My wheel is intact and rolling....the Holy Bible, King James Version.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
2011 NIV Is Praised
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
My wheel is intact and rolling....the Holy Bible, King James Version.
"My wheel'? Shouldn't it be the wheel? If you consider the KJV as the wheel,how can that qualify? It certainly isn't the original English version. It's largely a copy-cat of the Tyndale translation.
Wouldn't the real wheel (say that fast ten times) be something a lot more ancient than a mere 400 year old Enhlish approximation of the autographs?
God's Word will never be a wheel that will stop rolling, regardless of the faithful translation used.
The Rom 3:23 attempt to descredit the 2011 NIV is amusing at best.
Ruiz hit on a very solid point.
And as for language changing in 33 years.....YES, it does. Look at a Dictionary from 1978 and look at one from today. See if they aren't vastly different. Besides, as was pointed out, all translations including the KJV have been revised many times. If money was the sole driver (as has been asserted), I don't know that a revision is the best way to do it. Ask the folks at Crossway :tongue3:
The Rom 3:23 attempt to descredit the 2011 NIV is amusing at best.
Ruiz hit on a very solid point.
And as for language changing in 33 years.....YES, it does. Look at a Dictionary from 1978 and look at one from today. See if they aren't vastly different. Besides, as was pointed out, all translations including the KJV have been revised many times. If money was the sole driver (as has been asserted), I don't know that a revision is the best way to do it. Ask the folks at Crossway :tongue3:
Martin Luther revised his own translation five times from 1522 to 1545. And that was in 23 years Bud.
My name's not Bud, thank you.
Sorry Charlie. I was just making the point that as much as you don't see the need for revisions of a particular translation --even Martin Luther's version was updated more times and in fewer years than the NIV. And of course your favorite version (rendering) was revised multiple times in its history making your point invalid.
WHICH version of the venerable KJV though?
1611/1789/1894?
How about the NKJV, based on SAME texts?
How about the Tynsdale/Geneva, as KJV used those A Lot of times in translating process?
Would the Greek/hebrew texts available today qualify as being the Bible for today?
Thanks!
I've never seen a Christian who enjoys being obnoxious as much as you do, BuckWheat.
Facts that refute your assertions just drive you up a wall,don't they? It must be so frustrating for you.
No, just you.
Immaturity is evidenced again with your infantile, drive-by sniper fire.
Deal with what I countered your earlier argument with. You had said that you couldn't understand how or why since 1978 to 2011,a period of 33 years, that there had to be updates of the NIV.You didn't think language could have changed that much in such a short period. I told you that Martin Luther revised his very own translation five times from 1522 to 1545. That's 23 years. And the same kind of thing can be said for the constant revision of the KJV. So you can't argue against the NIV or other modern versions on that basis since your favorite version has undergone the very same thing. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You can't come to grips with your irrationality.
Here is another example of your lack of logic: On 6/20/11 at 11:11 A.M.you said :"We are expected to believe,that all these different Bible versions are the Word of God."
Then at 3:20 P.M. you state :"Are they [modern versions]the Word of God? Of course..."
That's nonsensical B4L.
Except when the transliteration used has language that CHANGES the content and meaning of the passage....
Robert Snow
New Member
Probably just as frustrating as it is for you when someone doesn't like the NIV.
Newsflash: Everybody doesn't like what you like. Get used to it!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Cmon Rippon, You are making the charge of "infantile and immaturity" and You are the one who began the digression with "Bud". You are evidently quite intelligent, but this charge is not.
I began a "digression" by the use of a singular word?! Folks have been known to derail threads on the various forums here,but it's rather strange that you would say that the usage of a single word started a rabbit trail.
quantumfaith
Active Member
"Digression" is in the eye of the beholder. I did not intend to communicate the "digression" but rather the "beholder" interpreted it as "snarky" and thus "game on".
Up to your old tricks I see. Did you get bored on the Arminian/Calvinism threads? There you regularly lob nothings and rarely deal in substance. Deal with specifics Robert. I know that would be new for you. But try anyway. Are you a KJVO person? I ask because I don't know. If not, do you dislike the NIV for certain reasons? Let's try real interaction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Examples please. Apparently you think transliterations occur many times in the NIV;much more than in the KJV. You believe that when used in the KJV they always are faithful to the original,whereas when employed in the NIV they are not as faithful,accurate or correct.
In the Light Response
[/QUOTE]I have a copy of the NIV Study Bible which I consult now and again, but I've got to agree with you on this point. How can the language change significantly four times in 33 years?[/QUOTE]
Brother ITL,
I actually took my Hebrew under one of the OT Translators of the New International Version (probably the 1978). Dr. Jack Lewis of the Harding University Graduate School of Religion. He had two PhDs, one in New Testament and Greek, one in Old Testament and Hebrew. And as best as I can understand there are two reasons to have a new translation about every 20 years rather than the 33 you mentioned:
1. Yes the language does "shift and change" as the Post-Modernists / Deconstructionist's say, only not to the level we cannot communicate. Look at the word "gay" for instance. So we need a new vernacular translation for the common people in the receiver language.
2. If one adheres to the "New Testament Criticism" model, then the newer insights into the comparisons and new data need to be updated for each new generation about every 20 years.
Not trying to do apologetics here, just sharing what I learned in grad school from one of the "old timers."
"That is all!" :thumbsup:
[/QUOTE]I have a copy of the NIV Study Bible which I consult now and again, but I've got to agree with you on this point. How can the language change significantly four times in 33 years?[/QUOTE]
Brother ITL,
I actually took my Hebrew under one of the OT Translators of the New International Version (probably the 1978). Dr. Jack Lewis of the Harding University Graduate School of Religion. He had two PhDs, one in New Testament and Greek, one in Old Testament and Hebrew. And as best as I can understand there are two reasons to have a new translation about every 20 years rather than the 33 you mentioned:
1. Yes the language does "shift and change" as the Post-Modernists / Deconstructionist's say, only not to the level we cannot communicate. Look at the word "gay" for instance. So we need a new vernacular translation for the common people in the receiver language.
2. If one adheres to the "New Testament Criticism" model, then the newer insights into the comparisons and new data need to be updated for each new generation about every 20 years.
Not trying to do apologetics here, just sharing what I learned in grad school from one of the "old timers."
"That is all!" :thumbsup:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Not being contentious, just checking on something.
Tom wrote something about "translation", and you replied with something about "transliteration".
Assuming that you did mean "transliteration", were you using it to mean what I thought it meant - the representation of words originally written in one alphabet by using the corresponding letters of another? An example of that, I imagine, would be the name English-speaking people use for the Saviour - Jesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ihsouv which itself could be said to be a transliteration of the Hebrew ewvwhy (I do not know more than a few words of Greek, and less of Hebrew).
If that is what you mean, can you give an example or two of transliteration from Greek or Hebrew to English that "CHANGES the content and meaning of the passage.... "? At the moment, the only way I can see that happening is if the original word, transliterated into English, happens to form an already-existing English word. For example, transliterate the Greek pronoun autov into the alphabet used for English, and you have "autos", which already exists in American English as the plural of the shortened form of "automobile". So to transliterate, rather than translate, that particular Greek word would turn Matthew 1.21 into gibberish. Instead of:
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."
we would have:
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call autos name JESUS, for autos will save autos people from autos sins."
But somehow I think it is more likely that I have misunderstood what you meant!
