Featured On Bibles

Many thanks ktn4eg for both posts. I was curious about the info in the first since it wasn't sourced. And I will still complement you on your memory!

I believe that in large part the old Democrat party of the South [notice the capital D] has become the Republican Party in the South minus some of the racial aspects.

Actually I have heard of your "alma mater" but knew nothing of its history or the role of Governor Peay in the Scopes trial. I do recall that the state won the case.

Got a good chuckle out of your closing comment. I can see it now!:laugh::laugh:

 

Thanks for an early Sunday morning laugh! Now I gotta go... to church!

 

I'm told that students majoring in drama at William Jennings Bryan Memorial University located in Dayton TN each summer on the anniversary dates of the Scopes' trial re-enact the entire trial word-for-word taken from the Rhea Cty official court transcripts. (Which aren't EXACTLY the same as what you'd see in Hollywood's "Inherit the Wind" movie. [Why am I not surprized?)

Jennings was THREE TIMES the Democrat Party's POTUS candidate & once served as Secy of State (the office now held by Hillary Clinton) in Pres Woodrow Wilson's (D) first term of office (1913-17).

The once solidly-Republican Nashville (TN)(morning) Banner newspaper (now defunct), spared NO effort to belittle Jennings & his "'out dated' 'unproven and untested' myths pulled straight from the Genesis creation stories 'which any thinking person nowadays KNOWS FOR A FACT COULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY THAT MOSES SUPPOSEDLY TELLS US!!" [Here I'm quoting what the Banner in essence opined in print almost every morning in its paper while the Scopes' trial was going on.]

Gutta be careful about them there very biased Republican-backed Op Ed writers, don't we?!!? :smilewinkgrin:

 

I even have to keep an eye on myself sometimes!:thumbs::tonofbricks:

 

Would you suggest that the KJV dilutes the word of God when it has non-literal renderings that could be called dynamic equivalencies in some places?

 

I am not from Missouri but show me anyhow!

 

God forbid!

 

You mean that in some sections the Niv is more literal than the ole Kjv was?

 

You made up the term brief paraphrase, it's a not a scholarly term.

Bible paraphrases and Bibles that are dynamic equivalent are two distinct categories.

Totally out of line;sinfully so.

Do you just not get it...or are you pretending not to get it? You have not merely said negative things about the NIV...you don't even regard it as the Word Of God!

You continue to call it the meaningless term:brief paraphrase when no one else would dare to put it in the paraphrase category.

You continue to cast aspersions with no substance behind your bluster.

 

Of course. The renderings of God save the king and Long live the king are some that come to mind.

 

I know others that call it a paraphrase. One in particular who is proficient in Greek.

 

I demonstrated to Rippin clearly above that the term Brief Paraphrase is similar to the term Dynamic Equivalence. Initially Rippon argued the the translation scheme of the NIV was not Dynamic Equivalence but he was shown to be incorrect. He has for years exhibited serious umbrage at the designation of the NIV as a brief paraphrase. Hopefully in time he will come around.

 

Give a name. Is he in the academic community? Name a single New Testament Bible scholar who calls the NIV a paraphrase.

It just boggles the mind. To make the NIV out to be like an alien species or something is silly.There are many more commonalities between the ESV, and especially between the HCSB and the NIV.

Paraphrases are way over there on the extreme right on the chart.They're further out than the merely dynamic category.

 

Not everyone who knows Greek is a published "scholar". You said you could not believe anyone else besides OR would call the NIV a paraphrase and I gave an example of one who does. I will not give his name as I don't have his permission to do so.

 

Okay,a Mr. Anonymous espouses the cause.

 

You own the term alone. You have not proven anything but your ill-will.

Not just initially,I still do. Do yourself a favor. Read. Read the preface of the NIV. You'll not find any promotion of the the term dynamic equivalence as describing the NIV.

 

Tyndale is pre-Elizabethan and his NT is plainer than that of the KJV. I think my understanding of older English is not a problem.

There you go again,but with a bit of a twist, instead of saying outright that the NIV is not the Word of God as you normally do. (And is against Board Rules in case you are not informed) You now say that other versions"are more true to the Word of God." That's entirely in your mind OR.

Have you ever checked out my thread titles in the forum? I guess you apparently have not. I have made it a point to compare versions to versions. I have more threads comparing more versions than anyone else here. That's the reason for the forum. You would not be giving me new information by telling me names of versions which you think are better than the NIV.

 

And just what qualifies you to be an expert?

Most of your posts that I have read on this foray into the inner sanctum of Bible translations consist of snide remarks, even to Amy G. And just because she mentions someone, not her, considered the NIV a paraphrase!

You really need to take a deep breath and control yourself Rippon!

Incidentally I have already indicated those versions I consider superior to the NIV!

 

Well,Jimmeny,where did you plant that choice piece of info?

Since you don't even consider the NIV the Word of God (which came as a surprise to God Himself) I would suspect the majority of English Bible versions you would consider to be superior to the NIV. Not so tough to unravel that one.

I want to ask you another question that you will want to avoid answering,as is your habit. Since the KJV (in its many stripes) has so many additions and a number of deletions from the Word of God and is based on such weak N.T. manuscripts...why would you even consider it to be in any whit superior to the NIV?

 

It is on two different threads! Search!

No one on this Forum owes you anything Rippon. You attempt to insult all who question the NIV but you are simply not up to the task.

Because the NIV uses inferior Greek Texts and because it is a Brief Paraphrase!

Rippon: You can attempt to insult, you can make snide remarks, you can question the salvation of those who disagree with you, you have done it for years, but none of that changes the truth about the NIV. It is supposedly a Dynamic Equivalence translation but is more like a Brief Paraphrase.

You are as irrational about comments on the NIV as I assume the KJVO5 people are over the KJV, though I have never read anything about or by them, only Dr. Bob's definition!

Now if you do not know what a Brief Paraphrase is, then look up brief, then look up paraphrase, then you may know. Or you can look up the post where I explained it clearly.