Does TNIV help KJVO?

There were translations before the KJV and there will be more after the TNIV. The KJV is now and will always be just another translation.

 

The criticism in this case is just, whether is comes from the "KJVo" crowd, the "KJVp" crowd, or the MV crowd.

 

Phillip,

If KJVOist will attack very conservative translations like the NASB and NKJV they will use the TNIV to fuel more KJVO guilt by association theories.

We will have KJVO claims that modern bibles are getting more liberal and liberal while ignoring conservative translations like the NASB (1995) and HCSB. It will be just another attraction at the KJVO circus of deception and lies. A little truth here and there will be used to paint all modern bibles and perversions etc… The best lies always have truth mixed within them.

I'm sure that more $$$$$ will be made by certain KJVO $authors$ when they write books about the TNIV. I don’t put much stock in KJVO authors.

I consider the TNIV a liberal translation. I don’t care for the NIV.

 

I agree 100% C4K.

 

Yes. It is very common for KJVO's to lump MV's and those who produce them into one coven of demons.

The most biblically fundamental group of translators ever assembled were probably the NASB translators. They even had to sign a statement of faith similar to what you might find in your average IFB church before doing work. Yet the KJVO's lump them in with the rest of the "bible correctors".

PoR has already tried this on the other thread by suggesting that non-KJVO's were predisposed to accept any Bible version as long as it contained the gospel.

 

TNIV helps the KJVOs, and vice versa. They will create a false dichtomy, and make people choose between an archaic Anglican translation and modern liberal translations. Hopefully people will see that there are other choices.

 

First, I agree that the TNIV is a very poor version.

Next, I agree it gives the KJVOs some ammo, though it's low-caliber. We must bear in mind they're always looking for excuses, since they have no real facts to support their myth.

 

When did the KJV Only crowd ever need a reason to attack anything? It simply doesn't matter, if they need an amen from the crowd or a good pat on the back then they will dump on any translation that is not KJV.

 

It looks like we're all in agreement here. While I don't think the TNIV is the worst translation out there, 100 times zero is still zero.

As for the KJVo's, the TNIV will serve as their ammunition du joir until something else comes along. They remind me of the Hollywood liberal types--they use emotion and factually weak arguments to support their trendy "cause of the week" until it's shot full of holes then they move on to the next one.

 

Easy, Phillip, we can answer it for what it is-a MYTH, a sub-section of the general KJVO myth. Many a non-KJVO, including ourselves, has spoken out against such bogus versions as the NWT, and against very poor ones such as the Living Bible.

In contrast, the KJVOs are quick to point out that people have been saved by what Scriptures are found in certain tracts with KJV Scripture in them, while reminding us that in their opinions many other versions contain enough Scripture to lead people to Christ. In other words, they've made themselves yet another conundrum and another oxymoron.

Thus sayeth the AV translators:

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.

As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

The AV men recognized the fact that if ten separate translators or groups of translators were to set out to translate the same material, there'd be ten different translations. They also placed value upon the efforts of other translators.

However, they don't mention dishonest translators. Peradventure they thought no one would dare make a dishonest translation of GOD'S WORD.

 

Well said, roby. I saw a KJVo'ist bad-mouthing you on another MB and now I know why--your logic is inescapable. God gave us brains so we could logically reason truth vs. falsehood and fact vs. nonsense. I'm glad to see you (and others here) are using yours.

 

Yes. It is very common for KJVO's to lump MV's and those who produce them into one coven of demons.</font>[/QUOTE]you say some of the most unusual things when defending your OPINION.

you espouse your opinion without true knowledge. If they were as you say, they too would KNOW God is NEVER "deceived"

No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version. I don't ever deny their attributing the tag "version" on any of their commentaries, but when they espouse, as you do, their opinion that the KJB is wrong, or could have been "better" translated, it only goes to show their lack of study and they fail to define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined.

 

Hi Plain ol' Ralph.......

Question for you (as a matter of clarification for me): In a previous post you mentioned a failure to "define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined".

Kind of lost you there...could you elaborate what you meant by defining English as it always has been and still is (defined)?
Thanks

 

Plain ol' Ralph: No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version.

Actually, what's all too common is the KJVOs' rejection of ANY MV without even considering its merits, and with NO research.


I don't ever deny their attributing the tag "version" on any of their commentaries, but when they espouse, as you do, their opinion that the KJB is wrong,

That's not just opinion; it stands PROVEN. "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is incorrest, as is "slain & hanged" in Acts 5:30, just to name TWO goofs.


or could have been "better" translated,

Again, the PROOF is there, such as "unicorns" in several verses, and the various 'God forbid's in various verses.


it only goes to show their lack of study

Actually, it's quite clear that the KJVOs haven't studied, or else they wouldn't still be KJVOs except by the only LEGITIMATE reason to be KJVO...personal preference.


and they fail to define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined.

For a high school assignment I once translated Beowulf into modern English. Seems there was QUITE a difference in definitions between the time when it was written until I wrote it in modern language. About the ONLY words which remained the same are those taken directly from Latin, such as in, color, dolor, etc.

FACT vs KJVO PROPAGANDA & GUESSWORK again.

 

Familiar with the term "archaic"? What the mv crowd refers to words being archaic are no more archaic than many of the words found in the mv's, it is as loosely a term used as the word "greed" and left up to the opinion of others to determine it's worth.

Many of our English words have meanings that the mv crowd would LOVE to disinherit and justify their term "archaic", but seems if one does a little research, (even in the very dictionaries they use to undermine definition), that very meaning IS found to relate the context we find it in the KJB. Much to the displeasure, uh-hum! DISPLEASURE, of the mv promoters.

IPW, the defintion is still up-to-date, but the mv crowd demands otherwise, the "word" in question may not be used as it is generally defined in modern linguistics, BUT that doesn't change one iota that the term is used correctly, simple use of a dictionary has mounds of valid and educational material within it's pages.

 

Your "logic", Sir, is ill-logic, and you hung yourself in your attempt in the very first response.

That's it, though, you may get away with what you espoused, to the less educated and illiterate, but not here. Wemake use of our dictionaries everyday, and contend earnestly for the faith once handed down, as well as refute any attempt to "point out errors", or show "inaccuracies" in the King James Bible, REPEATEDLY and to the vehement reactions by your class daily.

One may say you are "mad", by your much speaking, as one that beateth the air, I suppose. And I do have "better" things to do than those of you who insist on spending redeemable time spewing forth your garbage.