NASB and NIV, True and Trustworthy.

Okay, and your point is........................................................................?

I know high school graduates who can't read the KJV and understand it a lick. So what? Does that mean all high school graduates can't understand the KJV? Nooooooooo. So does your statement mean all high school dropouts can understand the KJV? Nooooooooo. It is because of folks like you that there is such a harsh backlash angainst the KJV. When will you ever see that you are hurting your cause far more than helping it? Get out of Steve's little part of the world and realize that truth is not relative to Steve, truth is truth.

Neal

[ January 16, 2003, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Thats what I have said about the MV's all along. As far as I am concerned they are the trash some people believe rather than the truth of the KING JAMES BIBLE. Thanks for backing me on that one! As for ridicule and abuse if anyone here is too thin skinned to take what someone else says and deal with it like an adult then don't enter the discussion. All of this whining is very unbecoming of men.I have proved with scripture that the NIV and Nasv are not in agreement doctrinally in many places with the KJV so don't say that I have not. That is a lie.You have disproved nothing I have given you .All you have is your opinion.

 

Having trouble with basic english Neal? Did I say all ? I said people I know. Once again adding to and taking away are you. Very old tactic. Who sarted that?hmmm Let's see in Gen 3 Satan removed "surely" and he did it again in the niv in Rev 22:20 Ah yes I knew I had seen it somewhere before. Don't talk to me about people not accepting truth.I have the truth.KJV

 

Okay, Steve. Although you are the one who has problems with basic English, that is why you are stuck on an Elizabethian English translation!

Neal

 

So you do then agree that not all people can understand the KJV and see the need for more modern English translations?

Which verse is that found in (or not found in now)?

Okay, but I don't use the NIV but every once in a while. I don't personally like it much.

Well, you don't accept absolute truth, you accept relative truth. So you do need to be talked to.

Neal

[ January 17, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

It does appear you have an abundance of first-hand experience.

[ January 17, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Alcott ]

 

I will try to pick our your words here. PLease use the quote function properly so it is easier to see

That could be a valid approach but in many cases serves to engender much confusion rather than clarity. Marginal notes serve good purpose but one of their purposes is not to translate the translation.

I don't know of any DE proponent that would accept your definition here. I rather think they would reject it. You must realize that words are not there for the sake of the words; they are there because they communicate a meaning. If the words do not communicate a meaning, they are useless. That is why we have translations in the first place. People who can't read Greek can believe in verbal inspiration (which is what God inspired) but it does them no good until they can grasp the meaning of the words. I think the discussion here is a bit more involved than you are giving it credit for. Verbal inspiration is not the end of DE.

And that is what they NIV as done ... try to be as close as possible to the word of God.

But if the semantic domain of trophos means nursing mother, then that's what it means. If you look at your lexicons, that is what they say. Many of those who know disagree with you and they have reason to believe what they know.

Again, I disagree. Your idea of DE is not the stated intent of the NIV. Here is what is interesting. Most of the linguistic men that I know of, who know their Greek and Hebrew, prefer the NIV. Most of the people who do not like the NIV are people who don't know Greek and Hebrew. That is really what got me into studying it a while back. I began to think, If the guys who know language best like it, what am I (who doesn't know much about the languages comparatively speaking) missing? I found I was missing a lot.

 

posted January 16, 2003 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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"?</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Steve, Why are you avoiding these questions? You trust Riplinger's book as authoritative truth. How do you answer these questions above?

[ January 17, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Why don't you e-mail them and invite them here? As long as they abide by the rules, this would provide them with an excellent opportunity to show us how wrong and deceived we are.

Of course Ruckman probably couldn't stand the rules, his arguments fall apart when he can't call someone names. GA on the other hand probably would be "a good laugh". I am sure that the expertise she gained on this issue while studying Home Economics and being fed like Elijah in the wilderness while writing NABV could contribute greatly to our discussion.

 

Steve K, this is the second time that you've made the claim about the quote from the editor from the NIV, the second time I've provided the actual context of the quote(s) to show that you (and ultimately Riplinger) are wrong (slanderous), and the second time you brush it aside and ignore it so you won't have to deal with it.

I expect you, as a Christian, to recognize and acknowledge truth, instead of tossing it aside. Deal with the info I provided, and be honest enough to admit you were wrong. Or is your pride too strong? Not dealing with this (when everyone else here can see in black and white what's going on) drastically diminishes your credibility, and ultimately the viewpoint you are trying to support.

[ January 17, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Good call, Artimaeus. You convinced me.

I'm now going to become interlinear only. Never again will I read the idiomatic/dynamic equivalent KJV. (Did you ever notice that the word "idiomatic" contains the word "idiotic"?)

Now I just need to find God's chosen interlinear for the English language.

 

Good call, Artimaeus. You convinced me.

I'm now going to become interlinear only. Never again will I read the idiomatic/dynamic equivalent KJV. (Did you ever notice that the word "idiomatic" contains the word "idiotic"?)

Now I just need to find God's chosen interlinear for the English language.</font>[/QUOTE]'smatter, run out of ammo and thought sarcasm would hurt. Oh, OK, OUCH!!!. Now run along and find Roy.

 

I hate and love this debate, you can't get around idioms what about the "me genetio" phrases? or "God forbid" the word for God is not there. it literally translated would be something like "NO Be" that makes NO sense , therefore they used D.E. and very well i think. I personally don't care for the NIV, but i do reference it for study.
reubdog

 

Nice try Brian but you are wrong.It all boils down to yuo believe who you want and I will believe who I want.

 

How am I wrong? I provided the *entire* quote, not the butchered one, to show how Riplinger massaged the quote to make it look like the man was saying the opposite of what he really did. If I am wrong, explain how. And explain *why* you cannot see how Riplinger deliberately alters quotes to deliberately misrepresent. You are interested in the *truth*, are you not? Then be honest!

 

That is not true Brian.I don't se it the way you do and obviously a multitude of others don't either.Riplinger did her homework and cooked his goose good.

 

How do you not see it the way I do? Simply explain how! I provided the FULL quote, not Riplinger's doctored one. What, from the FULL quote, makes you believe that the DOCTORED quote is *more* true???? That makes NO sense.

 

The same reason you will accept a "doctored"version of scripture when the full one is available in the KING JAMES BIBLE!!

 

Obviously the quote you have a "copy"of is doctored.