NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

I would not say something about someone that I would not say to them personally. I don't know if you live by that rule or not but I do.If you would like to talk to Ruckman personally about translations I will buy a ticket to watch. The same goes for Riplinger.I could use a good laugh and that is all it would be.

 

Oh, you mean like Riplinger or Ruckman when condemning MV's? Or maybe like when GA claims that God directly inspired what she wrote.

 

Hello Scotty? What part of the post didn't you understand? They don't use MV's they mock them. Kind of like Elijah and carmel.

 

Yeah, and Erasmus and the anglican King James translators were thoroughly orthodox.

Pardon me, my head hurts from banging it against the wall. I better go take some Advil.

 

Don't bang your head against the wall. The answer to your problem is in the bible. Of course there is only one bible as far as I am concerned. THE KING JAMES BIBLE!!!!!!!!!

 

Once again instead of dealing with the point of the argument you evade... very telling.

I will ask you directly. Were the comments made by Riplinger heretical or not? It's a very simple question that doesn't require anything but a yea or nay.

 

If you read Barker's words in their context, you see very clearly that Riplinger misquoted and misrepresented him. There is no question about this for those who have read the source that Riplinger "quotes" from. Read the original source Steve and then you will see what Riplinger did with it.

I know you don't like comments from me Steve but that is becuase you are not willing to face the truth about this. The only real option you have is to run from it. As long as you post stuff like this here, I will continue to show it to be false. If you don't want my correction, then don't make false statements.

I haven't said anything here I wouldn't say to the people in question. In fact, it has been said to them many times before. They are not listening. You are putting your faith in teh wrong thing. I, and most of us here, don't care that you use the KJV. In fact, we encourage you to. But we do not take it lightly when someone treats the word of God lightly, just becuase it is in another translation.

[ January 16, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Just like Satan, huh? Mocking God's Word "Yea, hath God said?" Or as the NASB puts it "Indeed, has God said..."

 

Riplingers sayings true!

 

So you believe that God did inspire her directly in writing her book? You believe that God gave her acrostic algebra? You think she was somehow divinely guided to twist people's words because God showed her "what they really meant"?

 

Steve K. said:

Riplingers . . . proven to be a heretic.

Truer words were never spoken.

The MV's do a better job than anyone else

Except maybe for these.

[ January 16, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Then why does her "quotation" of Barker not match what Barker said?? If she is telling the truth, then the quotes should reflect the same meaning. Why do they not?

 

Larry I don't discuss things with you as I have told you before because I believe you teach HERESY and will not accept truth.
What Riplinger said was true then and is true now.You guys sound like a broken record "the originals" Ha ha huh haw haw haw.
Read what the niv and nasb call true manuscripts and you will find twisting truth like you have never seen.

 

No false statements there Larry.Your statements are false in every post I have seen you on.

 

Riplinger "ripped" those mv's good and no one can put humpty dumpty back together again. They will have to come out with another version and God will raise someone up to expose it for what it is,nothing. Ruckman,Grady Gipp,Cloud... take your pick they will lead you to truth if it is truth you want.People with masters degrees say they cannot understand the KING JAMES BIBLE and I know high school drop outs that can. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Steve! We've already dealt with this exact claim, just a few short weeks ago. Is your memory that short? Here's the reply I provide on Dec 26 to your same claim back then:

Remember???? I remember you saw it, but brushed it aside and didn't deal with it then. How about now? Or are you going to repeat the claim AGAIN in another 3 week's time???

 

I would stongly prefer to know what he actually said (in English, please). I don't care which translation I just want to know what he said. If an idiom doesn't make sense in English then I am sure we have scholars who can tell me what it meant back then, but, I want the right to make that decision about what it means AFTER I know what he said.

 

Steve, the proof in black and white has been posted here again. The full text of what Barker said is here. Compare that against what Riplinger said and it is very easy to see that Riplinger is wrong. There is no question about this.

You believe what I teach is heresy. However you have yet to offer even one verse of Scripture in support of you. I have offered many in support of me. I have offered the proof of history. Why do you not support your view with Scripture? Is it because you are admitting you don't have Scripture to back you up?

Nor have you shown even one place where the MVs have twisted the Scripture. Why?

 

The point I would make though is that he didn't say anything in English. By the time it gets to English, you have a translation of what he said. Whether or not it communicates the meaning of what he said depends on teh translators knowledge and skill of translating. Word for word translation means nothing if it does not communicate. To use an example I have used before, in portuguese, you do not translate "How old are you?" word for word. People have no idea what you are talking about. You translate it as an idiom, "How many years do you have?" Word for word ("what he really said") means nothing; it is confusing. It takes DE to make sense.

 

But "raining cats and dogs" only communicates in a culture where "raining cats and dogs" is understood as an idiom for "torrential downpour." In some languages, people would be looking to the sky for cats and dogs, and in that case, communication would have failed. Therefore, the idiom must be translated into the language in a similar idiom that can be understood. The point of translation is clarity, not confusion.

Make a note in the margin, explain it, assume people aren't stupid. It seems a bit eletist to make the "I know what's good for them" decisions for the little people..

I disagree. DE is not incompatible with verbal inspiration. ONe could argue that translating at all is a compromise of verbal inspiration. We would both agree that they would be wrong. But the question would be, If God inspired the Greek and HEbrew (which he unequivocally did), then what right do we have to change it to something else. To use your line, "just tell me what God said." To me, this is the logical end of your connection.

Verbal inspiration says that the very WORDS of the original were inspired and that proponents believe that it wasn't JUST the menaing behind the words that were inspired. DE by definition does not care about the WORDS only the meaning behind the words. I fully well realize that there is a difficult to impossible job ahead for anyone translating one language to another, what with sentence structure and clauses and phrases. I am not saying there can be a literal word for word in the same order translation. That would be unreasonable, but what would be very reasonable would be to have a translation that makes every attempt to make it as close as possible.

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the better translation is nurse or nursing mother as the NASB says. But the NIV has not grossly erred here.

The same can be said about many words. That is why there is a semantic domain ... the same word can mean different things and different words can mean the same thing.

The Greek word for mother is meter. There isn't the slightest possibility that mother is the correct translation of the word trophos.

To me, 1 Thess 2:7 is an example of something I think the NIV did poorly, but there are examples in all versions of that.

Yes, you are right that there are examples in all versions but my point was that this is the stated intent of the NIV. not an occasional exception.

I would simply say that DE is not the devil is disguise, as some would make it out to be. It has a proper place with judicious use.</font>[/QUOTE]It is indeed NOT the devil in disguise, it is merely a tool but, a tool that is misused to the Nth degree by the NIV.