Sounds like a good dictionary definition to me.
Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your puny dictiionary?
I judged the NIV = New International Version, by the Holy Spirit of God IAW (in accordance with) 1 John 4:1
(Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Dearely beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets are gone out into this worlde.
The Lord allowed me to be witness to His Wonderful Salvation with some 180 individuyals while I held my NIV in my hand.
I personally was saved BY JESUS with one of the KJVs in my hand.
IMHO, the NIV is more VALID than the KJVs are - today, 20 June 2008.
But the poll only allowed for one of several levels of invalid.
It is a dictionary definition.
And my dictionary is not puny. :laugh:
however, what is your stance (I didn't read the whole thread too many posts)?
And testing the spirits quote has nothing to do with a dictionary definition.
Context.
Context.
I read the NIV, KJB, LXX, Sacra Vulgata, and a whole slew of others.
In order for me to place an opinion we must work from the same definitions.
You don't have to go with mine.
I'll go with yours.
so what do you mean by invalid when it conserns scripture.
And I'll go from there.
I rephraase my question for clarity:
Are you going to judge God's Holy Written Word by your gut-busting dictionary?
:praying:
A Bible version is INVALID if it does not properly translate it's source text(s).
All source texts at the time of translation that are available should be used,
variations among the source texts should be explained in footnotes like the KJV1611 Edition did.
According to my definition, the KJV1769 family of translations would be INVALID.
Obviously I used a different definition when I voted :(
Have you read Archer's encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties?
What do you mean by properly translate?
Without Error?
Would this include transcription errors?
If that's the case then there are no bibles currently that are valid because all extant text have certain transcription errors.
Ie a word copied twice ect...
I like the NIV for many reasons however the text are copied from copied text and there are no exant origianals from which to translate that sources do not have transcription errors.
Even allowing for an occasional misunderstanding of the poll -- it's quite disconcerting that 83 people on the BB think the NASB, NIV and ESV are invalid versions.Some made their selections for shock value I'm sure. Others made their choices out of spite. Still others picked the ones they did out of ignorance.Those KJVO-types probably have spent little to no time in actually reading the texts of thse "invalid versions".I hope they will soon realize that the KJV revisors themselves would have rejected the attitudes of these modern 83 members.
Well not 83 members -- 84 votes against the NASB,NIV and ESV. That's just childish. Not to mention voting against the KJV's and the Geneva versions. Let's hope that most members today would not be so immature.
It's good to hear that you don't consider them invalid any longer. But you had only chosen the NIV at that time as an invalid translation. Do you not care much for the Geneva,NASB and ESV?
It must be hard for some people to read the opening post?
// Please do not mark a Version invalid unless you have
studied the version a bit and consider it invalid.
Please do not mark a Version simple because you
have 'heard' is is bad. \\