1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

a Challenge For Some...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Nov 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you Amy! You said what I was trying to say much better than I did! BTW, I'm a "he"! :godisgood:
     
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    :thumbs: Gotcha!
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not angry with you at all.Disagreement does not = anger.You said the same thing of Mexdeaf.Believe me,we've been on the receiving end of a lot worse than your posts.

    I do not think I got personal with you.I was simply trying to be even-handed down the line.But twice you have said that I wasn't being fair to you.That was untrue.And in post #44 of yours you agreed with Sal :"Yes,I see his [Rip's]motives weren't honorable at all!" Those kinds of remarks don't help foster good relations with fellow posters.So when you say that you are "hurt by your comments" I have to wonder.

    But all is forgiven.Just remember,when we disagree doesn't mean we don't like you or are angry with you.And please avoid stuff like "You're attacking the KJV."It smacks too much of KJVO talk.

    That's all for now.
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your suspicions have gained control of your mind. I use the 1762 Cambridge and the ONLY differences found between it and the 1769 Oxford Blaney is found in Ruth where "he" is "she". A one little letter misprint. the differences between the 1611 and 1762 are typeface and spelling with some misprint corrections.

    His answers are very close to mine own, I just haven't seen where wasting my time to post them would help anything but for you to treat yourself to a "KJVO" afternoon delight!

    Sure! We'll go head to head with the tniv and YOUR "blayner" edition!:laugh: Just produce this "blayner" edition, please!

    What you insist upon is instead of one being familiar with the wording, you would have them all over the globe still searching for meaning according to the Bible!

    You're welcome to any mv of your choice, but I'm afraid a choice has been made for those who are serious about KNOWING the word of God verses wanting to know IF others understand the Bible.

    My research has led me to no other version than the KJB due to its being PERFECTLY definable as being led of the Spirit and according to the harmony of all Scripture.

    Too many mv wordings that fall short to give the whole meaning to get bogged down in another quagmire of yours.

    I suppose I could look at this in a different light if there were any other light than the one where YOU ALWAYS are attacking the KJB! either by quotes from it or attacking those who stand upon its voracity.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think Logos and some others would disagree with your opinion about how slight the differences are between the 1611 and 1762.

    LOL!

    Yes,it's the Blayney Edition.

    I don't understand what you are trying to say here.(BTW,are you really trying?)

    You're afraid of your choice?

    You don't think it's important for folks to understand their Bibles?!


    Your sentences need more clarity.A Bible version is not "led of the Spirit" --- Christians are.

    Your sentences are examples of murkiness.


    I know that using the phrase :"You are attacking the KJB(V)" is a favorite tool in your KJVO kit --but please, in a moment of lucidity, drop it.BTW,how can one be "attacking the KJB by quotes from it"?
     
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So? They are not any authority, only they have their opinions.



    :wavey: Caught you didn't I?




    Um, Blaney.



    OK, I'll make this simpler: You would have those searching through multiple versions to try and understand the Bible, but that could conclude an intellectual understanding only to stay in a quandry not quite sure of what is the word of God.

    When it's a spiritually discerned Book, intellectualism will always fail. Mv's can only promote an intellectual's point of view due to inconclusive wordings. The modern reader remains at a disadvanatge when he doesn't study the KJB to its fullest extent and rather stays in an intentionally ignorant position.



    Try me.

    Nice try, but to no avail.

    I'd rather they understand the Bible than be caught in the quagmire of which version of the week.

    The words may not be in use, but they certainly give a perfectly clear understanding when it is searched out and defined according to context!:godisgood:




    Insert that little gnat called the word "my" in the right place, it will do wonders for your understanding.



    :laugh: We know what's murky.




    It's what your intentions are for quoting it and what you do with it after you've offered it, just ask Baptist4life.
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, you seem to think I'm "tougher":laugh:

    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon is correct, here. The gentleman was Benjamin Blayney, (1728-1801) then Vice-Principal of Hertford College (Oxford). Later he earned the D.D. degree, at the age of 59, in 1787.

    Ed
     
  9. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    But things that are different...

    ...oh, nevermind.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Spurgeon reviewed two of his books in Commenting And Commentaries.One dealt with Jeremiah and Lamentations.

    Blayney belonged to a past school of clever men,too apt to suggest new readings,and more able to appreciate literary beauties than spiritual teachings.He was a zealous follower of Louth,but he lacked the fine taste and poetic genius of his master.(p.114)
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hmmm. Can you really trust a man to be completely objective while revising your 'sacred' English text who thought he could do a superior translation himself? (in Jeremiah and Lamentations, anyway)
     
    #91 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, I didn't get an answer from Baptist4life (he has since replied to someone else) so I did a little search. As suspected, there is no question that this exact list of words was indiscriminately 'plucked' (pun intended) from a notorious KJVO author (who has been banned from this BB before).

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/langKJB.html
     
    #92 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  13. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I put the link at the bottom of my original post. And does it really matter where the list came from, if all the words are indeed in the NIV? BTW, your link is not where I got the list from.


    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/vt.htm


    While I DO NOT agree with all the information on that website, I merely used it to obtain a list of words that are in the NIV that are hard to understand. I simply "googled" that phrase, and this was the first website that I came across with the list. I didn't even read the rest of the things posted there. I want you to know that before I hear the "he's a KJVOnly guy"! LOL
     
    #93 Baptist4life, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the Record

    FTR, I previously offered no opinions about his work, motivations, or results.

    Nor will I now.

    I merely identified the individual, with the correct spelling of his name.

    Ed
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ah, another list. At least this one doesn't have a bunch of words also found in the KJV (but there are some: "burnished", "naught"). I estimate that there are 250 examples (which I will not check them all).
    Some of the complaints are legitimate. I agree that the NIV can be overly technical. It just proves again that no translation is flawless. I assume that the website author has presented his best evidence; so perhaps there may be about a dozen really difficult words in the NIV. A few examples taken from the above mentioned webpage (scripture reference, then NIV word followed by the KJV word),
    Deuteronomy 22:8 "parapet" "battlement"
    Esther 3:12 "satraps" "lieutenants"
    I Peter 4:4 "dissipation" "riot"
    Exodus 29:14 "offal" "dung"
    Esther 1:6 "porphyry" (from Greek meaning 'purple') "red"​

    But most of the examples seem pretty much neutral, where one word is not necessarily easier to comprehend than the other. I mixed these examples, so as to reduce the bias of knowing which word came from which version --
    Acts 2:6 "confounded" & "bewilderment"
    I Samuel 13:5 "charioteers" & "horsemen"
    Exodus 13:3 "commemorate" & "remember"
    Galations 5:19 "debauchery" & "lasciviousness"
    Leviticus 21:12 "desecrate" & "profane"
    Mark 14:31 "emphatically" & "vehemently"
    Psalm 104:26 "frolic" & "play"
    1 Chronicles 21:1 "incited" & "provoked"
    Romans 16:18 "naive" & "simple"
    Psalm 55:8 "tempest" & "storm"
    Ecclesiastes 4:6 "tranquility" & "quietness"
    Isaiah 11:6 "fatling" & "yearling"​

    Some are just laughable, since there is really no significant difference. I can hardly believe that these would be presented as being more "unnecessarily extended" (from the website). For examples (again, NIV word followed by the KJV word),
    Habakkuk 1:15 "dragnet" "drag"
    Micah 2:2 "fellowman" "man"
    Deuteronomy 27:6 "fieldstones" "whole stones"
    Ezekiel 26:5 "fishnets" "nets"
    Jude 25 "forevermore" "for ever"
    Genesis 19:1 "gateway" "gate"
    James 3:12 "grapevine" "vine"
    2 Chronicles 12:3 "innumerable" "without number"
    Acts 27:30 "lifeboat" "boat"
    2 Samuel 19:7 "nightfall" "night"
    2 Samuel 4:5 "noonday" "noon"
    Ecclesiastes 9:14 "siegeworks" "bulwarks"
    Ezekiel 17:10 "transplanted" "planted"
    Isaiah 29:6 "windstorm" "storm"​

    In some cases, neither the NIV word nor the KJV word are very clear. According to the website the KJV words are "perfectly understandable". Do they seem understandable to you? I reversed the order of some examples here too,
    Revelation 18:12 "citron" & "thyine"
    Zechariah 6:6 "dappled" & "gristled"
    Genesis 41:3 "leanfleshed" & "gaunt"
    Leviticus 11:19 "lapwing" & "hoopoe"
    Deuteronomy 14:5 "pygarg" & "ibex"
    Isaiah 24:8 "gaiety" & "mirth"
    1 Samuel 13:20 "mattocks" & "courter"
    Revelation 4:3 "carnelian" "sardine"​

    Many difference are due to the choice of how weights & measures are described. I suppose if you're British the KJV terms might seem less difficult. For examples (NIV word followed by the KJV word),
    Matthew 18:28 "denarii" "pence"
    Matthew 20:2 "denarius" "penny"
    Ezra 2:69 "drachmas" (online dictionary: One of several modern units of weight, especially the dram) "drams"
    I Kings 4:22 "cors" "measures"
    Luke 19:16 "mina" "pound"
    Revelation 14:20 "stadia" "furlongs"​

    One thing I find commonly in these comparisons are words and phrases that were never intended to be synonymous; that is, the translations have deliberately chosen different interpretations. For examples (NIV word followed by the KJV word),
    Genesis 14:1 "Goiim" (a proper place name) "nations"
    Psalm 58:7 "blunted" "cut in pieces" (speaking of arrows, the KJV is more literal)
    Leviticus 11:30 "gecko" "ferret" (obviously different creatures)
    Ezra 6:11 "impaled" "hanged" (Aramaic word means to strike and/or kill)
    Joshua 2:23 "forded" (implies water) "passed over"​

    In some cases, the KJV word is so very uncommon that it becomes a difficulty. For examples (NIV word followed by the KJV word),
    Song 4:5 "fawns" "roes"
    Song 2:9 "stag" "hart"
    Luke 3:16 "thong" "latchet"​

    But I still find this list of 'problems' to be very much overstated. I realize that a lot of this evaluation is subjective; it can depend upon an individual's education or other exposures to a variety of vocabulary.

    BTW -below is one example of the poor scholarship I discovered: first, "inclosings" is misspelled; second and more importantly, the word "filigree" is not the entire corresponding NIV rendering; it should have been (or included) the word "settings". The Hebrew word millu'ah (Strong's #4396) is actually rendered as "settings" once in the KJV at Exodus 28:17.
    Exodus 28:20 "filigree" "enclosings" (sic)
     
    #95 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I know you didn't, Ed. I wasn't suggesting that you did. I was just asking a question.

    Here's another along the same line: Why would a Hebrew scholar be employed to make a revision of an English text if the only editing needed were spelling, punctuation, etc.?
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Are those words all in the NIV? Did you check them yourself? You probably shouldn't just trust this source outright.

    First, the list was describe as being words that were "difficult". The vast majority of these were NOT difficult words.

    Second, being described as a list of words "found" in the NIV which implies that they are not found in the KJV. Why not just list words unique to NIV? I think the impression desired is a much more impressive list (perhaps even the sheer size will intimidate folks from checking the data). A separate list of difficult words that are common (shared) between the two versions being compared could be made.
     
    #97 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  18. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The only "difficult" words in the list were the words that were transliterated from the original. The others, while not exactly third-grade vocabulary, are used quite frequently. i know I use most if not all of them in my college papers (and I do not write "loftily" as some others try to write). It is a matter of being literate as opposed to "barely getting by."

    The main argument is that many of the words used in the Authorized Version are very outdated and are no longer used, or their general meaning has changed. Sure, if you drill down far enough in a dictionary you will find the meaning used in the AV, but a common man reading it would not have a dictionary laying there and know that the 8th definition is the proper one.

    Ya know, this same old merry-go-round has gotten really, really old. We worship the AUthor of the book, not a specific version or translation of the book. I have recommended several people to this site, and almost all came back after visiting this forum and told me they wanted no part of it. I can't say that I blame them, as no one wants to put up with trolls and the same "hue and cry" that people are perverting God's words.
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with you.Your post is very reasonable.In my post #56 I listed the majority of the words that BFL had originally provided.My modified listing in my estimation represented words which are current and should not be considered difficult.

    In reviewing my modified list I ran across a couple of words which I mistakenly included :satraps,sistrums,stadia and wadi.

    But it is fair to say that if all those words in BFL's original listing are common to the NIV and KJV --then there is no point to be made.

    The extremity of the KJVO movement makes claims which are patently false.
     
  20. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you calling me a KJVO?


    As far as the same words being in the NIV and the KJV both, why does that make a difference? I don't understand your logic. You say that the KJV is hard to understand because of misunderstood words, then defend the NIV saying the words that I posted from the NIV are also in the KJV? If you don't seem to be able to understand them in the KJV why do you think they are understandable in the NIV? As I said, I'm NOT KJVO, but your logic makes no sense, and you seem to have a serious bias against the KJV.


    Use whatever version you like, but any SERIOUS student of the Bible will take the time to dig deep into a passage and search out any words they do not understand. Doesn't matter if it's KJV, NIV, or any other MV. A casual reader is not going to understand any version really...........without the Holy Spirit's guidance, and a real desire to KNOW what the Bible says. Give a person a Bible.......ANY VERSION....and they won't understand it without problems. The KJV is no better or worse than any MV in that regard. You seem to think it is, but I guess we'll agree to disagree. However, you need a stronger argument than the one you've made to make the point you're trying to make. Which is a point I still am trying to figure out why you're spending so much time and effort trying to make in the first place.:confused:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...