On Bibles

[Ryan.Samples]

In an effort to move the discussion to a new thread to not clutter the original discussion on the LCMS view of NIV 2011 (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=81149), I offer a new thread! Fun times to be had by all!*

neither constitute what I consider a Bible!

It seems you rejected the NIV (both or just the 2011?) and the HCSB English translations of the Bible. Someone asked you this same question, but the conversation veered off... I wanted to hear from you, so I present the question again:

What do you consider a Bible? What are the criteria you use and which English translation meets them? Very interested to hear your thoughts here.


*Fun times not guaranteed

 

[Ryan.Samples]

O.R., is it super exciting to have your very own thread named after you?

 

[OldRegular]

O.R., is it super exciting to have your very own thread named after you?

I am jumping up and down happy:laugh::laugh: but I thought that was contrary to Forum rules?

 

[OldRegular]

In an effort to move the discussion to a new thread to not clutter the original discussion on the LCMS view of NIV 2011 (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=81149), I offer a new thread! Fun times to be had by all!*



It seems you rejected the NIV (both or just the 2011?) and the HCSB English translations of the Bible. Someone asked you this same question, but the conversation veered off... I wanted to hear from you, so I present the question again:

What do you consider a Bible? What are the criteria you use and which English translation meets them? Very interested to hear your thoughts here.


*Fun times not guaranteed

I favor a word for word translation as near as practical. The NIV is advertised as a "dynamic equivalence" translation. In my opinion this approach allows the theology of the translators to be imposed more than a word for word translation. I am certain someone will assert that a word for word is not possible other than perhaps an interlinear. I am also someone will insist that the theology of the translator will creep in. That is one reason I do not like one person translations. At least with a team there can be some validation of the translation.

I prefer the KJV. That is the Bible I am most familiar with. Over the years I purchased some new translations, perhaps with the idea that I could understand Scripture better. I did not find that to be true. As for the KJV it has been around for 400 years, and I realize there have been updates, but it has stood the test of time. After the KJV I would choose the NKJV but it is not without some problems. Next comes the original NASV followed by the ESV. [I suppose if the Third Millennium Bible did not have the Apocrypha I would warm up to it. I have had the Berkley Version for years and have read some in it but frankly don't care much for it. I really have not compared it with the KJV or any other. I also recently was given the Geneva Bible but have spent little time in it. The ASV, though very literal, is somewhat awkward to read especially for one familiar with the KJV.]

I have avoided most of the more recent versions and can happily say I have never owned Ken Taylor's brief commentary or that little one with the stick figures [The name slips my mind.]

On another thread I indicated I thought the KJ3 by Jay Green was extreme. When I open that version and read about "swarming swarmers" that is a little much! The translation is advertised as follows: "This is the Literal Translation of the Bible that appears in the side margins of Jay P. Green, Sr.'s best-seller, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible." I have the Interlinear and it appears he has done that on the basis of the limited comparison I have made. If I spent enough time in the KJ3 or the MKJV I might grow fond of it. It does have one other drawback in my opinion. It is apparently a one person translation. However one has to admire Green; he apparently taught himself the languages!

Now for the HCSB: My statement that I did not consider it a Bible was a deliberate exaggeration but not without cause. [My statement regarding the NIV or any paraphrase, brief or not, still stands.] When I learned that the Southern Baptists were sponsoring a new translation I was really looking forward to something in the order of the NASB except better. Needless to say it is a disappointment. Thinking of the HCSB I am reminded of Volume 1 of the Baptist Commentary that came out many years ago.

I have stated elsewhere that I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, I still do. Words are important. Therefore, for a translation to be considered a legitimate Bible it must be as true to the available manuscripts as humanly possible. Sadly at the present time it appears that the many translations/versions appearing are simply a way to enrich folks, not to present the Word of God.

 

[Tater77]

I can fully understand and respect a preference for a literal translation. I lean that way myself but I understand that sometimes one has to compromise literalness to be accurate. The original languages have phrases that sound weird in modern English if translated literally. Like the KJV uses reins/bowels in the OT where modern translations identify this with your "heart" referring to your seat of emotion.

 

[Logos1560]

I am also someone will insist that the theology of the translator will creep in. That is one reason I do not like one person translations. At least with a team there can be some validation of the translation.

What difference would having a team of translators make if the team had no actual true religious liberty and they were all required to hold the same official state church positions? If the team was actually under the authority of one man such as an archbishop, could not that one person overrule any divisions in opinion in the team? How would a team ruled over by one man give more validation to a translation than if the translation was made by one man?

By the way, the KJV could be considered mainly the work of one person [William Tyndale] especially in the New Testament. It is suggested or claimed that 70 to 90% of the KJV's New Testament comes from William Tyndale.

By the way, there were believers in the 1600's including Congregationalists and Baptists that maintained that the theology or bias of the Church of England translators of the KJV did creep into the 1611 KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Geneva Bible

I also recently was given the Geneva Bible but have spent little time in it.

Much of the Geneva Bible is found in the KJV, but it does have some interesting differences.

Gerald Hammond maintained that “the Geneva Bible, not the Bishops’ Bible, became the foundation of the Authorized Version” (Making of the English Bible, p. 144). Blackford Condit asserted that the Geneva Bible “makes the Authorized version what it is now” (History, p. 265). Leland Ryken maintained that the Geneva Bible “contributed more than any other version to the King James Bible of 1611” (Worldly Saints, p. 138). Butterworth wrote: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this volume [the Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume” (Literary Lineage, p. 163). David Allen wrote: “The heavy dependence of the King James Bible upon the Geneva Bible demonstrates its superior excellence by providing the King James’s men with more material than any other single source” (Jewel in the King’s Crown, p. 59). The Cambridge History of the Bible observed that the “Geneva contributed clarity and precision” to the KJV (Vol. 3, p. 167). H. Wheeler Robinson maintained that in the KJV “sometimes the Geneva text and the Geneva margin is taken over intact, sometimes the text becomes the margin and the margin the text” (Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, p. 206).

In a number of places, the Geneva Bible could be considered better or more accurate than the KJV when compared to the same preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

I have also found many places where the NKJV differs some from the KJV that it is agreement with the Geneva Bible.

Here are a few examples from two Old Testament books.

Ezra 1:2 commanded (Geneva, NKJV) charged (KJV)
Ezra 1:6 besides all (Geneva, NKJV) beside all (KJV)
Ezra 2:1 to Jerusalem (Geneva, NKJV) unto Jerusalem (KJV)
Ezra 2:42 The sons (Geneva, NKJV) The children (KJV)
Ezra 2:43 sons of Ziha (Geneva, NKJV) children of Ziha (KJV)
Ezra 2:44 sons of Keros (Geneva, NKJV) children of Keros (KJV)
Ezra 2:46 sons of Hagab (Geneva, NKJV) children of Hagab (KJV)
Ezra 2:61 sons of the priests (Geneva, NKJV) children of the priests (KJV)
Ezra 4:2 we have sacrificed (Geneva, NKJV) we do sacrifice (KJV)
Ezra 4:13 built (Geneva, NKJV) builded (KJV)
Ezra 4:21 built (Geneva, NKJV) builded (KJV)
Ezra 7:6 Ezra came up (Geneva, NKJV) Ezra went up (KJV)
Ezra 7:24 upon any (Geneva) touching any (KJV) on any (NKJV)
Ezra 8:17 I gave them commandment (Geneva) I sent them with commandment (KJV) I gave them a command (NKJV)
Ezra 8:30 received (Geneva, NKJV) took (KJV)
Ezra 8:36 beyond the River (Geneva, NKJV) on this side the river (KJV)
Neh. 4:3 was beside him (Geneva, NKJV) was by him (KJV)
Neh. 5:3 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Neh. 5:8 according to (Geneva, NKJV) after (KJV)
Neh. 5:19 Remember me (Geneva, NKJV) Think upon me (KJV)
Neh. 6:14 remember (Geneva, NKJV) think (KJV)
Neh. 7:8 sons of Parosh (Geneva, NKJV) children of Parosh (KJV)
Neh. 7:10 sons of Arah (Geneva, NKJV) children of Arah (KJV)
Neh. 7:16 sons of Bebai (Geneva, NKJV) children of Bebai (KJV)
Neh. 7:59 sons of Amon (Geneva, NKJV) children of Amon (KJV)
Neh. 8:15 bring olive branches (Geneva, NKJV) fetch olive branches (KJV)
Neh. 9:12 with a pillar of fire (Geneva, NKJV) by a pillar of fire (KJV)
Neh. 9:20 Spirit (Geneva, NKJV) spirit (KJV)

 

[Rippon]

The NIV is advertised as a "dynamic equivalence" translation.

No,it is is not. You are wrong.

At least with a team there can be some validation of the translation.

The making of the NIV was a team effort.

Now for the HCSB: My statement that I did not consider it a Bible was a deliberate exaggeration but not without cause.

Oh,you lied. Maintaining your silence until now that the HCSB is not a Bible whereas it actually is a Bible afterall. No exaggeration. Simple falsehood.

[My statement regarding the NIV or any paraphrase, brief or not, still stands.]

Continuing your ill-informed stance. Or will you chage your mind in the future and say it was merely an exaggeration?

I want you to read the 17th chapter of John in the 2011 NIV and tell us if you think it's paraphrase or more formerly equivalent.

Needless to say it is a disappointment.

Specifically why was it a disappointment for you?

Sadly at the present time it appears that the many translations/versions appearing are simply a way to enrich folks, not to present the Word of God.

There you go again. How many other versions are you consigning to the non-Bible pile? Again,it's perfectly okay to say you are just making it up along the way and that you really don't know.

 

[ktn4eg]

It's my understanding (haven't yet had time to research any primary sources that could provide documentation) that the main reason King James I "Authorized" a new version (as opposed to a "brand new translation") of the Bible was because of the anti-royality ["kingly'] slant of many of the comments that existed in the Geneva Bible.

One needs to recall WHY it's called the Geneva Bible in the first place.

King James I of England was also known as King James VI of Scotland (Back then Scotland and England were two completely independent nations --- which was a result of the Scots' defeat of the English at the Battle of Bannockburn in the 1300's.)

Queen Mary (Tudor) I of England, the eldest child of King Henry (Tudor) VIII, and Henry's 1st wife, Catherine (of Aragon--a region of Spain) who was the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain (Remember them, Isabella prevailed upon her husband Ferdinand to subsize the Italian-born [Genoa] Columbus in 1492?). Both F & I were fervent Roman Catholics. They negotiated with Henry (Tudor) VII to marry their Catholic daughter Catherine to H7's oldest son.

Who was H7th's oldest son? Prince ARTHUR.

HOWEVER, Arthur died before (or so it's been claimed) he & Cathy "consumated" their marriage. SO, the RC Pope Paul III granted H7th's 2d oldest son a special "dispensation," based on the OT practice of lerivate marriage. H7th's 2d oldest son was the future H8. So the Spanish Cathy of A was married to the future H8 of England.

Cathy's "problem" was that she bore no son to H8, only a daughter--Mary (in 1516). H8 had to go through another wife to finally produce a son, Edward, who was born in 1537 and (probably) suffered from what we now call TB.

H8 died in 1547, leaving 10 YO Edward (Tudor) to become the next king, (Eddy I). Eddy I died about 5 yrs later (aged c. 15).

SO, the next person to occupy the English throne was, you guessed it, the RC Mary (Tudor) I.

Prior to this Mary (Tudor) left England to live back in the land of her birth, Spain. During that time she married the man who would later become King Philip II of Spain (He's the one who commissioned the Spanish Armada to set sail to invade England in the 1580's.)

THEREFORE, what was nominally "Protestant (i.e., the "Church" of England) England, was again back in RC control under the reign of RC Mary (Tudor)I and her husband (the soon-to-be King Philip II of Spain).

SO, what were the nominally "Protestant" advisors to the late Eddy I to do now? Well, they could remain in England and face death by being burned at the stake (which a handful actually did),

OR they could find refuge elsewhere on the European mainland---which several of their leaders did. Some merely sailed across the English Channel, but then they found themselves in the "Spanish" Netherlands, which didn't want them,

OR they could go to a city that was nominally under the control of the French-born John CALVIN--the Swiss city of Geneva.

There, these "nominally Protestant" (They still held to such RC ideas such as the SACRAMENT of Baptism.) reformers (i.e., anti-Pope & anti-King) got together and produced a brand-new translation that was named after the city in which it was translated and published--GENEVA.

Now, even we who call ourselves Baptists, would have to agree that many (if not must) of the kings of both the northern kingdom of Israel as well as the southern kingdom of Judah were not always as Godly as one would have wished them to be. And that, my friends, provided plenty of ammo for these exiled Englishmen to point out what the average Joe could expect under ANY king (or queen [EX: Ahab & Jezebel]).

OK, so why was King Jimmy I so glad to have a newer Version (not necessarily a new TRANSLATION) of the Bible?

Well, Jimmy's mama was MARY (Stuard), better known as Mary, Queen of Scots.

SHE and QUEEN MARY (Tudor) I of England were distantly related (2d or 3d cousins). Neither of which cared for the other.

Now, Mary (Tudor) I of England died in 1558.

She died of, shall we say, "questionable" reasons. The RC's contend that she was secretly poisoned by an agent who was financed by an advisor to Mary (Stuard), Queen of Scots.

When Queen Elizabeth (Tudor) I of England died in 1603, she was still (or so they claim) a virgin (Hence the reason why we call it the Commonwealth of Virginia!) because she was never (offically) married.

So, who now had the most valid claim to the English throne? THAT'S RIGHT, King Jimmy (Stuard) 6 of Scotland, son of Mary (Stuard), Queen of Scots'!!!

That, my fellow classmates, will of course be on Monday's essay test!

(Who needs soap operas when you got the real stuff?) :thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Below are the views of two people who believe the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation. That makes three!

I have highlighted certain parts!

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/translation.htm

Translation Principles

"The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering." The NKJV translators had the same commitment.

"This principle of complete (or formal) equivalence seeks to preserve ALL of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form.... Complete equivalence translates fully, in order to provide an English text that is both accurate and readable" (Parallel, p.xxi).

However, the NIV follows a quite different principle known as dynamic equivalence:
The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the THOUGHT of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for MORE THAN A WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the MEANING of the writers demands FREQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN SENTENCE STRUCTURE and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words (NIV preface, p.x).

Adhering to these divergent principles leads to several differences between how the KJV and NKJV handle the original text versus how the NIV does.

Words vs. Thoughts

The KJV and NKJV attempt to translate the original text as word for word as possible. But the NIV seeks to be a thought for thought translation.

A simple example of the difference between these two philosophies can be seen in Matthew 11:4. The first part of this verse reads in the KJV, "Jesus answered and said unto them." The NKJV says, "Jesus answered and said to them." So these two are virtually identical. And this type of phrase occurs throughout the Gospels.

Now compare the NIV, "Jesus replied." This rendering is simpler to read and captures the MEANING of text, but it obviously is not a word for word translation of what Matthew, as he "was moved by the Holy Spirit," actually wrote (see 2Pet 1:21).

Moreover, what happens if the meaning of the text is not clear? Burton L. Goddard, a member of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation writes, "Despite their expertise they [the NIV translators] frequently found themselves FAR FROM CERTAIN about the MEANING intended by the Holy Spirit, the primary Author of Scripture."

A good example of where the meaning may be "far from certain" can be seen in the first half of Leviticus 20:17. In the NKJV it reads, "If a man TAKES his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and SEES HER NAKEDNESS AND SHE SEES HIS NAKEDNESS, it is a wicked thing." The KJV is virtually identical.

However, take a look at the NIV, "If a man MARRIES his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and THEY HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, it is a disgrace."

When Moses WROTE "takes" did he MEAN "marries?" And is it possible to SEE a person's "nakedness" without having "sexual relations" with that person?

The NIV translators were so "certain" they knew the answers to these questions that they inserted their interpretation into the text without any indication they have done so. But the KJV and NKJV allow Bible readers to decide for themselves.

And less anyone thinks this is an unimportant point, there could be some important instruction here for single Christians like myself. This verse may help answer the very pressing question, "How far can I go (sexually) before I get married?"

In the New Testament, Paul commands Christians to treat members of the opposite sex like brothers and sisters (1Tim 5:1,2). Could these passages taken together forbid an unmarried couple from simply SEEING each other's nakedness even if they do not "go all the way?" In the KJV or NKJV this could be. But the NIV hides this possibility.

***************************************************************
http://www.wisereader.com/2010/09/niv-esv-struggling-with-two-views-of-equivalence/

NIV / ESV – Struggling with two views of equivalence

Posted on September 10, 2010 by David Daniels

My nephew pastors a congregation in Nova Scotia that I was privileged to lead back in the 80′s. He recently asked about the relative merits of the New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV). He, like me, has been using the NIV as his public ministry Bible. However, in a recent series on the book of Ecclesiastes he turned to the ESV. Now he’s debating whether or not to make a permanent switch from the NIV to the ESV.

I have been reflecting upon this same question for the past year or so. Though I’ve always had some uneasiness with the guiding philosophy behind the NIV (dynamic equivalence), I’ve thoroughly enjoyed using the NIV. It has been my translation of choice since 1990. The arrival of the “essentially literal” ESV, coupled with the gender-related controversy surrounding the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) and the news that there will be a fresh revision of the NIV in 2011, has brought the question of preferred versions to the forefront in my thinking.

Because I am not a linguist, nor a translator or textual critic, I must form my views based upon the case made by those who are specialists in the matter of Bible translation. I read their arguments, weigh their points, and come to the best decision that I can. But in working through the growing mountain of paper around the question – the relative merits of dynamic equivalence (NIV) or formal equivalence (ESV), I am reminded of the words of the wisdom writer:

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.
Proverbs 18:17 NIV

After all that I’ve read and pondered, it seems that Bruce Metzger skillfully distills everything to one basic question that every translator faces:

“Basically there are two competing theories of translation. In one the predominant purpose is to express as exactly as possible the full force and meaning of every word and turn of phrase in the original, and in the other the predominant purpose is to produce a result that does not read like a translation at all, but that moves in its new dress with the same ease as in its native rendering. Of course in the hands of good translators neither of these two approaches can ever be entirely ignored. The question is merely which should come first, and which second, in the translator’s mind; and when the two are in conflict and it is therefore necessary to choose between them, the question is which side is to be sacrificed.”

Ultimately we all come to this most basic question. Increasingly I lean toward the translation philosophy, however well or poorly executed, that guided the translators of the ESV. But 2011 has not yet arrived, so I continue to reflect on the question.

*****************************************************************

 

[OldRegular]

Here is a fourth!

http://www.christistheway.com/2003/a03a10ba.html

Translations: Dynamic Equivalence
or Essentially Literal

by Keith Sharp

Modern English translations of the Bible follow one of two philosophies of translation: "essentially literal" or "dynamic equivalence."

Briefly stated, the theory of dynamic equivalence in Bible translation emphasizes the reaction of the reader to the translated text, rather than the translation of the words and phrases themselves. In simplest terms, dynamic equivalence is often referred to as thought for thought, translation as compared to essentially literal, translation.... (Ryken, Leland, The Word of God in English.).

An "essentially literal" translation strives to render the original Hebrew and Greek words with their English counterparts while adapting the original grammar to English grammar.

1 Corinthians 4:9 exemplifies the differences. The New King James Version, an essentially literal translation, reads, "For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." Literally translated, both as to words and word order, the passage reads, "For I think that God us the apostles last set forth as appointed to death. For a spectacle we became to the world, both to angels and to men." (Berry). The essentially literal NKJV gives us the Greek words in English but in readable English order. But The New International Version, a dynamic equivalence translation, renders the verse thus:

"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men."

The verse is longer because explanatory words and phrases have been added: "of the procession," "in the arena," and "whole." These added words are not italicized to indicate to readers that they are interpolations, words added by the translators that have no Greek words in the original behind them. The NIV translators as a matter of stated policy add to the divine text without indicating to the reader when they have done so.

This illustrates one major problem with dynamic equivalence versions. The NIV may well be right that the apostle is using the conquered prisoners in Roman victory processions as an illustration of the plight of the apostles, but it is still commentary rather than just translation. The student has no way of knowing just by reading his Bible what is the inspired text and what is uninspired comment.

The NIV is probably the most conservative and least offensive of the dynamic equivalence translations. But here is a statement from the preface to The New International Version:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation.

Please carefully note that the translators made a deliberate differentiation between the "words" of the original text and the thoughts of its writers. This is crucial.

 

[OldRegular]

I must say "ktn4eg" that you have an excellent memory

 

[Amy.G]

(Who needs soap operas when you got the real stuff?) :thumbsup:

WOW!!! That only provides further truth that the English Bible is a miracle of God, having come forth from adulterers, back stabbers, murderers, and basically the bottom of the barrel of humanity.

:godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase?s=t

par·a·phrase   [par-uh-freyz]
noun
1.
a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
2.
the act or process of restating or rewording.

******************************************************************
http://thesaurus.com/browse/paraphr...sociopath definition&__utmv=-&__utmk=77014165

Main Entry: paraphrase  [par-uh-freyz] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: translation, interpretation
Synonyms: digest, explanation, rehash, rendering, rendition, rephrasing, restatement, rewording, summary, version
Notes: a paraphrase is a restatement or rewording of a text or passage for the purpose of clarification; a summary is a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form; a summation is a summary or argument reviewing the principal points made and expressing conclusions
Antonyms: quotation

 

[Rippon]

Below are the views of two people who believe the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation. That makes three!

You have just proved that you have no idea what you are taliking about. For a while now you have insisted that the NIV is a paraphrase. Now you say it's a dynamic equivalent version. Please make up your mind. It's all over the place.

 

[OldRegular]

You have just proved that ypou have no idea what you are taliking about. For a while now you have insisted that the NIV is a paraphrase. Now you say it's a dynamic equivalent version. Please make up your mind. It's all over the place.

I said the NIV is a brief paraphrase. I show the meaning of paraphrase above as: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness.

The preface of the NIV states:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation.

Keith Sharp [post #11] states of the above:

Please carefully note that the translators made a deliberate differentiation between the "words" of the original text and the thoughts of its writers. This is crucial.

A brief paraphrase would then be a brief restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness.

It appears that the term Brief Paraphrase is very similar to Dynamic Equivalence.:laugh::laugh:

********************************************************

You said that the NIV was not a "dynamic equivalence" translation. You are obviously wrong but I don't use ever opportunity to call you are a liar!

************************************************************

I still prefer the term Brief Paraphrase when speaking of the NIV [any version].

 

[Rippon]

I said the NIV is a brief paraphrase. I show the meaning of paraphrase above as: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness.

Well now,you are finally defining your terms even though the term with your definition doen't aply to the NIV.

I still prefer the term Brief Paraphrase when speaking of the NIV [any version].

Prefer away and be wrong all along. You are unclear with your last two words. Any version is a brief paraphrase in your estimation?!

 

[OldRegular]

[/B]

Well now,you are finally defining your terms even though the term with your definition doen't aply to the NIV.






Prefer away and be wrong all along. You are unclear with your last two words. Any version is a brief paraphrase in your estimation?!

I have shown clearly above that the term Brief Paraphrase is similar to the term Dynamic Equivalence. You choose to accept neither as applicable to the NIV. That is fine with me Rippon. If you choose to dilute the Word of God then feel free to do so.

However, for years Rippon you have become highly offended when anyone questioned the NIV. It appears that you have problems, perhaps feelings of insecurity! Of course sometimes that feeling is camouflaged by an air of intellectual superiority, even arrogance. Or could it be that you just have a guilt complex?

 

[OldRegular]

An addendum to the above post:

If you cannot understand Elizabethan English, Rippon, there are several good translations available that are more true to the Word of God than the NIV. I would be happy to suggest some if you desire but in respect to your sensitivity I will not do so unless you make a request.

 

[ktn4eg]

I must say "ktn4eg" that you have an excellent memory

It helps if you majored in the history of Tudor & Stuard England in grad school as I did way back in the late 1970's - early 1980's.

My MA was from Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, TN (1981)

Most folks don't know this about TN Gov Austin Peay (who was from Clarksville, & [so far at least] was the ONLY TN Gov to DIE while in office), but he was the TN Gov who signed into law the "Anti-Evolution" Bill that was later the basis of the so-called Scopes' "Monkey" Trial.

I read what Gov. Peay said about the "dangers to America's MORAL and SOCIAL values that this 'unproven' and 'untested' so-called "'Theory' of 'Godless' (Gov. Peay's words) and 'proven science-denying' 'Theory' called 'Evolution' IS" when he submitted in writing this Bill that had passed both houses with SOLID DEMOCRAT majority SUPPORT (only the REPUBLICAN minority OPPOSED IT) ["Things" sure have changed from the 1920's, haven't they?!!? :tear:].

AND who would have guessed that those words from Gov. Austin Peay came from a man who was a life-long (not Baptist, but) member of the Methodist Church [and proud of it, I might add!]?

(BTW, the State of TN actually WON that State Supreme Court case!!
AND, just who was this John T. Scopes who LOST it?

Well, he wasn't even a biology teacher at all!

He was merely a part-time (w/ no biology background whatsoever) "volunteer substitute" that the ACLU paid his court costs just so that the ACLU could "Prove" that what we'd now probably call "Intelligent Design" (since the TN Constitution PROHIBITED citing the Bible as a "source" document in any so-called SCIENCE classes in TN public schools---An Amendent that had passed due to the fact that it was introduced when the GOP held both the governorship & solid majorities in both houses of its legislature--due mainly to the last vestiges of Reconstruction period in the South.)

Yeah, gutta watch out for them there Bible hating Republicans! :smilewinkgrin:

(Another BTW: I always went to the bathroom just a couple minutes before the cheerleaders at my grad school alma mater would start yelling APSU's "Fight ON Cheer" "Let's GO PEAY!!!")