What is the difference between the Gutenberg Bible and the Giant Bible of Mainz?
344563
The Gutenberg Bible was the first book produced from movable metal type in 1453.  Also in the same year, the Giant Bible of Mainz was produced, all of it hand-written.  Coincidentally, both Bibles were produced in Mainz, Germany.  They are now both owned by the Library of Congress, where they are displayed across from each other to illustrate the relationship between printing and hand-lettering.
1688
What the best English translation is, I can't tell, but I can give you a link a translation online. Maybe the best translation don't exist online:\nProject Gutenberg got a translation by Swami Paramananda
1153794
the only difference should be length. the abridged or edited version, has some stuff edited out, while the unabrdged version is the origianl full version\nunabrdiged is generally better
730156
Bible is older and they both make up stories.
179096
www.gutenberg.org/ has thousands, but not all books.  Good luck!
911937
The Catholics are using the Latin Vulgat Bible, obviously translated a couple of times, but yes, its the Jesiut bible. The christian bible and the catholic bible is NOT the same.
690766
History lesson.  :-) During Jesus' time on earth, there were two canons of Jewish Scripture in use.  One, now called the Jamnian canon, is what is currently used by Protestants.  The other, called the Septuigant, was translated in Alexandria into Greek. The Jews at the time of Christ had disputes about which was the true canon.  This was not resolved until 90 AD, nearly 60 years after Christ's death.  At this point, the authority the Jews had over the "oracles of God (see Romans 3:2) had passed on to the newly formed Christian church.  At the same time that the Jews decided on this form of the Old Testament, they also rejected the New Testament writings that were presented as possible additions to the canon of Scripture.  \n\n\nThe canon of the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD).  Both Councils confirmed the Septuigant as the Old Testament canon.  \n\nAfter this, there was still dispute among Christians about the canon (include 1 Clement?  is Revelation really inspired?), but the canon stood until Martin Luther, when the deuterocanonicals (literally "second canon", apocrapha means "uninspired") were removed (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Daniel and Ester).  Luther also wanted to remove  Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.  \n\nI am thrilled that you have a personal relationship with Christ.  It is vital for all Christians to live as Christ want us to live.  More Catholics need that relationship. Perhaps God led you to find that Bible, and to wonder about it.  Do some looking into Catholicism, you may be suprised at what you find.  Unfortunatly many Catholics are not taught their faith, and so, despite it's intellectualism and beauty, they find God elsewhere.  Good luck.
12099
It's because of a misguided trust in the "Textus Receptus" or "received text" that the KJV is based on. Unfortunately, the TR was one of the early modern translations, when people were just getting into comparing different manuscripts. It was originally treated as authoritative because not many other translations were competing with it (the Polyglot Bible was one of them, and was better, but it was Catholic and so it didn't get much press among the Protestants). \n\nThis respect has been passed down over the centuries, in spite of better manuscripts being discovered.
787180
No, but if you don't you will be missing some wonderful books.\n\nThe New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same.\n\nThe difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.\n\nThe Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.\n\nThe early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.\n\nAfter the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint. \n\nThe books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).\n\nThe Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint.\n\n1500 years later, Protestants decided to change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon. The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.\n\nHere is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/\n\nWith love in Christ.
982178
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page\nhttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Main_Page\n\nand project Gutenburg on the internet \nhttp://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
398715
As a seminary student it is a known fact that the NASB is the closest to the original text than any other version of the English Bible. The KJV is merely a translation of the Latin Vulgate. King James of Scotland ordered the English translation of the Bible in the 1600's from its Latin translation so the common people can read it. However, the Bible wasn't written in Latin.\n\nThe NASB however is a direct translation of the original Greek/Hebrew text of the scriptures taken from the Masoretic text. The NIV is a close second.\n\nIf you truly want to read and know the scriptures as close to the original text as it can get, then I suggest the NASB or NIV. Stay away from the KJV, it will only complicate the learning process.
1129458
If you want to read the books that Martin Luther took out of his Protestant abomination called a "bible" they are in the true bible, the Douay Rheims version which is the original translated by St. Jerome. These books were taken out by Luther because they proved Catholicism to be true and were a threat to the heresy of Protestantism. Here is a link to one: http://www.miqcenter.com/books/0-bibles.shtml \nor you can find it online at:\nhttp://www.drbo.org/
11687
A Gutenberg Bible would be extremely old and rare.  As I recall, President Kennedy was sworn in on a blustery day.  He would not be the sort to want to damage a fine old antique.
960485
Try: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
343989
The New American Bible is the version used in Catholic Churches in the United States. It might be convenient to read the same words that you hear at Mass.
158847
The word giant is mentioned ten times in the old. The first place it is mentioned is Sam 21*6 and the last Job 16*14. There are twelve different combinations of hebrew chaldaen words that define this word.\n\nThe word giants is mentioned thirteen times in the old starting with Gen 6*4 and the last place it is mentioned is Josh 18*16 and is about the same in words as the other. \n\nSo to answer your question exactly twenty three times in the Authorised King James Version Bible Only. Have fun with it and keep asking questions.
837593
Try looking on the wikipedia site. They are controlled by the publishers of the NIV Bible and are pushing it and its ideas. Of course there has been a lot of controversy over that version just because it reverses the meaning of some sections by changing the wording.\n\nI will always prefer the unannotated K.J. version, at least the political and philosophical biases in that are from a culture that is fading away (Monarchy).\n\n\n.