Featured Which Translation Would You Recommend ....

And .....

..... what does any of this have to do with our salvation? Do you realy believe God has endorsed on version over another? How silly and what a waste of time and cyber space!:laugh:

 

Nothing.

How can you come up with that determination from InTheLight's quote?

 

Here is what I said:

And here is how the fount of disinformation characterized it:

Rippon likes to disparage others using disinformation. Like in the boy who cried "wolf" story, folks in the know should pay him no heed.

Here is the truth:

The OP indicated the lad had limited English skills, and was 14 years old. Logically, a Bible written for someone younger than 14 might be in his wheelhouse. I suggested several bibles written at the 12 or 13 year old level. Rippon indicated he knew with certainty the boy needed a bible written at a much younger level, such as the NIrV.

I objected that his conclusion was based on facts not in evidence. Rippon's assumption reflects soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

What, pray tell is the difference between as you said a translation with a reading level for a 12 or 13 year old and a reading level for a 12 or 13 year old! You are as dense as the day is long Van.

He's not a native English speaker/reader/writer. He's from Napal. He can't be compared with a slightly younger American. It would be too advanced for him. Your logic is irrational. You insist that just because he is 14 that that means he can handle reading appropriate for an American student in the 7th or 8th grade. I'd like you to tell an average 12 or 13 year old American student that their English level is "very elementary, at best." The NLT is written at a 7th grade level. That's a bit beyond elementary and it is certainly not "very elementary, at best." His reading level would be at least 4 notches down from that.

Yes, now that you know the difference between the NIrV and NIV finally -- after I had tried to explain it to you several times. Your comprehension skills are not very advanced.

Fact : his reading level is quite low :very elementary --at best.

The word "elementary" means basic, simople, easy. The word very intensifies the idea --at the low end of elementary. Just picture a primary school --grades 1-6. Those are elementary grades. Very elementary would be first grade. However, I don't think any full Bible translation goes that low. So, the NIrV which is slightly below the 3rd grade level would be right up his alley.

I have outlined this for you so many times but it is readily apparent to the "folks" you appeal to that you are too stubborn to admit you had not a clue. And instead of simply saying you were wrong you have just planted yourself in the mud and will stay there against all reason. Grow up.

But if by the slimmest of margins you just don't get it --you need to invest in a remedial reading course yourself. Your "campaigns" are full of vanity.

 

Nothing.

No. [You claim to be a published author. Do you ever proofread your posts?]

Yeah, you're right. A poll would have been the way to go.

 

I see Rippon has doubled done on his mindreading skills, not to mention the soft bigotry of low expectations.

He continues to pretend no one advocated the NIV, which two different posters did (see posts # 7 and 9), and claims I was addressing his post which advocated the NIrV. Minds of that caliber think football huddles are to talk about them.

Like all Calvinists, he cannot grasp critical thinking, it is either black or white, the lad cannot read at the 12-13 year old level, but can read at the NIrV level according to his reasoning. He then redefines words so they mean what he is claiming.

You have got to love them folks, sheep without an under-shepherd. Unstudied and unstable, claiming they can mind-read.

 

For a reminder, you said in post #35:"to assume he can read the NIV but not the NET is without merit. Rippon, you seem to enjoy posting absurdity after absurdity, but you come off poorly."

Right there you thought --wrongly again, that I had wanted the boy to read the NIV. You specifically were targeting me. At that point you had no idea that there even was an NIrV. You just assumed that I must have meant the NIV. You thought that since the reading level for the NIV and NET are the same that I must have had something against the NET. You called it an absurdity. Take responsibility for what you said. Eat some humble pie Van.

Facts, not just mere claims.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism. Did you forget what forum you were in?

Of course, according to indisputable evidence which is all-too-clear to anyone of average intelligence who can actually r-e-a-d. The boy can't read at the 7th or 8th grade level but can do so at the 3rd grade level with some effort.

Please tell your blessed "folks" who you implore so often, what the following means:" His knowledge of English is very elementary at best."
Does it mean that his comprehension is very high, as you had ridiculously said -- or does it mean what it says Mr. Word redefiner?

This kind of an exchange with you is a classic case demonstrating your ego is in over-drive Van. In the future I'll just point people to this thread to evidence your complete unwillingness to admit you are clearly wrong and that you are so bent on appearing right --that you are embarrassing yourself. Are you really 71, or 7 and a half?

 

More bogus mind-reading from the fount of disinformation.

The NIV and the NET are written at nearly the same reading level. Therefore to recommend the NET over and against the NIV is sound, based on the OP. Also paraphrases, i.e. the NIrV should be avoided.

Rippon has assumed the lad needs a bible for a 3d grader, rather than one for a sixth or seventh grader. And based on the soft bigotry of low expectations, my suggest of aiming higher is said to be wrong. Minds that think they can read minds are unsound, seeing themselves as having an attribute of God.

Point the lad to the HCSB, NET, WEB and if any or all are understandable, you have given a real blessing.

 

Of course they are.

The word 'therefore' assumes a premise and consequence --you provided a premise : that the NIV and NET Bible are written at about the same reading level. However you did not give any support for your conclusion.

For a third grade reading level one is not going to find any formal equivalent translations. Perhaps you are out of the loop.

A very sound assumption since his knowledge of English is very elementary at best. Hello, Van. Is anyone home? What's cooking in your brain?

 

More insult, and no content.

And note the number of fallacies. Does every element of an argument need to be restated in every post? Nobody does that. Do we know the lad cannot read and understand the NET, or HCSB, or WEB? Nope

And finally the fallacy of redefining the meaning of the phrase in the OP to mean cannot read above the 3d grade level. Minds that see their assumptions as facts cannot engage in critical thinking.

I am reminded of the story about a person with 10 years experience. The question arose in the mind of the job interviewer, was it 10 years of experience or one year of experience repeated 10 times?

A Christian would have a hard time growing in maturity if he assumed he was not as bad as someone else. Any level of depraved behavior can be justified by saying, that is not as bad as... rape, murder, genocide, etc.
We are to compare ourselves to Christ, not to the guy in the next pew.

 

Absolutely no fallacy since his knowledge of English is very elementary at best. You specialize in denying the obvious. The emboldened is directly assailed by you all the time in your nonsensical circumlocutionary tactics.

 

Hand it to Van ( with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

Van is in a jam.
He doesn't have a plan.

Someone give him a hand.
He doesn't have a single fan.

To him elementary
might as well be alimentary.

He can't fathom very
he just wants to parry.

Defining at best requires
him to take a rest.

Van bobs and weaves
but is ill-at-ease.

His tactics are despicable
and has put himself in quite a pickle.

Though not a scholar,
he lines up initiates in his parlour.

He can't translate worth a dime,
yet demeans versions with his every line.

God's precious Word is waiting to be heard
whether by paraphrase, form or function.

But he avers it is to be done his way.
He alone has the unction.

Van makes it plain it's his calling.
Though we find his attitude quite galling.

Some day he'll be cast upon a desert isle.
One version will be given in providential style.

You ask what could it be?
Why it's the N-I-V !

 

A whole post dedicated to the proposition that bashing Van is poetic. You have got to love them, folks!

Returning to topic.

Point the lad to the NET, HCSB, or WEB and see if any flip his switch. [attack snipped and infractions given ]

 

Think only extreme KJVO would do that!

 

Van is certainly extreme and illogical, but he is not a KJVO.

 

More anti Niv/Esv/Nlt....

 

Thankfully he has been muzzled in that regard.

 

Give him credit....

He's a poet,
Didn't know it....
Just look at his feet,
They sure are longfellows?