Do you know of a published Luke/Acts cheap enough to give away?

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

I have looked at CBD, did not find what I wanted, and wonder if anyone here can help.

I'd like to buy a quantity of copies of Luke/Acts together in a single binding that is affordable to give away. Do you know of such a publication? I prefer NIV or CEB but am open to others.

If you do know of one, can you supply me the ISBN please, which is found on the back of the front page of the book with the publishing and LC cataloging info.

[Alisa Stoll]

The best I can tell you is to contact acme quiz materials and see if they have some individual copies of Luke and Acts. They sell them for a $2 a piece I believe. The ones from NPH are $2 a piece though both may be willing to give you a good deal because the next time those books come around in the teen quiz schedule it won't be NIV anymore.

Alisa

[Marsha Lynn]

The best I can tell you is to contact acme quiz materials and see if they have some individual copies of Luke and Acts. They sell them for a $2 a piece I believe. The ones from NPH are $2 a piece though both may be willing to give you a good deal because the next time those books come around in the teen quiz schedule it won't be NIV anymore.

Alisa

Really! That's news to me. What translation will they be using? Have they finally accepted the reality that the beautiful language of the old KJV is easier to memorize than these new versions?

In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son." -- the last part. Having spent considerable effort sweating over the "to's" and "unto's" as a teen quizzer, I have laughed to myself plenty of times when meeting up with the "KJV is easier to memorize" assertion. It doesn't take much study to figure out that the words you've heard the most are the easiest to remember and for many people (although a shrinking minority) that is the KJV.

The question, however, is serious. And since I think you have already given the best possible answer to Marion's question, I am only a bit apologetic for hijacking the thread.

Marsha

[Rich Schmidt]

Really! That's news to me. What translation will they be using? Have they finally accepted the reality that the beautiful language of the old KJV is easier to memorize than these new versions?

In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son." -- the last part. Having spent considerable effort sweating over the "to's" and "unto's" as a teen quizzer, I have laughed to myself plenty of times when meeting up with the "KJV is easier to memorize" assertion. It doesn't take much study to figure out that the words you've heard the most are the easiest to remember and for many people (although a shrinking minority) that is the KJV.

The question, however, is serious. And since I think you have already given the best possible answer to Marion's question, I am only a bit apologetic for hijacking the thread.

Marsha

Can we follow the hijack? What translation will be used going forward?

[Alisa Stoll]

This year is Matthew in the current NIV. Going forward it will be the New NIV (got that information at Q). Z. will not let us continue with the current version of NIV - hence the need to change.

Actually Marsha - my mom and I are both ones that say KJV is easier to memorize - my mom quizzed me on the 4 letters in KJV and my bother in NIV. NIV homogenized and made the letters hard to distinguish. It is also easier to make a mistake in the NIV because it is so similar to every day language where we tend to be a bit sloppy.

It should be interesting to see what the denomination does as a whole.


Alisa

[Marsha Lynn]

... the next time those books come around in the teen quiz schedule it won't be NIV anymore.

This year is Matthew in the current NIV. Going forward it will be the New NIV (got that information at Q). Z. will not let us continue with the current version of NIV - hence the need to change.

Ah, okay. So new NIV but still NIV. That makes sense. I've already switched to the new NIV any time I'm using biblegateway.com and don't have a need to match something in print. Other than the annoying not-quite-right gender-neutral stuff made necessary by the lack of sufficient gender-neutral vocabulary in our language, it seems like an improvement.

Actually Marsha - my mom and I are both ones that say KJV is easier to memorize

Oops. So I guess my choices now are to duck my head in embarrassment at having revealed my derision for that view before I knew you held it, accept your analysis, or bolster my own position by attempting to undermine yours.

Tell you what, I'll embark on a scientific project to round up some people to memorize unfamiliar passages in both KJV and NIV and get back to you with the results. If you need me in the meantime, I'll be buried somewhere in the third chapter of Hezekiah -- or maybe King Lear.

Peace.

Marsha

[Rich Schmidt]

This year is Matthew in the current NIV. Going forward it will be the New NIV (got that information at Q). Z. will not let us continue with the current version of NIV - hence the need to change.

Ah, I see. When you said it won't be NIV anymore, I thought you meant we were switching to a different translation. Sounds like we're sticking with NIV.

When we started the church I pastor, we bought NLT Bibles to give out, have on TW tables, etc. The NLT has been updated at least once, maybe twice since then. I've never considered it "changing translations" to use the most updated version.

[Alisa Stoll]

Ah, okay. So new NIV but still NIV. That makes sense. I've already switched to the new NIV any time I'm using biblegateway.com and don't have a need to match something in print. Other than the annoying not-quite-right gender-neutral stuff made necessary by the lack of sufficient gender-neutral vocabulary in our language, it seems like an improvement.



Oops. So I guess my choices now are to duck my head in embarrassment at having revealed my derision for that view before I knew you held it, accept your analysis, or bolster my own position by attempting to undermine yours.

Tell you what, I'll embark on a scientific project to round up some people to memorize unfamiliar passages in both KJV and NIV and get back to you with the results. If you need me in the meantime, I'll be buried somewhere in the third chapter of Hezekiah -- or maybe King Lear.

Peace.

Marsha

Or we can peacefully accept that our views differ and simply agree that what ever version is used is great as long as God's word is being learned.

Peace
Alisa

[Michael Flowers]

Basically the switch is from NIV 1984 to NIV 2011 which encompasses some changes in how things are written. I'm currently investigating a few books to discover what the changes are between editions. So far I have been comparing 1 John (not a quiz book) and haven't noticed anything radical.

As to the topic of this thread, that would be suggestion as well, only I would recommend going to NPH/Barefoot so as to support our publishing house.

[Marsha Lynn]

Basically the switch is from NIV 1984 to NIV 2011 which encompasses some changes in how things are written. I'm currently investigating a few books to discover what the changes are between editions. So far I have been comparing 1 John (not a quiz book) and haven't noticed anything radical.

Back in the dark ages when I quizzed over Acts, having no coach to guide my efforts, I decided to start out by reading through the Beacon Bible commentary for Acts, which I must have borrowed from my pastor. Much of what I read said things like, "This would be better translated ..." Those 'corrections' have been made in modern translations, making many pages of the BBC no longer relevant.

I've been using NIV 2011 for SS scripture portions just because it started coming up as the default at biblegateway.com and I am noticing similar things.

"The commentary on this section noted that ... Oops. Never mind. That's no longer an issue in the version we have printed here."

I still think, however, that we need to authorize an international English language commission to give us pronouns for second person singular and she/he, him/her, and his/hers. We also need to add warmth to the word "sibling" so we can use it as a generic term for addressing dearly beloved brothers and sisters. Why do we put up with these annoying deficits in our language and corrupt yet another plural pronoun to make up for the lack of proper terms?

If anyone agrees with this, I wish they (he/she) would get on their (his/her) soapbox and do something about it!

Marsha