which were never necessarily used by the church (until after the 1840s of course).

So, for the New Testament in Greek you can read either the Received Text (Scrivener) or the 'Critical' text (Nestle-Aland or UBS). The same goes for the Latin Vulgate; you have the Received Text (the Clementine Vulgate) and the 'Critical' text (Stuttgart Vulgate or Nova Vulgata). The same goes for the Hebrew OT; you have the Received Text (Jacob ben Chayyim) and 'Critical' text (Kittel).

Now, when I go to the local bookstore and I buy an LXX, I am buying a 'Critical' text--that's the only one I can find! My question to you is where can I find a Received Text of the LXX? I've got a Received Text of the NT in Greek, and of the Latin Vulgate (and I know where to get one of the OT in Hebrew), but where can I find one of the LXX?

 

[Philip]

I've got a Received Text of the NT in Greek, and of the Latin Vulgate (and I know where to get one of the OT in Hebrew), but where can I find one of the LXX?[/font]

Have you looked here? You may not be interested in the Orthodox study notes, but the text may be what you want.

 

[AVBunyan]

There seems to be some confusion on where the modern versions came from.

A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods – they’ve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest – some may find them worthless but that’s fine.

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,)

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt – (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didn’t even want his bones to stay in Egypt)

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala – had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origen’s column was the 5th (5 – the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).

6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, “I know just the place!” So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column.” (5 – the number of…you guessed it)

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Duoy Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didn’t want them circulated to the common people anyway.

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.

14. In 1881a conference was called to “update” the AV1611. Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

Well there it is – I’m sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and I’m sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it – all the new versions came from Egypt. God's line came from Asia Minor and this is whee the AV came from.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I'll say it again...the Douay-Rheims is NOT and never was the official, authorized Bible of the Catholic Church;

2. Take a look at the missionary work that was done in Canada by French Jesuits, who didn't use an English bible of any kind.

3. ...which is the best translation in any Western language since it was done with texts that weren't available in 1600.

4. This may come as a surprise to some hard-core KJV-onlyists (I'm not necessarily including you in that group), but Jesus Christ didn't speak English, nor did he write anything in it.

5.And once again, there weren't very many English Catholics around to do missionary work, since the Anglicans and Calvinists tended to persecute them.

1. I used the Douay as a representation - the Douay came from Egpyt where all the modern versions came from. Regardless of what the official Roman bible is all modern versions came from Egypt. Two lines of Bibles - one came from Antioch area (KJV line) andthe other came from Egypt (all modern versions).

2. Not saying some good has not come from them but nthing like what the English, Scottish, and American missionaries did from 1700 to 1930. As long as the "natives" became Catholics it appears they could retain their pagan ways and this was aceptable to the Catholic missionaries. China and Japan wanted to run out the Jesuit "missioanries" because they kept meddlin in "political" affairs. When the AV missionaries moved in lives changed - cannibals got saved and quit eating folks. this is a whole different subject aht will never be agreed upon here.

3. False - been refuted by tons of stuff = just search google for a start. The AV translators had eveything available to them including the Catholic texts and wouldnt touch them witha ten foot pole.

4. I thiink wee understand that and I've never heard of an AV man who thought that.

5. Now, Borealis -You shouldn't have brought this up Borealis. I'm going to be nice here and will not bring up Rome's history in this area for this is not the point of this post or thread. I'm sure there was some of what you are alluding to do but nothing like what Rome has done. Now, for the peace of this forum let us agree to leave this area alone or it will get real ugly here and the Mods will have to step in.

God bless you Borealis

 

[Theophorus]

There seems to be some confusion on where the modern versions came from.

A quick history lesson showing the Origen of all modern versions: Many people have been sold a bill off goods – they’ve been taught that the new versions are just updated King James Bibles with new information. All modern versions can be traced back to a lost philosopher named Origen in the 3rd century A.D. A few comments were added for interest – some may find them worthless but that’s fine.

1. Origen – 3rd century philosopher (Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,)

2. Origen was from Alexandria, Egypt – (a type of the world, God called His Son out of that country; Joseph didn’t even want his bones to stay in Egypt)

3. Origen ran a school of philosophers (Col. 2:8).

4. Origen’s beliefs – didn’t believe the first three chapters of Genesis were literal, questioned the deity of Christ, works salvation, allegorized most of Bible

5. Decided to get into the Bible translation business; came up with a 5-column hexaphala – had 4 of his philosophers (Col. 2:8) to help him. Each philosopher (Col. 2:8) took a column and put down what he thought the Old Testament said. Origen’s column was the 5th (5 – the number of death). The translations were written in Classical Greek (more complicated), not Koine Greek (the common spoken language which the Bibles of the real New Testament were written in).

6. This hexaphala sat around stinking up the place because nobody wanted it until Constantine was looking for some Old Testament Bibles for his new ecumenical denomination. He asked his bootlicker, Eusebius, where he could get some new Bibles. Esebius got all excited and said, “I know just the place!” So, he scampers down to Egypt, like a snake slithering down a drainpipe and asks Origen about where he could get some new versions. Origen says, “I’ve done some translating here, take a look at my 5th column.” (5 – the number of…you guessed it)

7. Eusebius takes 50 copies of Origen’s 5th column and brings them back to Constantine. Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus most likely came from these. They were written on velum scrolls, which is why they stayed in tact so long, plus, nobody read them – God didn’t have His hand on them. The scriptures were written on papyrus and wasted away because people read and copied them – in other words God used them.

8. From here they end up in Rome with its religion (Catholic).

9. From here they circulate around Italy, Spain, and France (Roman Catholic).

10. In 1400’s or so these manuscripts become the Duoy Rheims (Roman Catholic).

11. From there the Catholics take their version and go about conquering with the sword to the Americas.

12. The rest of the “Alexandrian bibles” stay locked up in Rome and monasteries. God didn’t want them circulated to the common people anyway.

13. These “bibles” were available to the KJV translators in 1611 and they ignored them because they knew junk when they saw it.

14. In 1881a conference was called to “update” the AV1611. Two “Christian” bible critics (Westcott and Hort) said they had the best and oldest manuscripts. Where do you think they got them? You got it – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type stuff. They snuck them into the revision committee saying these were the best of the bunch and sold them as fish wraps disguised as manuscripts.

15. From this committee you got the RV 1881

16. America joined in the fun with their committee in 1901 – they used the same junk the RV came from and they came up with the RV1901 – from there it went to the RSV, NASV, Good News, Living Bible, NRSV, the New New New RSV, NIV, and all the rest of the new versions.

Well there it is – I’m sure there will be some grumbling in the barracks and I’m sure many will dispute my history but that is how I see it – all the new versions came from Egypt. God's line came from Asia Minor and this is whee the AV came from.

God bless

AV, do you also believe the "trail of blood" ? Just curious.

 

[AliOgg]

I am currently finishing the NRSV Catholic Edition, at the first letter of John,having previously read through the NIV 3 times before that The New English Bible New Testament.I have a number of others in print and a larger number of translations from E-sword God Bless Them.I regularly use most of these for study after all "man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of god".Next translation I'll read only god knows,

What I have noticed is there seems to be little if any difference between the english language translations that I have had the the honour to read,appart from the disputed books,

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Oblio]

I have a number of others in print and a larger number of translations from E-sword God Bless Them.

Yes, it is a blessing. Being that we (native English spaekers) are not blessed to have one version (as are the Greeks & Slavs), and until there is one English version, it is nice to have such a tool at our disposal.

 

[PaladinValer]

Bogus history...

 

[AVBunyan]

Tsibhod:
“AVBunyan, answer me a question here. You've been ignoring most of what I've said and answering other people. Are my questions too hard?”

Below is my response to Tsibhod’s question because of his concern above. Tsi is right – I believe if someone has taken the time to read one’s post and think through them and then ask some questions then some response should be expected. Tsi did ask and I failed to respond so below are what I think are the questions and issues Tsi raised.

Plus Tsi, I felt your responses that were directed towards me displayed a polite and cordial attitude and your questions were good. Also, I don't rembember you seeking to be cute or smart-mouthed in your responses which speaks well of your Christian character.

Now, Tsibhod – I trust my answers and comments below will provide you with some insight as to where I am coming from. You may not agree but at least I sought to respond.

Anyway, does reading the KJV make one a better Christian than reading any other version does?

Tsibhod:
“Why do you think that no "modern" version is inspired, while you believe that the KJV is?”

This is a good question and requires more time and space than we have here but…

I believe the AV to be inspired for several reasons:

1. The two lines (Egyptian [modern versions] and the Antioch line [AV}) read completely different – they both (all modern versions vs. AV) cannot be inspired.

2. The preeminence that AV gives to the deity of Christ along with the consistent upholding of the doctrines of the faith whereas the modern versions are inconsistent and consistently attack the deity of Christ – tons of documentation on this subject.

3. II Tim. 3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration – I have a post on this subject posted here already so I will not go into detail here. But I believe the AV to be scripture so in order for it to be called scripture then it must be inspired – again they all cannot be inspired for all read differently.

4. The impact the AV has had on the lives of sinners and history – covered before. I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 and there was no AV1611 prior to 1611 but the texts the AV is based upon has been used and blessed by God prior to 1611 whereas the other line from Egypt has not been blessed – just compare the fruits of both.

5. The fact that nobody has yet to prove a real error in the AV whereas there are many blunders and false doctrines taught by the modern versions – my ex. On this forum has been Mic. 5:2 which nobody has sufficiently explained yet.

Tsibhod:
“You say that Philip isn't willing to examine other sources that might prove him wrong. This is an idea known as the "confirmation bias": a person will accept evidence in favor of them, but not evidence against them. My question is: how do you know this isn't true of yourself?”

Fair question – I’ve read much of the material that has been put out by those who reject the AV as being perfect. I’ve seen many of the arguments and are familiar with all the objections. I visited many of the opposing view websites and chatted with many a professor and “scholar “ over this issue and yes, they have some things I don’t have answers for but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are right. I don’t claim to be an “AV Expert” – I’m just a simple saint who believes it and has come to what I believe based upon my own studies and the studies of others. Now…” how do you know this isn't true of yourself?” I’m sure I am guilty of this a bit. I feel confident but I admit I don’t desire to come across stuff I have no answer for because it makes my position look weak (and I have my flaws) though it doesn’t shake my belief. Because I don’t understand all the Bible (and I certainly don’t) doesn’t’ mean my faith in the bible wavers – I just need to study more and wait on the Lord.

Tsibhod:
“So, AVBunyan, what do you say about all the people who are sincere, God-fearing Christians who are ever seeking to grow closer to God--yet they use a "modern" version like the NASB or the NIV or whatever.”

I think I did answer this already.

Tsibhod:
“People can be close to God or far from God while they use the KJV.”

Amen

Tsibhod:
“People can also be close to God or far from God while they use another version.”

Amen

Tsibhod:
“I have yet to see some study where masses of people are studied, and the ones that use the KJV are found to be more holy on average.”

Excellent point!!! Let’s throw out the anchor here! I agree - for I firmly believe that we, as saints in this age, cannot touch the spiritual lives of those of the 1600’s – let’s say the early 1900’s. So, yes when you use today’s saints as a standard then I agree – we are very unspiritual compared to the lives of those of the past (just examine me!!) – I mainly read about these folks and I feel lost after reading about their commitment to the Lord compared with mine. So – if you want to see a study then just read about the saints from 1600’s to the early 1900’s and then compare their lives and fruits with ours today. Prior to the early 1900’s there was only one Bible these folks used – an AV. This is what I am referring to as compare the fruits.

Tsibhod:
“So personal holiness that individuals have seems to be unrelated to which Bible version they use. I think holiness (closeness to God, whatever you want to call it) has little to do with which version you use, but a whole lot to do with how much you pray and seek the Lord.”

We disagree to a point – I know that a person who reads modern versions can seek to be holy, desire to be holy and even walk in a holy manner. What I am saying if he had an AV then his doctrine would be more sound and his walk even more holy.

Again - I think the illustration of a comparisons in diets may help here. A person can live on fast food (fries and hotdogs) – there are enough nutrients there for one to survive. But a more balanced diet would profit the body more – he would be healthier and not tire out as easy when confronted by the vigors of life. The same goes for the modern versions – there are enough “nutrients” in these versions but the saint would grow more and be stronger with a more balanced diet based upon the AV. This is just what I believe and have observed after reading past history and observing modern Christianity. You may disagree and probably do. I never said a saint was damned or destined to be carnal by feeding on the newer versions but I believe his spiritual growth will be stunted.

Tsibhod:
“Where am I wrong here?”

Maybe not so wrong but I feel you need to expand your reasoning here and rethink some things -

I trust you understand my position more here.

Tsibhod:
“AVBunyan, I haven't seen a reply from you about this post of mine. Any comments?

“What does personal piety have to do with determining the value of a translation? Fallacy of False Dichotomy.”

I trust the above comments have explained some of this concern?

Tsibhod:
“It has to do with it in that if people can be close to God without the KJV, then obviously the KJV is not the "key" into a good relationship with God. People can be saved without the KJV, and people can be holy without the KJV.

I trust the comments I made clear up some of what I believe regarding this. There are levels of growth and holiness. I believe God’s words are a key here and I believe God’s words are contained and preserved in the AV. The other versions actually have some of the AV in them and there these versions aid in spiritual growth more. Saints are close to God by being saved and being in Christ and Christ in them but the level of growth is determined by the intake of God’s words and them acting on them. I believe there is little intake of God’s true words from the modern versions.

Tsibhod:
“One can present verses that are arguably "better" in the KJV, but if using that KJV doesn't make one holier, doesn't help one get saved any more than any other version would, doesn't help one understand God better, then how is it again that the KJV is better?”

I trust I have covered this by now – if you think I haven’t then let me know.

Tsibhod:
“I see no evidence that people without the KJV have on average worse prayer lives, worse doctrine, or worse--anything. So what is it that makes it better?”

Again – your standard is today’s modern, Christianity – read more of the lives of those in the past. I do and I feel a waste as a Christian – ha ha!!!

Tsibhod
“Your assumption is that the KJV provides more verses that show Jesus' divinity than do newer versions. I don't agree necessarily, but let's run with that assumption. Suppose I make a new version that, compared to the KJV, has even more verses that express the divinity of Christ, then I claim that your KJV came from manuscripts that omitted these references to Christ's divinity. Would that make the KJV bad?”

The issue is no so much as how much the deity is upheld but how much the doctrine is attacked. Now be honest – is it OK to uphold the deity in, let’s say, 200 places but in, let’s say, 20 other places attack it? The issue is not the quantity of upholding the divinity but the doubts the many passages raise that is the issue. Do you understand here. The modern versions do uphold the divinity of Christ in the many passages but where they do not and even attack the deity is where we have issues.

Tsibhod
”The newer versions affirm the divinity of Jesus. There's no problem there. KJV-O people say that the other versions undermine Jesus' divinity, but the people that use those versions still believe in Jesus as God, so what's up with that?”

I think my above response answered this but let’s go further….A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Is it ok for a saint to support versions that attack Christ’s divinity? Be honest here – if you had two versions – one upheld the deity of Christ 100% while the other did only 80% then which one would you read based upon that criteria alone? I do not understand why saints refuse to stand by the book that upholds Christ’s deity for versions that do not?

Tsibhod
“Why don't most NIV users believe that Jesus was just a man? Perhaps because the NIV doesn't lead one to that conclusion?”

Again – the devil is sharp – he is not going to come at you with horns and a pitchfork – to obvious. The first thing the devil said in Gen. 3:1 was ,”Yea, hath God said?” He questioned God’s words. The devil works a little at a time – a bit here and a bit there – modern versions are just a part of his subtle attempt to erode sound doctrine and to corrupt the body of Christ. I believe the devil also uses sports, movies, novels, newspapers, entertainment, etc. All may not be bad but the error and worldly thinking is mixed in. Read the trip through “Vanity Fair” in Pilgrim’s Progress. In fact go back and read Pilgrim’s Progress if you haven’t – absolutely enlightening on this subject of infiltration.

Tsibhod
"KJV is always right." Why does this necessitate the conclusion that other versions must be wrong.”

They both read different – they both cannot be right when they both conflict in many areas.

Tsibhod:
“When they use different wording, most of the time it is just a different way of saying the same thing. And sometimes, they translate more correctly than the KJV.”

But when one starts changing just the words it eventually leads to messing with the doctrine. Leave it as it stands and you are safe.

Tsibhod
“You, of course, say that when they differ, the KJV is better.”

This is always a safe road to go – If I believe what I believe the I have to be consistent and hold to the AV. At least I’m consist. I know some will say consistently wrong – hah!

Tsibhod
“But says who?”

Tsi – all I can say is by now you should have a good understanding of why I believe this. I also take it by faith – this is how God told me to live.

Tsibhod
Is that true just because you say so?”

Who am I but a sinner saved by grace – I am no expert here. I am just trying to get folks to reevaluate what they have been taught.

Tsibhod
“The new versions don't undermine Christ's divinity, since people who use them have no problem believing that Christ is God while believing their ESVs and NASBs and so forth”

I think this has been covered – there are tons of websites that show the newer versions undermine the divinity of Christ. I just don’t have the time here to cover this in detail plus my right wrist is aching!

I trust I have at least covered your questions and concerns here. Though I may not have responded to your satisfaction at least I did though I did a rather poor job I must confess.

May God bless

 

[AliOgg]

Yes, it is a blessing. Being that we (native English spaekers) are not blessed to have one version (as are the Greeks & Slavs), and until there is one English version, it is nice to have such a tool at our disposal.

Are there English translations of Eastern Bibles available and if so by what name are they known.

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Oblio]

Are there English translations of Eastern Bibles available and if so by what name are they known.

And God Bless All His Peoples.

There is an archaic (KJVish) translation of the LXX here

 

[Oblio]

There is also project to bring to English speakers a new translation of the LXX

 

[JohnJones]

Have you looked here? You may not be interested in the Orthodox study notes, but the text may be what you want.

That site doesn't appear to be offering any sort of LXX--they're making a translation which is not yet available.

 

[JohnJones]

Oblio, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's translation is based on a 'critical' text. The othr translation being made by LXX.org probably is being based on one too. Where is a traditional LXX? Surely if the GO has really been using the LXX for 2000 years there must be a traditional text? Or is it that the GO never had a OT text and was completely in the dark until the 1840s? OR (and this is more likely) does a traditional LXX exist but its being supressed in order to force people to use a critical text LXX?

 

[Oblio]

Or is it that the GO never had a OT text and was completely in the dark until the 1840s? OR (and this is more likely) does a traditional LXX exist but its being supressed in order to force people to use a critical text LXX?

What pray tell do you think the Church used in NT times ?

 

[Oblio]

OR (and this is more likely) does a traditional LXX exist but its being supressed in order to force people to use a critical text LXX?

Sheer unfounded accusation with no basis in fact.

 

[MsSnow]

I have a bible that is pink. Its called the womens devotional bible. Its really cool because it also has readings and other snippets from other women who talk of all kinds of things to do with the bible.