If You Had Your Druthers...

[RipponRedeaux]

In some cases yes. I am fine with him denouncing the gender neutral versions and any other liberal versions. I am fine with him denouncing the Message Bible as well, or Roman Catholic Bible versions. I am fine with him denouncing the NIV for the lack of precision.

I would not be ok with him denouncing other versions that I would rate as "more solid" such as NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc.

No preacher should spend any time in denouncing other Bible translations. That's precious sermon time that goes in the refuse pile. The same goes for praising any particular Bible version.

Many preachers who use the KJV as their text are not guilty of these sins. However, KJVO preachers spend as much as 15 to 20 minutes of valuable sermon time doing these practices. And that's Sunday after Sunday! These are false shepherds.

What you mistakenly call "gender-neutral" translations are actually gender accurate or gender specific.

The NIV, CSB and NLT use inclusive language when scripturally appropriate. You need to do some research. Find out how many times (in the N.T. to keep it simple) the words brothers, fathers, men, sons are used.

Do not use the KJV as a standard to measure the orthodoxy of these versions. I am not a fan of exclusionary language. Read specific passages in context. Evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

The commonly understood meaning of the word 'conversation' meant one's conduct or behavior. Even in the Wycliffe translation the word 'living' was used. It refers to the way one lives their life. So the word conduct is perfectly acceptable. It expresses the meaning quite well.

You will have to cite other examples of this "overall" precision that the KJV has versus the NIV.

I see conversation as more all "encompassing" than "conduct".
1. Conversation:
General course of actions or habits; manner of life; behavior: deportment, especially with respect to morals.

2. Conduct:
The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.

We'll have to agree to disagree on it

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

No preacher should spend any time in denouncing other Bible translations. That's precious sermon time that goes in the refuse pile. The same goes for praising any particular Bible version.

Many preachers who use the KJV as their text are not guilty of these sins. However, KJVO preachers spend as much as 15 to 20 minutes of valuable sermon time doing these practices. And that's Sunday after Sunday! These are false shepherds.

What you mistakenly call "gender-neutral" translations are actually gender accurate or gender specific.

The NIV, CSB and NLT use inclusive language when scripturally appropriate. You need to do some research. Find out how many times (in the N.T. to keep it simple) the words brothers, fathers, men, sons are used.

Do not use the KJV as a standard to measure the orthodoxy of these versions. I am not a fan of exclusionary language. Read specific passages in context. Evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

I find it valuable when preachers exposit the difference between versions, and the backgrounds of the people who created said versions. And when I was Saved the first Churches I attended were good, solid, old fashioned KJVO or KJVP Fundamental Baptist Churches where the Pastors were quite good.

Where I live most churches are all KJV.

We'll have to agree to disagree again .

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I see conversation as more all "encompassing" than "conduct".
1. Conversation:
General course of actions or habits; manner of life; behavior: deportment, especially with respect to morals.

2. Conduct:
The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics.

This is 2021. The word 'conversation' with the meaning then used in the early 17th century is obsolete now. Do you believe in what Luther, Tyndale and John Purvey stated? They said that a translation of the Bible should be in the vernacular --the commonplace language of the market. A translation that is in need of translation is inadequate. The old meaning of 'conversation' is passe. It doesn't function as it did centuries ago. Words of today, even a century ago need to be used so understanding will result.

Let's look at Philippians 3:20. The KJV has : For our conversation is in heaven.
The NIV and other modern translations have : But our citizenship is in heaven.
The second rendering is far more understandable.

Ps. 37:14 KJV : such as be of upright conversation
NIV : whose ways are upright
Again, the NIV conveys the meaning with clarity.

The very KJV revisers would be in agreement with me, not you. The meaning of a text is paramount. If it is dulled by the changing of words and meanings it loses its impact. It loses it's directness.

The way you speak in ordinary 'conversation' (yes, the way the word has been used for two centuries) needs to be reflected in a Bible translation. A translation should be put in natural, idiomatic English. By that I do not mean street lingo. It van be put in dignified modern speech.

I have said the following several times over the years here : If you sincerely wanted to help an average 20 year-old unchurched guy with only a high school diploma --what Bible version would you put in his hands?

If you give him a KJV he might understand 50% of what he reads. If he reads the NLT he might understand 80% of the content. See, I'm not even advocating for the NIV. My goal is to give him a physical copy of the Word Of God. And I want him to comprehend its truths by communicating to him in his heart language.

There is nothing sacrosanct about using the phraseology of something almost five centuries ago. It's been said that the KJV was translated in archaic style even for 1611. It reads like something printed 75 years earlier, but yet Tyndale's N.T. is easier to read than a KJV.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I find it valuable when preachers exposit the difference between versions, and the backgrounds of the people who created said versions. And when I was Saved the first Churches I attended were good, solid, old fashioned KJVO or KJVP Fundamental Baptist Churches where the Pastors were quite good.

Where I live most churches are all KJV.
.

I find it dishonoring to God when a 'preacher' spends his time doing what you said in your first sentence. As I related earlier --they are false shepherds. They should not occupy a pulpit. There is precious little time to deliver a sermon. Don't waste it on nonsense.

I respect those who preach a message from the KJV, who are faithful stewards. They don't waste time in trivial pursuits. I am against the excesses of KJVO types who do what I have described here and elsewhere.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

This is 2021. The word 'conversation' with the meaning then used in the early 17th century is obsolete now.

Maybe where you are it's 2021 . It ain't in my house. I still use the term "bowels" in metaphors to speak to as the source of deep emotions. I talk to my young 'uns about their conversation. Nary/nor is used. I talk about blinked milk, clean britches, girding myself with clothes and buying a dope at the old R&L store. Just because a bunch of blackguards in cities speak highfalutin modern junk ain't no account for me. So again, I'm going to push back on the idea that the KJV archaism is a surety.

Do you believe in what Luther, Tyndale and John Purvey stated? They said that a translation of the Bible should be in the vernacular --the commonplace language of the market.

Not in the way that you take it to mean, but if so I look forward to a translation in my community for our commonplace speech! Haha

"The Lord sloughed up yonder bank up to the bench. Upon the bald His likeliness burst asunder, his face shined like the sun with a rainment of the purest white ever to have graced that section."
Matthew 17: 1-2 HSV (Hillbilly Standard Version)

In those KJV vs NIV examples you gave, the KJV honestly came to me with more details and precision than the NIV, so I'll be standing by it .

I'm as fixed as locust post on this, so I doubt it'll be fruitful to continue. God Bless Bro

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Not in the way that you take it to mean, but if so I look forward to a translation in my community for our commonplace speech!

Take it the way those three men of God took it. Any Bible translation should be in the language that people speak. An English translation should use ordinary English, with grammatical tightening of the belt.

The NIV doesn't use "high falutin" language as you had said in your deleted post. The very idea is absurd. It is international in scope --not just for college educated Americans.

Your regionalism way of speaking is not the norm. A translation needs to cast a large net over the greatest mass of people. You can take pride in a Hillbilly version, but it won't communicate to the general public.

I had given you an example earlier. If you had befriended a 20 year old, unchurched, high school graduate, what Bible version would you put in his hands? If you, with all sincerity, wanted him to read the Bible, or at least the Gospel of Mark --you would not want to put obstacles in his way. KJV-speak is not his natural language. He would need a version that communicates more on his level. I suggested that the NLT would be a more appropriate choice.

By the way, it wasn't till around 1750 that the KJV came into its own. At that point it was considered beautiful and elegant. The revisers tried to fancify the language. They tried to make it ornate. Sometimes they added the right touch, but many times they should have let well enough alone with Tyndale's 1934 edition of the New Testament. (I don't mean to slight the Geneva Bible here in the process.) Tyndale spoke more directly with no decorous language. You should grab a copy of his N.T. or read portions on line.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Cults aside, it is safe to say that no other English Bible version has preachers devoting pulpit time in lambasting other Bible versions and extolling their own text.

Again, the above doesn't apply to preachers who merely use the KJV and don't do those extra-curricula activities.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y-1, please answer the simple, direct question I posed.

refers to the Son of man as a messianic figure to come!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Tell me, are verses 6 to 8 speaking of the same people as in verses 4 & 5 ? Or, in your case the same person?

Y-1, answer the simple, direct question I posed above. Don't deflect, dodge or otherwise avoid my easy-to-answer query.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Y-1, answer the simple, direct question I posed above. Don't deflect, dodge or otherwise avoid my easy-to-answer query.

And still, Y-1 avoids simple direct questions. Figures.

 

[Yeshua1]

And still, Y-1 avoids simple direct questions. Figures.

Psalm was speaking of the Messiah that was to come!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Tell me, are verses 6 to 8 speaking of the same people as in verses 4 & 5 ? Or, in your case the same person?

The above is to refresh your mind with regard to Psalm 8. Please answer my direct, and easy-to-understand question.

 

[Yeshua1]

The above is to refresh your mind with regard to Psalm 8. Please answer my direct, and easy-to-understand question.

That was Jesus in the Psalms!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

That was Jesus in the Psalms!

You clearly can't be that slow on the uptake. I spelled it out for you, several times, and you pretend ignorance You have severe avoidance issues, and not just with me, but many on the BB.

I will quote verses 6 through 8 of Psalm 8 in the NET:
You allow them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority, including all the sheep and cattle, as well as wild animals, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea and everything that moves through the channels of the sea.

Now are those verses referencing Christ or human beings?

 

[Jec81]

Biblically sound sermons from either would be great. I Love Alistair (he uses niv), when I'm in my hometown I go to a friend's church who uses niv. I am a TR man myself, but I am not going to downgrade anyone (unless it's the message "bible").

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Biblically sound sermons from either would be great. I Love Alistair (he uses niv), when I'm in my hometown I go to a friend's church who uses niv. I am a TR man myself, but I am not going to downgrade anyone (unless it's the message "bible").

No offence intended, but I have repeated myself until I'm blue in the face. I have drawn a line of demarcation between preachers who use the KJV and KJVO 'preachers' who deliver 'sermons.' The latter spend valuable time in their 'sermons' deriding other versions and exalting the KJV.
D.A. Carson has used the NIV in its various editions since the 1970s. And he calls the NRSV "a jolly good translation." He is as scripturally solid as they come.

 

[Yeshua1]

You clearly can't be that slow on the uptake. I spelled it out for you, several times, and you pretend ignorance You have severe avoidance issues, and not just with me, but many on the BB.

I will quote verses 6 through 8 of Psalm 8 in the NET:
You allow them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority, including all the sheep and cattle, as well as wild animals, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea and everything that moves through the channels of the sea.
/
Now are those verses referencing Christ or human beings?

refers to messiah, as per more literal to the Hebrew text of Nas 1977/1995!

 

[Yeshua1]

No offence intended, but I have repeated myself until I'm blue in the face. I have drawn a line of demarcation between preachers who use the KJV and KJVO 'preachers' who deliver 'sermons.' The latter spend valuable time in their 'sermons' deriding other versions and exalting the KJV.
D.A. Carson has used the NIV in its various editions since the 1970s. And he calls the NRSV "a jolly good translation." He is as scripturally solid as they come.

The more formal ones are preferred, such as Nas and the Nkjv!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

That was Jesus in the Psalms!

The book of Psalms has 150 chapters. I am speaking of Psalm 8:6-8. Deal with the text.

I'd like to get to Hebrews 2:6 to 8 later. But since you have not been able to explain Ps. 8:6-8, the Hebrews passage will have to wait.