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. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your source is KJVO.Your rationale is that of the KJVO mindset on this point.

    You don't listen too well.The majority of the words on your list were understandable and contemporary.There is no problem with their usage in either the KJV or NIV.

    However you are denying stark reality when you insist that the KJV is just as easy (or easier) to understand than the NIV.The KJV is loaded up to the gills with obsolete words -- most of which were not on your list.You are following -- on this point -- the KJVO line of irrationality.Go to an Old Testament book and have an unchurched person read from an MV like the NIV.Have another individual of the same peer group read from the KJV.See how little the KJV is understood and how much more is gleaned from a modern version such as the NIV.
     
    #101 Rippon, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    My question was: "Where did this list of words originate?" (not simply: 'Where did you copy it from?')

    Mr. Kinney gives credit on his webpage of this particular word list to KJVO author Laurence Vance (evidently from his book entitled, Archaic Words and the Authorized Version). The website you used gives no credit to 'brandplucked', Dr. Vance, nor anyone else (that I could determine) as if it were their own original content (borderline dishonesty?). BTW, there is absolutely no question that it is the same list on both websites.
     
    #102 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why? Firstly, because if there are words in the NIV that are truly "difficult" (and I believe that there are some) then those ought to be addressed. A list of that nature could be usefully compared to other Bible versions to determine which ones are the worst offenders of employing difficult words. It is only fair to criticize all occurrences of difficult to comprehend Bible texts.

    Secondly, since the list you provided has both some words unique to NIV (only as compared to the KJV, not to all English versions) and words in common with KJV, the list must be culled to identify the actual problem words of the NIV (which ought to have been the point being made); consequently, a mixed list causes wasted effort that doesn't help advance the discussion. Additionally, if it could be shown that none of the common words are truly "difficult" then this also testifies to the utter worthlessness of their inclusion. Because this is obvious, therefore it is my conclusion that these lists are artificially enlarged to invoke a greater initial response (see my evaluation of another such list in this thread).

    Thirdly, any common words that might be determined to be truly "difficult" in both the NIV & KJV would then serve to prove that the KJV does in fact have difficult words (which undermines your position, I'd think). However, I have observed before (and even recently) that KJVO argumentation (the web info used, not Baptist4life personally) sometimes resorts to the adolescent 'others-do-it-too' excuse, rather than substantially defending the KJV text.
     
    #103 franklinmonroe, Nov 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing for certain that anyone can learn from this thread: Almost ALL mv proponents allude to many of the words found in the KJB tio be archaic, then it is understood they are truly shooting themselves in the foot when they admit the niv uses archaic words too. They then try to substanciate their view by saying there are tanslation "problems" in all versions. This is truly sad they are so easily led astray when the Lord gave final authority as found in the KJB as the one translation that can be perfectly defined according to context and verb usage. The KJB is always attacked in a versions discusssion.

    Oh, well, and so many wonder why the world wants very little to do with most churches.:tear:
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NIV uses some achaic words.The KJV's uses thousands of obsolete words.There is no comparison --only a stark contrast.

    Please elaborate.All versions are not perfect.There are mistaken renderings in all.

    That's pure mythology.The Lord gave no such "final authority as found in the KJB(V)"alone.The Word of God is indeed authoritative as far as 2 Timothy 3:16 goes.But the Word of God is not found exclusively in the Anglican Version.

    "The one translation that can be perfectly defined according to context and verb usage".Er,ah,no.It can't.That's another myth of yours.

    No it's not.The KJVO thought process is under scrutiny here.

    You,Sal,are regularly attacking the Word of God because you claim that only in the KJV family can the Word of God can be found.You have openly denied that the MV's are the Word of God.That charge of yours is blatantly an attack.


    The world wants nothing to do with most churches because most churches don't go along with KJ Onlyism?! That's silly in the extreme.
     
    #105 Rippon, Nov 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2008
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show us your standard which validates your statement other than your opinion.

    If as you say there are no perfect versions, then you would be holding to that even God could not relate to man perfectly what He said in that trhe very first version of His word had fallibilty in its origin!



    Drinking Bob's koolaid doesn't promote health.

    It is no "myth", I have found no valdiation in any remarks to prove anything amiss in the KJB.



    Nope, standing on the fact there are no valid arguements against the KJB and the persistent attacks on the KJB/ "Anglican Version" etc. is PROOF enough!:godisgood:




    Wrong conclusion, again. The people WANT to KNOW the word of God and too many like to keep them guessing which version should be trusted. We know which one is to be trusted above all others. Guess which one?:laugh:
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try this one on as a "conclusion." Or a "contusion", as the case may be. :laugh:

    Assuming "the people WANT to KNOW the word (sic) of God", as you say, then it appears the version that more people think is "the one to be trusted above all others" these days is the NIV, considering the numbers of copies of that version sold over the last 25 years, or so.

    Personally, I do not generally like (or 'trust' either the translation philosophy, or the general NT textual basis of) the NIV, but that happens to be irrelevant to the question at hand.

    [Incidentally, the appearance of the TNIV (which is alleged to be a much 'improved' 'update' of the NIV), has done basically nothing to so much as slow the sales of "the 'original' NIV" (whatever that phrase may actually mean).]

    The NIV??

    Not for me!

    However I seem not to be in the largest group with my preference, at least where the numbers of sales are concerned.

    And I don't even have to "guess" about any of this. ;) :thumbs:

    Ed
     
    #107 EdSutton, Dec 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2008
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well,do you suppose the massive boycotts had anything to do with that?

    Do you think that Wayne Grudem's demonization of the TNIV through a number of Dobson's shows had anything to do with that?

    Do you realize that a slanderous campaign might have contributed to that?

    I could add many more propositions to the list.

    As you often say :"Just askin'.

    But good enough for your bride.
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    No clue. Didn't know about any boycotts, here. I believe there was initial opposition to the NIV, as well, just as there seems to be against most new versions, when they appear.
    I don't know about any of the above, for I was not aware of them.
    Fortunately, she is improving, on this one. :thumbs:

    (Even more fortunately, for me, she will probably not read this post.) :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #109 EdSutton, Dec 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2008
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The campaign against the TNIV has been about the same level of intensity as against the RSV of 1952.Bruce Metzger was mailed the charred remains of an RSV for his viewing pleasure.

    I really can't imagine you have been as unaware of the anti-TNIV crusade as you maintain.You don't impress me as one who hides under rocks.

    Perhaps you and your wife need to examine the TNIV which is an improvement over the NIV.(Not just alleged improvement.)The scholarship behind it is second to none.
     
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still, it is opinion.

    While I do not think I "hide under rocks" either, neither am I a theological news hog, nor particularly aware of specific details in this. As a farmer and sometimes taxi driver, I am not, by any stretch, in the forefront of 'cutting edge' theology or 'modern Biblical scholarship' for whatever either of those phrases may actually mean. I do not get this news regularly, and was not even able to use, nor did I even have access to a computer until I got together with my now bride :love2: , some 11 years ago, and she is the one who taught me everything about what little bit I know about a computer, even.

    Incidentally, about the same time I got together with my bride, our church stopped subscribing for all the members who wanted it, to the "Western Recorder" which is our KY Baptist state paper, in order to have that money available for our upcoming mission teams, so now I would have to come up with the subscription, myself, and I/we have simply not done so, although there is certainly no opposition by our church to anyone doing so (and I believe some do do, including our pastor), lest anyone be mislead, here. However, since I do not, I do not get this source of a fair amount of news regularly, anymore.

    The one specific thing I am aware of (or was aware of at the time) in this, is that the combination of general opposition to the (then) 'outcoming' TNIV and desire to no longer pay the royalties necessary for the SBC to have the NIV (or the new TNIV, as was being suggested, by some) to appear in the SBC literature led to the HCSB, which is an "in-house" production of the SBC. I have also heard there was alleged opposition to the supposed 'gender' identifications at some places in the TNIV, and that the SBC, being generally opposed to this, decided to come out with her 'own version' that she owned and controlled, to counteract this.

    I suspect the 'gender' point is "ex post facto" as opposed to "ipso facto" and was more of a "pretext" for the HCSB, or a "preemptive strike" in that the HCSB actually "hit the streets" a couple of years before the TNIV, however. That leaves the real reasons as "money" and "control," neither of which is necessarily wrong in and of itself (Was not the 'control' issue one of the the actual reasons for the KJV?), but some of over-enthusiasm and perhaps even misleading info about the HCSB does not take away from the fact that the HCSB seems to be a pretty good translation. At least the above is all true, IMO. :saint:

    The reason I said "alleged" is because I have never even actually held a TNIV in my 'hot little paws' so I cannot offer any substantive evidence on this one way or the other.

    And I'll also offer that it is mostly one's opinion only as to any particular version being 'the best' or "improved" over another, for I was not aware that there is an objective list on this, anywhere. At least that's my opinion. :laugh:

    BTW, I did not question the scholarship of the TNIV, although I do wonder how and why the TNIV, with 13 listed translators, 8 of whom served as translators of the NIV, should somehow be considered superior to that of the translation team of the 'original' NIV, which has/had over 100 translators?? These numbers just do not seem to add up and to support this contention.

    Consider a few translations and numbers of individuals working on the translation with the TNIV -

    TNIV - 13

    KJV - ~ 50 (54??) ~ 4X

    RV/ASV - ~ 100 ~ 8X

    NASB - 39 - 3X

    NIV - 104 - 8X

    NKJV - >50 - ~ 4X

    HCSB - ~ 75 - ~ 6X

    TNIV - 13

    13?? 13? As in "one" "three"? Compared to anywhere from 3 to 8 times that number in these other places??

    Sorry, the numbers still just do not seem to support your conclusion, here. At least, IMO. ;)

    Ed
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't say that the TNIV team was superior to other translation groups.I said it was second to none.

    The core team is 13,but 50 additional scholars and linguists are consultants.Besides,my "conclusion" as you put it was just a further note at the end of my post.

    I'm wondering what you think of the Tyndale translation team ...of one person --William Tyndale.
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you think the word of God rests in the hands of interpretors?
     
  14. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hogwash. Very few here have ever attacked the KJV.
     
  15. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I say "hogwash" to that statement, rbell. :thumbs:
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ain't that there hog clean yet???
     
  17. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    A delineation is viewed as an attack when the KJB is always brought into question. That is exactly what the OP did when it was started.

    If there was no challenge set up as this topic was meant to bring question as to one's ability to understand the KJB, it would not be concluded as an attack against it or the reader either one.

    Therefore the delineation factor exposes it as such an attack.:godisgood:
     
  18. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure it is, it's what came off him that some versions are made of! Now if you can train that bigboy to quit running back to the hogpen!:laugh:
     
  19. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :laugh: :laugh:
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your use of modern English isn't very good.A 'delineation' is simply a description.You may view my 'delineation' as an attack against the KJV,but that's because you are paranoid.Real attacks against the Word of God is your speciality.

    Hey Sal,why don't you start a thread dealing with the challenges of understanding the NLTse?You could itemize various phrases which you think are obscure.I don't think anyone would view it as an attack.As a matter of fact that would be rather laughable.You could strive with every fiber of your being and couldn't come up with even 10 such phrases -- go on.I dare you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...