THE HOLIEST OF ALL
The following .pdf file (need the free Adobie reader for it):
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/IAOTW/sample.pdf
contains Chapter 5 of IN AWE OF THY WORD
(AVPublications, 2003) by G.A. Riplinger
Because this document is at her public site, it is open to
public discussion in this public Baptist Board Fourm.
Use will be made in this discussion of the
Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (EAT) at:
http://www.eat.rl.ac.uk/
This link is better than the ones in the book.
Some words associated with AWE:
FEAR
ANGUISH
DINOSAUR
GASP
GEE
GROTESQUE
LARGE
RAW
SCARE
SHAME
SHIRK
SOMETHING
IAW the thought-line of Ms. Riplinger something about
'AWE' brings forth evil and vile connections :(
These connections will be explored by me in this
topic. Needless to say, my thoughts on this matter
are Public (All can read but only Baptists need reply)
Edited after links check - links should work now
AWE Chapt 5: THE HOLIEST OF ALL
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Feb 24, 2007.
-
-
On page 22 of Chapter 5 (web page)
a comparison is made between
the Bishop's Bible and the King James Bible
Luke 5:9 Bishops: 'taking of the fishes'
Luke 5:9 KJV1769 Edition: 'draught of the fishes'
This was good for the 1611 Edition and the 1769
edition, but not a good translation for 2007:
From the Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
Draught - 8. That which is taken by sweeping with a net;
as a draught of fishes. Luke 5.
From dictionary.com , 2007:
Draught, British for 'draft'
draft - 21. a quantity of fish caught.
Here is a no-beating-around-the-bush (well, beating aound
in dictionaries) 2003 translation:
The Holman Christian Standard Bible
Luke 5:9 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
For he and all those with him were
amazed at the catch of fish they took,
Which doctrine is it that is dependent on if the disciples used
a net here or now? -
From page 10 of AWE chapter 5 (on-line version):
(color & size selected by Riplinger, the author):
Holy associations are generated by the KJV words;
unholy thoughts arise from the words used by new
versions.
From page 10 of AWE chapter 5 (on-line version):
KJV:
thine:
mine, you, Bible, thou, God, eyes*,
forever, glory, Old Testament, self
NIV
TNIV
NKJV
NASB
HCSB
ESV
etc.:
your:
mine, our, house, life, self, our hand,
eye, mother
There is a lot of selection, picking, and choosing.
Here are some unholy words assoicated with 'thine':
TWINE
CRYPT
ENGLISH
LEG
MAN
OLD
OUTDATED
PARSLEY (like TV prophet for profit, eh?)
PINE 1 0.01
PLUSH
SLIM
SWINE
THIGH
WHAT THE HELL
Here whole exercise with the EAT is a fool's errand
'much ado about nothing'.
And there she is sitting on the most awe aspiring
book in the word, the Holy Bible, and is stuck
with one edition of one English version -
What does she make of "pisseth against the wall"?
Does anyone else here find themselves wondering if she is just taking the mickey out of all the KJVOs and laughing all the way to the bank? -
She didn't make it easy to find anything in her book.
Even the choice of Adobie for her 'sample' precludes
easily finding anything.
The following book has a Greek Word index (with Greek alphabet),
A Biblical reference Index (list of Bible verses cited),
as well as a Subject Index -- easy to find stuff in this document:
THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY (Bethany House, 1995)
by James R. White
Why do the KJVs have a filthy word in this verse?
2 Ki 9:8 (Geneva Bible of 1587)
For the whole house of Ahab shalbe destroied:
and I will cut off from Ahab, him that maketh water against the wall,
as well him that is shut vp, as him that is left in Israel. -
So while the word is considered somewhat vulgar by today's standards, it was in common use in the 16th and 17th centuries. This word alone should not make the KJV superior in any way, but neither should its use make the KJV inferior in any way. We cannot condemn the KJV for using the same word used in other translations.
I can't believe it! Did I really just defend something found in the KJV???
:tongue3: :confused: :rolleyes: :eek:
-
Ah yes, but if we were playing by Ripinger's standards that is EXACTLY what we would do! -
I know. Riplinger's standards certainly don't coincide with the standards most folks accept. According to her standards apparently it is alright to go to any length to support what we believe. Riplinger isn't the only one who follows this standard. She is just one of the most notable people who follow this standard.