Clarifying KJVO

You call me a liar for stating that the Niv in its 2011 revision went too far in accommodating the christian feminist agenda, and yet when given proof of that, you just call that a lie also?

 

It is very interesting that Rippon accuses you and me have doing things that are lies, and yet when confronted with actual proof to support our case, just says "nothing here", and keeps on saying that w elie and misrepresent etc?

 

Listen. When I have quoted a dozen or so key passages, you ignore them and still maintain your idiotic charges for years on end. Go to the text and prove your baseless claims. But you never attempt to do what is obvious --demonstrating from the text what you constantly insist on without a shred of proof. That is dishonest on your part and you know it.

 

The basis of you complaint seems to be that any objection to the 2011 made would be base and groundless then, correct?

 

That is laughable. You are the one making the same baseless claims for 8 solid years. I have asked you to produce proof from the text on a regular basis --but you have never, and I mean never, produced any text to evidence your assertions. You are content to evade and throw mud on the translation and its translators. You seem to revel in your practice.

 

The above is inane.

 

I have never stated that the Niv was not a real translation, nor was not the word of God to us, but surely one can disagree with it as just how well it was translated in regards to inclusive language, correct?
My 2 main objections as always been its less formal than desired, and that it went too far in the inclusive language in the 2011 edition.

 

You do react though in like fashion to when points out legitimate concerns on the Kjv cause the KJVO to react!

 

Listen closely for once in your life on the BB.

You have trashed the NIV and hence its translators on a regular basis for eight years. You have dishonestly said things like:

"The NIV2011 does though seem to give more leeway too the idea that women are allowed to teach and pastor." (5/20/2011)

That is utterly false and you know it, but persist in that kind of stupidity.

"The translators trying to feminize the Bible into something more acceptable to many today." (5/20/2017)

"The NIV seems to want to get equal roles for male/female." (6/23/2017)

You are totally irresponsible for those kind of remarks. Show passages in the NIV that supports such trash that you spout so often.

"The side of the NIV, as in how we can set aside the role distinctions between male and female." (6/27/2017)

You have produced mountains of accusations that are totally false. The NIV does nothing of the kind of things you constantly come up with. Completely baseless charges is your specialty.

"The NIV seems to be going over into feminism viewpoints." (6/17/ 2017)

Do you want more evidence of your falsehoods?

 

www.bible-researcher.com › English Versions › 20th Century › NIV
http://www.fpcstanley.org/news-and-updates/post/niv-buyer-beware
www.waynegrudem.com/.../An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pd..
https://unlockingfemininity.wordpress.com/2011/.../words-matter-why-we-cant-recom..

Are all of them biased/confused/or duped?

 

Do your homework --don't rely on others. You want to take a pass on your scurrilous remarks upon the NIV and its translators. Own up to what you have said in your barrage of falsehoods.

 

OK. On this thread, read Posts #57, #59, #60 by Rippon and #65 by Robycop. I notice that Rippon has now given up on 'lies' and moved to 'falsehoods.' It means the same thing.
On the 'Problem with Dynamic Equivalence' thread (all by Rippon) we have #100, #103, #135, #137, and effectively, #155. We also have 'sinful' in #98 and 'falsehoods' in #111.

 

So now you have added hypocrisy to your scurrilous accusations. You have consistently quoted from or linked to Fee, Carson and others, but because Y1 does the same thing you launch another pathetic tirade of abuse. Shame on you!

 

MM, take a close look at the above quotes from y1. What he has said is not merely another opinion, mistaken or stupid, but out and out falsehoods over and over again. You also have done the same. I will not allow factually untrue things to be thrown about targeting a translation and its translators who both of you know do not do what both of you accuse it of.

 

Scurrilous remarks are, well, scurrilous. That is unless you'd prefer opprobrious.

You and y1 have to own up to absolutely false and evil things you've said about the NIV and its translators. Y1 doesn't warrant a free pass and neither should you.

You have said sinful things about Philip W. Comfort as well. He is not connected to the NIV whatsoever --but on 4/21/ 2011 you said the following despicable thing:

"Comfort has a low view of Scripture."

Now that remark of yours was total rubbish, but you think you can get away from it somehow through strange machinations. You fail.

 

Bottom line actually is:

[Personal attack edited.]

 

Well I take comfort (pun intended) in the fact that you have had to go back seven years to find something I have written that you think is sinful and despicable. Since I have no recollection whatsoever of the post or the discussion, I shall not try to defend myself. Fortunately, my God tells me that He will be merciful to my transgressions and remember my sins no more.

I do not believe that I have said false and evil things about the NIV and its translators. I do believe that you have said false and evil things about Y1 and that you do not merit a free pass.

If you wish to persuade me or Y1 of the correctness of your position on translations, you will not do it by these pathetic little tirades. Man up and discuss like a grown-up.

 

You don't recall. Hmm...a number of American political operatives say that when they know very well what they have said and done.

That is a big falsehood.

You are denying reality.

I have been as clear and forthright as can be. I have not been hiding anything. Take a look at my posts, especially #109. I have quoted his remarks and gave my responses. I am being as truthful as possible --he and you on the other hand have not shown any integrity on the subject.

 

This is part of the instructions for posting on this forum.

Let's all (me included) try and keep to these rules.

 

The post is a rant. You will persuade no one with that. I do not know enough of the NIV 2011 to comment on Y1's statements, but they are his views and he is entitled to state them on this forum without you abusing him.

What I have said, and am happy to repeat, is that the NIV 2011, by its inclusive language, occludes possible references to Christ, and for that reason alone is not worthy of being used by a serious Bible-believing church. In my opinion. You are entitled to differ, and to express your opinion firmly but you are not entitled to say that I am a liar or that I am dishonouring God. It is for the honour of God and the Lord Jesus Christ that I am stating this. [The fact that the NRSV is even worse is no reason to defend the NIV]