How Do You Know It's Dynamic Equivalence 2

What five great verses?

The NLTse has "one and only Son".

I haven't checked the other versions yet to verify if what has been said above is the case.

There is no sense in which it means the Son has been generated from the Father.It simply means "unique" or "one and only".

 

I get around.It's a commonly observed fact.Maybe you should get out more often.Do a little survey yourself.

 

Simply because you say so.

 

Not at all, as to the reason. And I am not all that eager to label anyone. I previously apologized to you when you said I was grouping you in the "KJVO crowd," simply because (a.) I think I may have misread you, then, and (b.) because I was making a general observation, as well.

I have yet to see you, however, advocate or support any rendering that differed from the KJV (1769 flavor, that is) on any post that I can recall. I realize you have said that you "HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ANY LEGITIMATE MODERN VERSION" yet I have yet to see any other version quoted, unless it was cited as agreeing with your preferred version of the KJV, in any post that I can recall. Not once do I recall seeing you advocate one single reading of any other version over that of the KJV, at least that I can recall, in almost 2 years. I will apologize in advance if I may have missed such an instance.

FTR, I will repeat that every English version from TYN forward, is properly termed a "Modern Version" for the language is Modern English, albeit an early stage of Modern English. The WYC, is not an "MV" in that it is "Middle English" in contrast to the later versions.

And I, for one, am not willing to personally allow the "MV" tag to be pejoratively applied ONLY to versions that do not follow the TR in the NT, with the misrepresentation that seems to far too often accompany versions such as the NKJV, TMB, LitV, KJ21, etc. by the KJVO advocates, that they are, in fact, not translated from the same textual basis as the KJV. Disagreement over the validity of the NT and or OT textual bases is one thing. (FTR, I am a decided Greek MT person, which is not identical to being a 'TR' person, despite another mischaracterization I often see.) However, true 'MT' translations happen to be quite rare, if not nonexistent, at least in the bookstores I have been around. The HCSB was initially planned to be such a version, I believe, before the death of the initial Editor-in-chief Dr. Art Farstad. Personally, I wish that had happened, given the publishing power of the SBC.

For now, I've gotta' run. I'm already late for church services, as it is.

Ed

 

You're a real character Rippon, I'll give ya that!:laugh:

 

I told you I'm KJV Preferred. I simply think it's the best version.

 

John, just one of many examples in Paul (I'm sort of away from my books for a couple of weeks).

 

I'm away from my books, so I've to wait to give you direct quotes (about a couple of weeks).

 

Good to know. I should be getting the 3rd edition of his grammar next month for review purposes.

 

I have no problem with this response (which is a non-inflamatory one, unlike some others, IMO), and I am close to this position, myself with my own preference for the 1967 flavor of the KJV (and with the NKJV as a very close second in preference), that I have and have used as my primary Bible for most of my adult Christian life. (That is always subject to change, should I acquire another version, that I see as a better version, however.) I could not say the same thing about the KJV-1611, by contrast, generally rating it behind the KJV-1967 I use, NKJV, HCSB, KJII, NASB, KJV-1762/1769 revision/edition, ASV, and MLB, in roughly that order, among some of the other versions I/we possess in hard copy, mostly due to the changes of language, from "back when" until now.

I have previously asked about some things you had posted, but you chose not to answer, instead preferring to scathe me, along with one you had locked horns with (and still seem to be so doing) previously. It does appear that you are still not willing to answer the questions about things which you posted and I (as well as others) have responded to.

Have I ever asked any unfair questions to your own posts, considering most were your own quotes, or questions about such? If so, where?? For that matter, have I ever asked any unfair questions to anyone? And do you consider it to be an 'attack' when I correct some purported historical 'fact' that is actually incorrect, that has been stated by any poster, not merely yourself?

BTW, the"red ink" was your own, and not mine, in this post you are here responding to.

Ed

 

This would be only an opinion, would it not? It may or may not be true, in the case of John 3:16, IMO, which opinion is actually irrelevant to the question.

However, I'll suggest there are instances where the MCB, BISH, GEN or another version where either an even more "dated wording" (such as the D/R, MCB, TYN, or even one of the WYCs, for some older examples) or a less "dated wording" (such as the WES, WBS, YLT, RV, DBY, ASV or NKJV, for some later examples), is actually "superior wording" to the KJV (of any flavor) or is superior to any other version, as well.

I suggest the KJV also may well be "superior wording" to, in many instances, both those that preceeded it, as well as those that have succeeded it, for this is no absolute, by any stretch, IMO. Which opinion is germane, here.

Ed

 

Hence my wording of 'possibly' in reference to 'dated wording.'

 

Could you either PROVE that or RETRACT it as just your opinion?

 

By my limited experience and observation I would agree. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a preacher to the deaf sign "so loved" as "so much loved" I would have enough to take my wife out for a good meal.

Having said that- it is not a bad choice of words, just dated in meaning as C4K pointed out.

 

......but it's also not a FACT that "most KJV readers don't understand it". Most KJV readers I know, do understand it. When you've used the KJV your whole life, all those things that Rippon claims we don't REALLY understand have been understood from childhood! :thumbs:

 

One would almost think you get royalties from the TNIV the way you defend it! :laugh: It seems no one here can make a criticism of it without you commenting.

Well, in the interlinear I have, it says "man." I know from looking at Strong's it's generic, but there is a reason to have "man" there -- so it connects to "man" in John 3.1. I made this point in another thread (or maybe this one, can't recall now).

The NET Bible comments:

 

No royalities.I'm just sick and tired of rehashed misinformation (not pointing you) from so many for so long.

That's a puzzling statement Marcia.In post #52 you asked me specific quesions.I responded with my post numbered 62.Now you say I should not have replied to your post?!