Thank you Amy! You said what I was trying to say much better than I did! BTW, I'm a "he"! :godisgood:
a Challenge For Some...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Nov 12, 2008.
Page 5 of 7
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
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. -
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. -
You don't think it's important for folks to understand their Bibles?!
-
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.
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:
-
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html -
Ed -
Salamander said: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.Click to expand...
...oh, nevermind. -
EdSutton said: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.
EdClick to expand...
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) -
EdSutton said:... 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.Click to expand...
-
franklinmonroe said:Where did this list of words originate?Click to expand...
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/langKJB.html -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporterfranklinmonroe said: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.htmlClick to expand...
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 -
For the Record
EdSutton said:The Gentleman's name 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.Click to expand...franklinmonroe said: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)Click to expand...
Nor will I now.
I merely identified the individual, with the correct spelling of his name.
Ed -
Salamander said:Click to expand...
The following list of archaic words in the New International Version (NIV) is taken from the 606-page, intensive and detailed, revised and updated work entitled, "Archaic Words and the Authorized Version," by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.Click to expand...
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),
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) -
EdSutton said:FTR, I previously offered no opinions about his work, motivations, or results...Click to expand...
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.? -
Baptist4life said:... And does it really matter where the list came from, if all the words are indeed in the NIV?...Click to expand...
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. -
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. -
franklinmonroe said: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.Click to expand...
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. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite SupporterRippon said:The extremity of the KJVO movement makes claims which are patently false.Click to expand...
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:
Page 5 of 7