Featured The NIV defended

OldRegular: Are you admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about since you can't name any versions which are parphrases? After asking you the same question a half dozen times to be charitable...now you have proven that you have nary a clue.

What you need to do (among other things) is to read the 17th chapter of John from the NIV (the current one)and while you are at it the 6th,and 10th too. You keep up your mantra against the NIV with absoluely no proof of your novel and ungodly ideas.

 

I named one and you have been whining ever since. I don't to cause you any more pain!

 

One! Only one?! I said paraphrases,not a singular paaphrase. Since you continually call the NIV a paraphrase and it is far more form-oriented than any dynamic-equivalent translation even moreso than a true paraphrase...what in the world have you been ranting on and on about? That's right...nothing of any substance.

 

You are the only one ranting Rippon, and all because I named one "brief paraphrase". You got plumb green around the gills! What would you do if I named some more? Honestly, I am just afeered to take the risk!

 

I used the niv a bit, it's ok I guess. Like any English translation though your have to study what's behind it. ESV mostly here at the moment.

 

doth a lion pounce ... or pounceth?

 

Only the lion can answer that!

 

Hmm...it looks like you are the one green around the gills. LOL!

 

If the gender neutral people eventually have their way {gain a little here, gain a little there} the lion may "pranceth".

 

A snip from Barry Applewhite...

Senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church,Dallas,Texas
:

"So far I find the gender decisions in NIV 2011 to be quite reasonable with no evidence of 'gender neutering.' I also find the NIV 2011 is a considerable improvement over NIV 1984 because it is considerably more restrained in introducing interpretation into the translation."

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

So Rippon you quote a pastor who contends that the NIV 2011 does not introduce as much interpretation into the translation as does the 1984 version. So in reality the 1984 version was more than a "brief paraphrase" it was a "brief commentary".

 

How you arrrive at your irrational conclusions is a wonder to behold.

 

Apparently you are not as learned as you think Rippon! Read the quote you posted.

My emphasis for Rippon's edification!

 

That's a very good point. I noticed that myself. Kudos to the CBT for that.

 

So would it be accurate to state that according to some guy who posts opinion messages on the internet named OldRegular that the King James translaters did not introduce any interpretation into the english text?

 

OldRegular,all translations include some degree of interpretation,even your beloved KJV. There isn't much wiggle room of difference between the words translation and interpretation.

 

I am glad to see you admitting the error of your ways.

 

So do you acknowledge that there is indeed not much wiggle room between the words translation amd interpretation? Do you also acknowledge that the KJV revisers used interpretation in their work?

 

Not really Rippon.

Have no reason to do so!