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!

NIV translators

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by KJVBibleThumper, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here it starts again(groan) just once I would like to see Trotter venture just one bit of evidence for his views, but I guess thats unrealistic...
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not "anti-KJV", Thumper. Anti-KJVOnly.

    The KJV is a translation, same as teh NIV or NASB. And, if it cannot withstand the same rigors that the KJVO's put other translations through, what good would it be? A boxer is only as good as the opponents he faces, and that goes for bible translations as well.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    It can easily withstand the the "rigors" that I fully intend to put the other versions through. Trust me. :D :D
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would never call anyone in that position a screwball or ignorant. That's mean. Now, to call them, or any single-translation-onlyist, guilty of false doctrine, that would be accurate. But they would only be guity of such if their belief is that a specific translation is the sole authoritative translation for all people.
     
  5. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    And lets hear some evidence about what you believe...
     
  6. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would never call anyone in that position a screwball or ignorant. That's mean. Now, to call them, or any single-translation-onlyist, guilty of false doctrine, that would be accurate. But they would only be guity of such if their belief is that a specific translation is the sole authoritative translation for all people. </font>[/QUOTE]So what you are saying is that you would just find a roundabout way to call them that? As for the single-translation onlyist I appreciate the compliment. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is totally up to you. But attacking the word of God in any translation is not a good thing.

    But, no crybabys when the KJV is put into the same crucible.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me, that's easy. There's no scriptural support for the idea God promised us one sole authoritative translation of scripture.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    No, not at all. However, when a brother in the Lord is guilty of false doctriene, we should make that known to them. Now, if a person chooses for their own use a single translation, that is not onlyism. Onlyism is when it is proported that everyone must use that same one specific translation.

    It is neither a compliment nor an insult. It's simply a statement. Single-translation-onlyism is not scripturally supportable doctrine. That goes for KJV-O, NIV-O, NKJV-O, NASB-O, Geneva-O, Darby-O, Tyndale-O, or Spaghetti-O.
     
  10. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your paper cannot be "objective". Think about what you have said. "Yes I am attacking the NIV..." You have already decided on a conclusion and set your premise. Therefore, there is no way your paper can be written in a fair and objective manner. If I was your instructor I would inform you that you are writing a position paper not a research paper. You need to be honest as to your purpose, it is not to research the facts but to validate your biased opinion.

    Bro Tony
     
  11. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thumper,

    You asked Trotter for proof regarding his stance. Most of us who are non KJBO see the KJB as a translation - albeit one of several good ones.

    Since the word of God has been preserved in ancient manuscripts, the Vulgate, the later manuscripts, and the KJB , most of us would tend to see it as quite possible that another entity could be the word of God as well. If you think about it, during the middle ages, BOTH the Vulgate and the Greek manuscripts had to simultaneously be God's word.

    As such, it would seem logical to assume that the burden of proof would be with those who contend that the chain of inspiration ended with the KJB.

    I personally never thought that it was unreasonable to hold a view that since the KJB has been around, and around exclusively for a while, it is reasonable to see it as the preeminent translation, indeed one approved by God. What I do find unreasonable is the stance that sees the KJB as OBVIOUSLY the only bible and makes no attempt to prove it.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not "of you" Thump, "for you".

    HankD
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Astute observation, Tony. Name calling is not allowed, for sure, but there is no chance of an honest conclusion.

    Caveat for Thump - be sure to compare "apples and apples". The NIV/ESV/NASB had hundreds of "advisors" on English grammar, etc, but they were NOT TRANSLATORS like the main group. Many take an advisor and mislabel them as translator. Don't make that error.
     
  14. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    It can easily withstand the the "rigors" that I fully intend to put the other versions through. Trust me. :D :D [/QB][/QUOTE]

    Thats because you will see which arguments the KJV will pass and pick those arguments to stand on when I can choose arguments the KJV will fail on and use them.

    1cross+3nails=4given
     
Loading...