Does TNIV help KJVO?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 1, 2005.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, let me say that my opinion of the TNIV is quite low and I consider it a very weak translation due to its HIGHLY dynamic style of translation with non-gender bias.

    My question is, does the TNIV actually cause damage in certain areas because it will give the hard-core KJV only groups with a "See I told you so" attitude?

    Will this new translation give the KJVO groups enough ammunition to cause even more confusion than they already have?
     
  2. yabba

    yabba
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were translations before the KJV and there will be more after the TNIV. The KJV is now and will always be just another translation.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100% Yabba, but now we are seeing a weak translation with marketing money and power behind it like we have never seen before.

    If a bad modern translation starts filling up the liberal (and even concervative, who buy into the marketing hype) churches, you don't see that as ammunition for the KJVO crowds to say; 'see look at all those bad MV's out there?'
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The criticism in this case is just, whether is comes from the "KJVo" crowd, the "KJVp" crowd, or the MV crowd.
     
  5. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,

    If KJVOist will attack very conservative translations like the NASB and NKJV they will use the TNIV to fuel more KJVO guilt by association theories.

    We will have KJVO claims that modern bibles are getting more liberal and liberal while ignoring conservative translations like the NASB (1995) and HCSB. It will be just another attraction at the KJVO circus of deception and lies. A little truth here and there will be used to paint all modern bibles and perversions etc… The best lies always have truth mixed within them.

    I'm sure that more $$$$$ will be made by certain KJVO $authors$ when they write books about the TNIV. I don’t put much stock in KJVO authors.

    I consider the TNIV a liberal translation. I don’t care for the NIV.
     
  6. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100% C4K.
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree C4K.

    As David pointed out, I think it will be like splashing some gasoline on the fire of KJVonlyism.

    But, regardless of where the criticism comes from, I agree that the translation is NOT "ok".

    Then again, when considering hard-core "onlyism"; how do you make a rabid dog, more rabid?
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. It is very common for KJVO's to lump MV's and those who produce them into one coven of demons.

    The most biblically fundamental group of translators ever assembled were probably the NASB translators. They even had to sign a statement of faith similar to what you might find in your average IFB church before doing work. Yet the KJVO's lump them in with the rest of the "bible correctors".

    PoR has already tried this on the other thread by suggesting that non-KJVO's were predisposed to accept any Bible version as long as it contained the gospel.
     
  9. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    TNIV helps the KJVOs, and vice versa. They will create a false dichtomy, and make people choose between an archaic Anglican translation and modern liberal translations. Hopefully people will see that there are other choices.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    First, I agree that the TNIV is a very poor version.

    Next, I agree it gives the KJVOs some ammo, though it's low-caliber. We must bear in mind they're always looking for excuses, since they have no real facts to support their myth.
     
  11. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    When did the KJV Only crowd ever need a reason to attack anything? It simply doesn't matter, if they need an amen from the crowd or a good pat on the back then they will dump on any translation that is not KJV.
     
  12. stevec

    stevec
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    It looks like we're all in agreement here. While I don't think the TNIV is the worst translation out there, 100 times zero is still zero.

    As for the KJVo's, the TNIV will serve as their ammunition du joir until something else comes along. They remind me of the Hollywood liberal types--they use emotion and factually weak arguments to support their trendy "cause of the week" until it's shot full of holes then they move on to the next one.
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true, stevec, as C4K says, its low-calibre ammo. They will never run out of ammo as long as something besides the KJV exists, including the 16th century Geneva.

    Funny, no KJVo's have posted here. I would like to hear what they think. Any KJVO's game to discuss this?

    Do you know how to anwer the myth that non-KJVO's will accept ANY translation that contains the gospel?
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Easy, Phillip, we can answer it for what it is-a MYTH, a sub-section of the general KJVO myth. Many a non-KJVO, including ourselves, has spoken out against such bogus versions as the NWT, and against very poor ones such as the Living Bible.

    In contrast, the KJVOs are quick to point out that people have been saved by what Scriptures are found in certain tracts with KJV Scripture in them, while reminding us that in their opinions many other versions contain enough Scripture to lead people to Christ. In other words, they've made themselves yet another conundrum and another oxymoron.

    Thus sayeth the AV translators:

    Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.

    As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.


    The AV men recognized the fact that if ten separate translators or groups of translators were to set out to translate the same material, there'd be ten different translations. They also placed value upon the efforts of other translators.

    However, they don't mention dishonest translators. Peradventure they thought no one would dare make a dishonest translation of GOD'S WORD.
     
  15. stevec

    stevec
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, roby. I saw a KJVo'ist bad-mouthing you on another MB and now I know why--your logic is inescapable. God gave us brains so we could logically reason truth vs. falsehood and fact vs. nonsense. I'm glad to see you (and others here) are using yours.
     
  16. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. It is very common for KJVO's to lump MV's and those who produce them into one coven of demons.</font>[/QUOTE]you say some of the most unusual things when defending your OPINION.

    you espouse your opinion without true knowledge. If they were as you say, they too would KNOW God is NEVER "deceived" :rolleyes:

    No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version. I don't ever deny their attributing the tag "version" on any of their commentaries, but when they espouse, as you do, their opinion that the KJB is wrong, or could have been "better" translated, it only goes to show their lack of study and they fail to define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined. [​IMG]
     
  17. mcgyver

    mcgyver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Plain ol' Ralph.......

    Question for you (as a matter of clarification for me): In a previous post you mentioned a failure to "define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined".

    Kind of lost you there...could you elaborate what you meant by defining English as it always has been and still is (defined)?
    Thanks
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Plain ol' Ralph: No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version.

    Actually, what's all too common is the KJVOs' rejection of ANY MV without even considering its merits, and with NO research.


    I don't ever deny their attributing the tag "version" on any of their commentaries, but when they espouse, as you do, their opinion that the KJB is wrong,

    That's not just opinion; it stands PROVEN. "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is incorrest, as is "slain & hanged" in Acts 5:30, just to name TWO goofs.


    or could have been "better" translated,

    Again, the PROOF is there, such as "unicorns" in several verses, and the various 'God forbid's in various verses.


    it only goes to show their lack of study

    Actually, it's quite clear that the KJVOs haven't studied, or else they wouldn't still be KJVOs except by the only LEGITIMATE reason to be KJVO...personal preference.


    and they fail to define the English as it always has been, and STILL IS defined.

    For a high school assignment I once translated Beowulf into modern English. Seems there was QUITE a difference in definitions between the time when it was written until I wrote it in modern language. About the ONLY words which remained the same are those taken directly from Latin, such as in, color, dolor, etc.

    FACT vs KJVO PROPAGANDA & GUESSWORK again.
     
  19. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Familiar with the term "archaic"? What the mv crowd refers to words being archaic are no more archaic than many of the words found in the mv's, it is as loosely a term used as the word "greed" and left up to the opinion of others to determine it's worth.

    Many of our English words have meanings that the mv crowd would LOVE to disinherit and justify their term "archaic", but seems if one does a little research, (even in the very dictionaries they use to undermine definition), that very meaning IS found to relate the context we find it in the KJB. Much to the displeasure, uh-hum! DISPLEASURE, of the mv promoters.

    IPW, the defintion is still up-to-date, but the mv crowd demands otherwise, the "word" in question may not be used as it is generally defined in modern linguistics, BUT that doesn't change one iota that the term is used correctly, simple use of a dictionary has mounds of valid and educational material within it's pages.
     
  20. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your "logic", Sir, is ill-logic, and you hung yourself in your attempt in the very first response.

    That's it, though, you may get away with what you espoused, to the less educated and illiterate, but not here. Wemake use of our dictionaries everyday, and contend earnestly for the faith once handed down, as well as refute any attempt to "point out errors", or show "inaccuracies" in the King James Bible, REPEATEDLY and to the vehement reactions by your class daily.

    One may say you are "mad", by your much speaking, as one that beateth the air, I suppose. And I do have "better" things to do than those of you who insist on spending redeemable time spewing forth your garbage. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...