Some Singular Readings In The NIV...

[Jerome]

sinful remarks like yours MM....you repeatedly use that kind of language.

It's a euphemism for the F-word

Oops:

Philemon 5 is another case where you are mucking up as well.

You are really mucking things up DHK. You really need to study the Bible before you type nonsense on a public Christian forum.

 

[Rippon]

When I referenced that mucking around is a euphemism for the F-word --I meant the way MM used it was with respect to a translation of the Word of God. No one should accuse a translation such as the NIV of M---ing around. It is sinful to do so. It is just as sinful to say the translators of any given translation of "playing around" "fooling around" "messing around" "fiddling around" or any other disrespectful language like that dealing with translating the Word of God.

I would like some context on my two quotes regarding Philemon and DHK.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There are no sexual connotations in the words as per Rippon.

I never said nor suggested such.

I know exactly what it means. It's a euphemism for the F-word

May I suggest you stop mucking about and address the issues if you are able?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you denying that in the Greek the subject of the sentence is 'you'? Neither Mounce nor anyone else can do anything about that.

Still no reply from Rippon. Could it be that he actually has no idea what is the subject because he knows no Greek, or is it that he knows he is wrong, and hopes that no one will notice if he keeps quiet?

Come on Rippon; the word is stenochoreisthe, in case you've forgotten. Is it in the first or second person plural?

 

[Yeshua1]

Still no reply from Rippon. Could it be that he actually has no idea what is the subject because he knows no Greek, or is it that he knows he is wrong, and hopes that no one will notice if he keeps quiet?

How about about being true, maybe?

 

[Yeshua1]

Still no reply from Rippon. Could it be that he actually has no idea what is the subject because he knows no Greek, or is it that he knows he is wrong, and hopes that no one will notice if he keeps quiet?

Come on Rippon; the word is stenochoreisthe, in case you've forgotten. Is it in the first or second person plural?

Per the OP itself again:
What is better
To have the better readability provided us in the Niv, or the more accurant to text of the Kjv?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Per the OP itself again:
What is better
To have the better readability provided us in the NIV, or the more accurate to text of the KJV?

I reject the alternatives.
Four churches in my area at which I am sometimes invited to preach have changed their pew Bibles recently.
Two have changed from KJV to NKJV, and two have changed from NIV 1984 to ESV rather than use the new NIV.
I am not an unqualified fan of the ESV but I regard both these changes as positive.

 

[TCassidy]

KJV to NKJV

Great improvement.

ESV rather than use the new NIV

Also an improvement. I admit to having some hesitation to accept the ESV when it first came out as it is a revision of the RSV, the translation that evangelicals loved to hate. But it turned out pretty good. I would like it better had they used the Byzantine textform for the revisions, but, I guess I can't have everything.

 

[Rippon]

T.C. you're a B.O.er.

 

[Yeshua1]

I reject the alternatives.
Four churches in my area at which I am sometimes invited to preach have changed their pew Bibles recently.
Two have changed from KJV to NKJV, and two have changed from NIV 1984 to ESV rather than use the new NIV.
I am not an unqualified fan of the ESV but I regard both these changes as positive.

I should have probably stated is it better overall to have a version more Dynamic in function, such as the Niv, or a more formal translation, such as the Kjv?

 

[Yeshua1]

I reject the alternatives.
Four churches in my area at which I am sometimes invited to preach have changed their pew Bibles recently.
Two have changed from KJV to NKJV, and two have changed from NIV 1984 to ESV rather than use the new NIV.
I am not an unqualified fan of the ESV but I regard both these changes as positive.

I agree with both of your points here.
Just curious as how you view the New American Standard version?

 

[Rippon]

Per the OP itself again:
What is better
To have the better readability provided us in the Niv, or the more accurant to text of the Kjv?

You're completely confused. The OP has nothing to do with the KJV.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with both of your points here.
Just curious as how you view the New American Standard version?

I like it and consider it better than the ESV. It has never caught on in Britain, probably because it is the New American Standard Version. Some people consider it clumpy, but I haven't really found that.
If it were available in the Majority Text I would probably use it more.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like it and consider it better than the ESV. It has never caught on in Britain, probably because it is the New American Standard Version. Some people consider it clumpy, but I haven't really found that.
If it were available in the Majority Text I would probably use it more.

Some have seen as it as being too "wooden" to red, but that would be due to the translators trying to keep things such as greek verbiage as close to original texts as possible.