Featured Which Translation Would You Recommend ....

More shuck and jive, more questions concocted to change the subject, and more efforts at disinformation.

Bottom line, point the lad to several on line translations, i.e. the NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB and see if any of these sound translations flip his switch. Stay away from paraphrases and Calvinistically biased translations, such as the NLT, NIV and ESV. Trust in the Truth!

 

so the Esv/Niv/Nly would not be english word of god to us then, correct?

Would be like reading and using Book of Mormon, or else the Watchtower Bible?

 

I compliment you and the above is your response.

How many times do you need to be reminded that his native language is not English. So though he is 14, doesn't mean that his ability level would be the same as a native English young person.

The point was that you tried to hammer me for recommending he try the NIV which I already specifically said was not suitable. You had gone on and on endeavouring to slam me -when you didn't even know that there there was an NIrV at all. You need to to take your time and read with discernment Van.

And whoosh --right over your head.

 

What would lil Ole me recommend

I have no problem with the KJV. I have never ask for a revision and the people just wanted the Thee's and Thou's removed. Considering tenses are involved and are contextual. Now we have monkey changers in the temple with will-nilly liberties being taken with the sacred text.

When the KJV translators, a group of inspired and gifted men, used the Received Text (TR) it seemed one would look primarily to the Byzantine. However, they great devotion to the Latin text. This text was Jerome's version of the Byzantine text. The New KJV has relied upon the Majority Text while footnoting how other texts have translated the passage.

I often compare it with the KJV and find few divergences of any great consequence. People so not seem to note disfavor when it is read from the pulpit.

A note about the NASV: It is a translation which really is not based upon the old American Standard Version. Independent translation attempting to market itself as ASV? I have not used it because of the ethical conflict. Besides have you attempted to read it publicly? You better be able to say, "Peter Piper pick and pack of Pickled Peppers" , quickly.

 

Does Rippon know what reading level the lad possesses? Nope. But the mindreader keeps asserting the lad cannot grasp a bible written in the 12 or 13 year old range. May I object with "fact not in evidence?

Bottom line, point the lad to several on line translations, i.e. the NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB and see if any of these sound translations flip his switch.

 

Yep, I do. His 'knowledge of English is very elementary at best. That's why the NIrV is a perfect fit for him.

No mind reading is required. You just need to read with comprehension --it's right there in the OP. He is not a native English-speaking boy. He's a refugee from Nepal. He needs something along the lines of a third-grade reading level for now.

Your bottom lines are at the bottom of the barrel Van. No one pays attention to your petty pronouncements.

You have to be told the same info repeatedly. And even then it doesn't sink in. The world of ESL is certainly "foreign" to you.

 

You might like to check out the Modern version Kjv coming out, as they corrected it to modern grammar, but kept same texts in translating it..

The Nasv was the Asv updated and revised based upon believe the 23 edition of nestle'Aland, with the 1995 revision based pon Nestle'Aland 26!

 

Does Rippon know what reading level the lad possesses? Nope. But the mindreader keeps asserting the lad cannot grasp a bible written in the 12 or 13 year old range. May I object with "fact not in evidence? Apparently not, since Rippon claims his pure speculation reflects fact. LOL

Bottom line, point the lad to several on line translations, i.e. the NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB and see if any of these sound translations flip his switch.

 

You're as obdurant as they come. You just cannot bare to concede that you are dead wrong. I really don't think you are as semi-literate as you appear.

You insist his reading level would be for a 12 or 13 year old. (Even though he's a 14 year old from Nepal and his native language is not English.)

You'd "be quite surprised if the lad could not read with a comprehension at a high level." Yet the OP states his "knowledge of English is very elementary at best." Reading with a high level of comprehension and "very elementary, at best" are antithetical. But in the mind of Van words are reinvented with reckless abandon.

Can you deal with plain English? If not, don't try to recommend English translations --it's above your pay grade.

 

Rippon, get ready for a three week discourse from Van on how "reading English" and "knowledge of English" are really two separate and very different things.

 

Van is not man enough to admit he was totally mistaken. He just digs the proverbial hole deeper and deeper. And in the theological vein Van follows suit. He will not take correction. It's either do it Van's way, or hit the highway. When one looks up the word stubborn in the dictionary Van's face is staring right at you.

The boy's knowledge of English is not just elementary.

His knowlege of English is not just very elementary.

His knowledge of English is very elementary,at best.

There are a few qualifiers here Van. The words "very" and "at best" modify the word elementary.

The word elementary here means basic, simple or easy. The word "very" intensifies elementary. His level is low.The words "at best" makes it even more obvious to the average literate native speaker that the boy has a level of comprehension on a third grade level at the most. And in all probability that was being generous --it might be lower.

There, Van. I have given you a free tutorial. And I put it all in elementary English for your accessibility.

 

There are many versions today ....

.... some may be seen as a poor choice, but when it came to youth, especially those new in their faith, the NKJV or NLV is good. That is my opinion, and I personally don't care about some of your opinions on my opinion! I happen to find the Bible Gateway software to be very helpful when reading the word and understanding what is being taught. It allows the studious person to compare verses, and even words, side by side, and if you have no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, this serves a lay person well in drawing a conclusion.

Of course, no version should be read without the assistance of the Holy Spirit being asked to guide your eyes, heart and mind in the study of His Word!

 

My two boys have grown up on the Nlt, and both have found it easy to read and understand!

 

You have to pay attention. Rd2 was speaking of the New Living Version --not the NLT. Those two are not the same whatsoever.

Anyway, why do you like the NLT so much? It has more inclusive language than the NIV. I thought that has been your major sticking point about the NIV. You have gone on and on about it yielding to feminism --that it is liberal and so forth. You are a very inconsistent guy.

By the way, you already know that I appreciate the NLT very much. It's in my top three.

 

Rippon continues to claim his pure speculation reflects facts not conjecture.
And he continues to demonstrate his inability to restate accurately anything posted. Did I say the Lad could read at the 12 to 13 year old level? Nope, but rather we do not know that he cannot. Again and again Rippon cannot stick with truth because of ignorance or apathy.

Bottom line, point the lad to several on line translations, i.e. the NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB and see if any of these sound translations flip his switch.

 

I jut like the way that the Nlt reads for preteen/teenagers, as it allows them to read and understand the Bible, but they will soon be old enough to "graduate" unto something like my 1984 Niv/Hcsb!

 

You said: "[A] translation with a reading level for a 13 year old, or a 12 year old might be in his wheel house."

Mr. Denial, you just need to absorb my helpful post #51. You've lost and you need to work on English basics.

 

Please address the second paragraph of post #54.

 

Agreed ...

When I was a youth pastor the Jesus Bible (NLT) was big. If a young person can read it, and understand it, that is the key to getting them in the Bible.

I always taught out of my then favorite, RSV, and with a side by side version of the RSV and NLT, I was able to point the young folks in the right direction as to a meaning or a word and how it changed the meaning or enhanced it! This allowed the kids to see that other versions we a necessary help aid to better understanding the Bible.

A few years ago, I cam across two youth from my senior high group from way back in 1969 to 1971. The eventually married, and had lots of kids, and it was neat to catch up on their life 40 years later. We met numerous times before they moved back to Arkansas, and I couldn't help but notice she had the NKJV bible and he had the Message bible!

It was special to see that their desire to read the word had evolved away from the NLT. I asked them why they had to widely different versions, and they tod me that my use of two bibles to teach the group with influenced them, and that they would study and pray together and use the varied versions to talk out what they believed God was saying to them!

 

You're confusing the old Living Bible (from 1971)with the NLT (1996,2004,2007).