Versions that are Invalid:

[Ed Edwards]

Sounds like a good dictionary definition to me. Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your puny dictiionary?

I judged the NIV = New International Version, by the Holy Spirit of God IAW (in accordance with) 1 John 4:1 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):

Dearely beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets are gone out into this worlde.


The Lord allowed me to be witness to His Wonderful Salvation with some 180 individuyals while I held my NIV in my hand. I personally was saved BY JESUS with one of the KJVs in my hand. IMHO, the NIV is more VALID than the KJVs are - today, 20 June 2008. But the poll only allowed for one of several levels of invalid.


-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sounds like a good dictionary definition to me. Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your puny dictiionary?

I judged the NIV = New International Version, by the Holy Spirit of God IAW (in accordance with) 1 John 4:1 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):

Dearely beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets are gone out into this worlde.


The Lord allowed me to be witness to His Wonderful Salvation with some 180 individuyals while I held my NIV in my hand. I personally was saved BY JESUS with one of the KJVs in my hand. IMHO, the NIV is more VALID than the KJVs are - today, 20 June 2008. But the poll only allowed for one of several levels of invalid.


-

It is a dictionary definition. And my dictionary is not puny. :laugh: however, what is your stance (I didn't read the whole thread too many posts)? And testing the spirits quote has nothing to do with a dictionary definition. Context. Context. I read the NIV, KJB, LXX, Sacra Vulgata, and a whole slew of others. In order for me to place an opinion we must work from the same definitions. You don't have to go with mine. I'll go with yours. so what do you mean by invalid when it conserns scripture. And I'll go from there.

 

[Ed Edwards]

It is a dictionary definition. And my dictionary is not puny. :laugh:

I rephraase my question for clarity: Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your gut-busting dictionary? raying:

however, what is your stance (I didn't read the whole thread too many posts)? And testing the spirits quote has nothing to do with a dictionary definition. Context. Context. I read the NIV, KJB, LXX, Sacra Vulgata, and a whole slew of others. In order for me to place an opinion we must work from the same definitions. You don't have to go with mine. I'll go with yours. so what do you mean by invalid when it conserns scripture. And I'll go from there.

A Bible version is INVALID if it does not properly translate it's source text(s). All source texts at the time of translation that are available should be used, variations among the source texts should be explained in footnotes like the KJV1611 Edition did.

According to my definition, the KJV1769 family of translations would be INVALID. Obviously I used a different definition when I voted

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I rephraase my question for clarity: Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your gut-busting dictionary? raying:



A Bible version is INVALID if it does not properly translate it's source text(s). All source texts at the time of translation that are available should be used, variations among the source texts should be explained in footnotes like the KJV1611 Edition did.

According to my definition, the KJV1769 family of translations would be INVALID. Obviously I used a different definition when I voted

Have you read Archer's encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties? What do you mean by properly translate? Without Error? Would this include transcription errors? If that's the case then there are no bibles currently that are valid because all extant text have certain transcription errors. Ie a word copied twice ect... I like the NIV for many reasons however the text are copied from copied text and there are no exant origianals from which to translate that sources do not have transcription errors.

 

[Rippon]

Even allowing for an occasional misunderstanding of the poll -- it's quite disconcerting that 83 people on the BB think the NASB, NIV and ESV are invalid versions.Some made their selections for shock value I'm sure. Others made their choices out of spite. Still others picked the ones they did out of ignorance.Those KJVO-types probably have spent little to no time in actually reading the texts of thse "invalid versions".I hope they will soon realize that the KJV revisors themselves would have rejected the attitudes of these modern 83 members.

 

[Rippon]

Even allowing for an occasional misunderstanding of the poll -- it's quite disconcerting that 83 people on the BB think the NASB, NIV and ESV are invalid versions.Some made their selections for shock value I'm sure. Others made their choices out of spite. Still others picked the ones they did out of ignorance.Those KJVO-types probably have spent little to no time in actually reading the texts of thse "invalid versions".I hope they will soon realize that the KJV revisers themselves would have rejected the attitudes of these modern 83 members.

Well not 83 members -- 84 votes against the NASB,NIV and ESV. That's just childish. Not to mention voting against the KJV's and the Geneva versions. Let's hope that most members today would not be so immature.

 

[Baptist4life]

Poor Rippon, he's got nothing better to do than dig up old threads so he can criticize people who don't like the NIV. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Poor Rippon, he's got nothing better to do than dig up old threads so he can criticize people who don't like the NIV. :laugh:

As usual, you don't read too carefully. I said this immaturity was evidenced in their opinions against the NASB,NIV,ESV,KJV and Geneva translations.

It is seriously wrong for anyone to categorize any of these as "invalid."

I'll tell you only some of the individuals who believe the NASB is invalid :

Askjo,Cutter,RSR, and TCassidy.

Some who believe the NIV is invalid:

Askjo,Baptist4life,charles_creech78,Cutter,Eliyahu,RSR,and TCassidy.

Some who believe the ESV is invalid:

Askjo,Cutter,Eliyahu,RSR, and TCassidy.

Perhaps you have recanted your particular beliefs in this area. Have you?

 

[Baptist4life]

Yes, I DO NOT believe those versions are "invalid". I don't care too much for them, but "invalid"? No.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I DO NOT believe those versions are "invalid". I don't care too much for them, but "invalid"? No.

It's good to hear that you don't consider them invalid any longer. But you had only chosen the NIV at that time as an invalid translation. Do you not care much for the Geneva,NASB and ESV?

 

[mcdirector]

Invalid is a terribly strong word.

From the free dictionary:

in·val·id 2 (

n-v

l

d)adj.1. Not legally or factually valid; null: an invalid license.
2. Falsely based or reasoned; faulty: an invalid argument.

 

[Baptist4life]

I think I voted without really reading the "invalid" part. I voted for the translation I least liked.

 

[Rippon]

I think I voted without really reading the "invalid" part. I voted for the translation I least liked.

"...without really reading..."

That's a chief concern B4L. You would post a lot less if you actually took the time and read posts carefully.

 

[Baptist4life]

I tried to explain. Thank you for the poorly disguised insult.

You would post a lot less if you actually knew how annoying you are.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I tried to explain. Thank you for the poorly disguised insult.

You would post a lot less if you actually knew how annoying you are.:smilewinkgrin:

"'Annoyance' lieth in the eye of the beholder" saith the weasel.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ed Edwards]

It must be hard for some people to read the opening post?

// Please do not mark a Version invalid unless you have
studied the version a bit and consider it invalid.
Please do not mark a Version simple because you
have 'heard' is is bad. \\

 

[rsr]

As usual, you don't read too carefully. I said this immaturity was evidenced in their opinions against the NASB,NIV,ESV,KJV and Geneva translations.

It is seriously wrong for anyone to categorize any of these as "invalid."

I'll tell you only some of the individuals who believe the NASB is invalid :

Askjo,Cutter,RSR, and TCassidy.

Some who believe the NIV is invalid:

Askjo,Baptist4life,charles_creech78,Cutter,Eliyahu,RSR,and TCassidy.

Some who believe the ESV is invalid:

Askjo,Cutter,Eliyahu,RSR, and TCassidy.

Perhaps you have recanted your particular beliefs in this area. Have you?

Sometimes we get confused and vote the opposite of how we meant to vote. Gotta be careful before you hit that "enter" button.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As another 'be critical of the guy who doesn't like your translation' thread this chase around the mulberry bush is closed.