Evd/erv

Yes, I own a copy. It is not new, as I believe it came out in 1978. It is basically the forerunner of the New Century Version (1986) by Word Publishing which is at about a 4th grade reading level. There is some association with Church of Christ. Yes, the text is also published as the 'functional equivalent' rendered Easy-to-Read Version (World Bible Translation Center, 1987?), and is very similar to (if not exact) the International Children's Bible (1983). Notice that other versions occassionally also use the easy-to-read description.

Deaf persons often have a limited vocabulary. There have been other Bible projects which attempt to communicate with special reader groups like the Bible in Basic English (Hooke, 1949) based upon an approximately 850 word vocab (in public domain).

 

I am aware of English Version for the Deaf. I saw much difference between this version and the KJV. Some deaf people want "EASY reading" because of their low-education. Some deaf people DISLIKED it, but they favor the KJV. Most Deaf's native language is ASL (American Sign Language), but English is their "second" language for writing/reading only. ASL is their major communication. Deaf people are easy to misunderstand during they READ WHAT these hearing people wrote in English. Some average-educated Deaf understand what they wrote well.

DBFA (Deaf Baptist Fellowship of America) only uses the KJV for revival, preaching, teaching and others. DBFA is similar to BBF or GARBC. DBFA is national annual conference in June.

 

Askjo is deaf and his natural "tongue" is ASL. It is much easier to read written English than it is to translate from ASL to English for hearing people.

If there is going to be a Bible for the deaf, IMHO, it should be as much as possible translated in written ASL, which most English only readers would have a hard time understanding as evidenced by Rip's post.

 

I did not know that Askjo was deaf!.

I did know that Askjo is a defender of the KJV. God has revealed much to our Brother through his studies of the Word of God.

Just as God has revealed to Askjo, just as He revealed the Scripture to the two men on the road to Emmaeus, He can open and reveal the KJV to anyone if they truly want to learn... blind, deaf, whatever the affliction.


I reiterate... no more versions are needed.

 

I do appreciate askjo's perspective--he truly has a right to speak here as a first-hand witness.

But I've emboldened a statement that I can't let go unchallenged. Exactly where did God say He would open and reveal a specific version to people?

God can illuminate His Word, of course. And the KJV is His Word. God can also use other versions that are better understood by someone who doesn't comprehend the old English. If I'm wrong, prove it with scripture. If God has said, "No more versions, for deaf people or otherwise," then prove it with scripture.

Clearly, some deaf people prefer this translation--others don't.

 

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Since God gave a clear warning against adding to or taking away from 'the words of the book of this prophecy', and that it has been shown that the ERV has indeed 'taken away' already, I would boldly state that God does not want more translations that take away from His Word.

 

How do you know the ERV didn't take away from the KJV?

Why are you making the KJV the standard?

One word for ya: Eisegesis.

You are making a verse say what your bias wishes it to.

 

the KJV cannot have taken away from the ERV. The KJV was written several hundred years prior to the ERV.

 

That's not what I said. What if the ERV simplified a word/phrase that the KJV made more complex? By your definition, then, the ERV would have taken away from Scripture...while I might assert that the ERV was simply "taking away" from the KJV.

I'm not making an endorsement of the ERV...I've not studied it. But I think blanket statements like "Deaf folks don't need it" and "We don't need any more translations" (glad you didn't live in 1610!) are over the top.

 

So, since the KJV has added to the words, do we need to throw it away?

 

I have not seen the deaf version, but my problem (if we can return to the topic instead of derailing this to a KJV thread) is that publishers seem to assume that deaf people need to be treated like children. ASL is a language, it is not simple English for children. Grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary, and style are all different. Deaf people are not stupid and they are not children.

My question is for our deaf brethren primarily. What would you think about a literal translation of the traditional texts body into written ASL? I realise that would be nearly impossible since signs involve thoughts and ideas which are difficult to print, but what do you think?

This argument about God illuminating the KJV for anyone who is spiritual enough is interesting. If He can do it for a deaf person who uses ASL can He also do it for a Spanish speaker? Why bother with Spanish, French, or German.? Just let the Holy Spirit teach everyone through the good old KJV.

 

Question for you. When the signer interprets the scripture readings does he do so in signed KJV English or does he translate into ASL?

 

Not being deaf, I hope this isn't seen as presumptious, but isn't this what happened in the NIV translation essentially -- phrase by phrase instead of word by word. I realize that the phrase by phrase would come out differently, but that is also what happens in the other languages you mentioned. I don't see the difference here. I am curious why it hasn't been pursued . . .

 

Kevin T. Bauder (Th.M. from Denver Baptist Seminary, D. Min. degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Ph. D. candidate at Dallas Theological Seminary in 2001) wrote --

Soon, many fundamnetalist preachers were purchasing and reading the Living Letters and other volumes of the series that would eventually become Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible. Because of their concrete language, these books were prized for use in deaf ministry – even at Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand rapids, under the pastorate of David Otis Fuller. Fuller would soon become the dean of the King James-Only movement, but in the late 1960s he welcomed Taylor's work." (One Bible Only? Introduction, pgs. 13-14)​

 

The Holy Spirit can open up the understanding of the KJV if one truly has a desire to learn, Roger... Spanish, German, whatever.

The more translations that are produced, the more people want to argue against those that were deemed to be true for many years.

When does it stop?

 

I restate:

Then why have any translations at all? Couldn't we all just learn Greek and Hebrew?

 

I am afraid if we all were to learn Greek and Hebrew, the majority of us would be 'weighed in the balance and found wanting'.