Questions about manuscript evidence

[hedrick]

One can reasonably attack the NIV as being a worse translation than usual (all translations having disadvantages of one sort or another). E.g. N T Wright has said that anyone using the NIV will never understand Paul. There are other problems as well. But accusing it of being "liberal" is typically a KJV-only charge. That why people assumed you were KJV only.

[Dante]

I get as many translations as I can and go back to the Hebrew Lexicon to study it out for myself. I don't just rely on the KJV. I like it, but it's not the only one.

The NIV is still comparatively superior to the KJV in terms of translation.

I see. I am a advocate of Geo. I believe the bible taught it.

As a Christian, I must reject such a claim.

[AkByR64]

And we've had a few KJVO types who were also geocentricists.

I see. I am a advocate of Geo. I believe the bible taught it.

[AkByR64]

Because the ones usually attacking the NIV as "liberal" are KJV-Onlyists who are entirely ignorant of the process of translation.

I get as many translations as I can and go back to the Hebrew Lexicon to study it out for myself. I don't just rely on the KJV. I like it, but it's not the only one.

[Adrift]

I am not a KJV Onlyist.

Ok. I apologize for the accusation.

[Raphael]

Because the ones usually attacking the NIV as "liberal" are KJV-Onlyists who are entirely ignorant of the process of translation.

And we've had a few KJVO types who were also geocentricists.

[Dante]

I am not a KJV Onlyist. First, my question in the OP were honest and it was answered in the manner that it was posted by others.

Second, I was only expressing how I feel about the NIV. Someone needed an explanation so I brought up the Duet 22:28-29 passage.

I didn't realized it after you guys admitted the passage was a mistranslation, and now you guys started accusing me of KJV Onylist which I am not.

But hey, surprised it went both way ain't it?

Because the ones usually attacking the NIV as "liberal" are KJV-Onlyists who are entirely ignorant of the process of translation.

[AkByR64]

I am not a KJV Onlyist. First, my question in the OP were honest and it was answered in the manner that it was posted by others.

Second, I was only expressing how I feel about the NIV. Someone needed an explanation so I brought up the Duet 22:28-29 passage.

I didn't realized it after you guys admitted the passage was a mistranslation, and now you guys started accusing me of KJV Onylist which I am not.

But hey, surprised it went both way ain't it?

[Adrift]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Yes, it was clearly translated that way to support atheists.

[Omniskeptical]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Posting in restricted forum

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JonathanL]

I don't know which is more unbearable: fundies or KJV-Onlyists.

A KJV-Onlyist is pretty much just the extreme version of a fundy.

[Dante]

I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.

I don't know which is more unbearable: fundies or KJV-Onlyists.

[Pentecost]

I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.

It could be, I've been wrong plenty of times before, I'll go back to lurking then and see how things go.

[Adrift]

So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.

I'm thinking he may be a King James-Onlyist. I seem to remember someone else who had an alphabet soup sort of handle who used to post KJ-O type stuff on this forum before the crash, but I don't remember if this is the same person. I'm still undecided if the original post was a sincere attempt to gather information, or a deliberate bait-and-switch to jump on a soapbox.

[AkByR64]

So this guy is a right? An American advocating for geocentrism and with almost laser guided ignorance of how translations work after so many explanations that anyone halfway interested in the subject would have already understood what everyone was talking about. How about the fact that he's now trying to put some sort of burden of proof in regards to us not hating the NIV?

Lame b8 m8 I r8 0/8.

Hey, don't get mad at me. Get mad at the translator cuz they didn't get it correct. Anyone that reads the NIV and are fully aware of this, will automatically think it means rape by default. Can't blame them. No translation is perfect. I suggest everyone stick to Hebrew.