I'm perplexed -- & aggrivated

[Atlantians]

The NIV is not a good translation at all, but it's better than nothing, I suppose.

Actually it is a very good translation.

So is the NASB, which I prefer actually.

The writers of the NT used and quoted from various different OT translations --

Well, the Septuagint.

and arguably did not always pay strict attention to context.

The exegetical practices of the day followed a different arch-type than ours do.

I have burned books before. I haven't burned Rick's yet (PD-L) - I use it for research. Sad to say, but it's like looking into the mind of Satan.

Ok that is just over the top absurdity.

I trust when I'm all done, I'll be burning L. Sweet's and Brian McLaren's and Dan Kimball's Emergent books as well and a few others. But for the mean time for some months now God has me studying it's deception - they have fully joined in with all this ONE GLOBAL WORLD. This same doctrine is all over commericial's, even sports commentators are taking dialectically showing people how it's done - it's brainwashing as you innocently ~believe~ your just watching a basketball/football/etc. game on tv. The Star Trek Voyager and it's Collective are pushing the envelop (brainwashing) as well. And I use to be a Trekker, not no more.

Um... oy vey.

In that it is never possible to perfectly translate both words and meanings simultaneously from one language to another, I affirm that I am one Xian who does NOT know that "paraphrases are not God's Word." If that were true, the ONLY people with God's Word were those who centuries and millennia ago first recorded it. *Every* translation is to *some* extent a "paraphrase."

That is in a sense true, however there is a fundamental qualitative difference between "The Message", an overarching 'paragraphical paraphrase', the NIV... a 'translate the words in light of the thought behind the sentence' semi-paraphrase translation, and the NASB, a 'word for word in light of grammer and context translation'.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Somebody said:

The NIV is not a good translation at all, but it's better than nothing, I suppose.
​

Actually it is a very good translation.

So is the NASB, which I prefer actually.

I prefer parallel Bibles first and foremost. Next to that, I guess I prefer the TNIV, but since I used the NASB longer than any other singel xlation, I still find it the easiest one in which to locate things.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

The writers of the NT used and quoted from various different OT translations --
​

Well, the Septuagint.

Mostly, but from what I understand, there were several Greek xlations extant at the time, plus the Hebrew used by the Temple scholars, and NT citations of OT passages occasionally match one of the "other" xlations better than the LXX.


and arguably did not always pay strict attention to context.

The exegetical practices of the day followed a different arch-type than ours do.

Yes -- which does suggest the uncomfortable question, "How certain can we be that 'our' method -- demanding everything be contextually appropriate -- is 'the' correct method?"

...

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

In that it is never possible to perfectly translate both words and meanings simultaneously from one language to another, I affirm that I am one Xian who does NOT know that "paraphrases are not God's Word." If that were true, the ONLY people with God's Word were those who centuries and millennia ago first recorded it. *Every* translation is to *some* extent a "paraphrase."
​

That is in a sense true, however there is a fundamental qualitative difference between "The Message", an overarching 'paragraphical paraphrase', the NIV... a 'translate the words in light of the thought behind the sentence' semi-paraphrase translation, and the NASB, a 'word for word in light of grammer and context translation'.

True. But as someone who was once in the "literaler' is better" camp, I get a bit twitchy when someone superciliously takes that stance. Even my paltry two years of high school Latin and my experience with partly-bilingual family members who speak some Transylvanian-Saxon in addition to English is enough show me how untenable that is.

 

[Nadiine]

no offense to anybody - but this is going off topic with bible translations =0)

 

[Nadiine]

Porn is wrong and would be even if there were no God. (and there is)

I heard a Pastor in his sermon talk about a young boy who had seen some porn or something - and the boy commented to his dad that this was wrong.

I think kids know when things aren't right - I think it's adults who seek to justify what they like

 

[Tenebrae]

I heard a Pastor in his sermon talk about a young boy who had seen some porn or something - and the boy commented to his dad that this was wrong.

I think kids know when things aren't right - I think it's adults who seek to justify what they like

Kids are awesome in calling it how it is.

You are right, its the adults who try to justify things like porn

 

[Jesus Is Real]

no offense to anybody - but this is going off topic with bible translations =0)

I was a part of that ~off topic~ - I'm sorry Nadiine. You are so right.


Adults justify porn because they love the sensual, they talk just like it also in forms of envy and strife/debate etc.

 

[NorrinRadd]

no offense to anybody - but this is going off topic with bible translations =0)

Oh... huh... sorry 'bout that.

I think I was involved in one or two other threads about xlations and probably forgot such was not the point of this one.

 

[Oklahoman]

I know we're conservatives here and I'm preaching
to the choir...
but I cannot believe my eyes when I read posts by people
with Christian icons supporting pornography as moral!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203705&postcount=331

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203294&postcount=326

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203676&postcount=330

I find this deeply disturbing

Sad to say... By some of the posts that I have read on this "Conservative" Page - you aren't necessarily preaching to the choir. For some pornography is what you find in magazines and sleazy internet sites. Yet, what some pass off as individual "liberty" was at one time found in the immoral magazines. Yet, if you have morals and standards in this regard you are considered old fashioned, narrow minded and conservative - oops! Did I say conservative?

Isa 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good , and good evil;

I know that not all here belong in the choir. For instance - the fact that I got ridiculed just last night on this site for trying to make a point that evil (lewd) avatars (and signatures) should not be allowed in this forum - is quite telling. People came out of the woodwork to defend a woman's right to post herself breastfeeding her child. I was in essence called a pervert, a prude and a rebel rouser - on this Christian site!!! For some... you are not preaching to the choir. For the rest of us - we fully agree with you. Now for the rest of ya... just a second... Okay, I have my kevlar on - let the bullets fly!

 

[icedtea]

Its that some just don't have as much morals as others, really. Some think anything goes because they just don't care.

 

[Oklahoman]

I know we're conservatives here and I'm preaching
to the choir...
but I cannot believe my eyes when I read posts by people
with Christian icons supporting pornography as moral!

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203705&postcount=331

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203294&postcount=326

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49203676&postcount=330

I find this deeply disturbing

Here is a question: Why does this Christian Forum allow this? I think that there needs to be a few more rules added to this list! Do you agree? If enough of us request this... maybe we can make a difference!

 

[Oklahoman]

Its that some just don't have as much morals as others, really. Some think anything goes because they just don't care.

By the way, thanks for the support last night. It was greatly appreciated! It is people like you that keep me here!

 

[icedtea]

 

[Oklahoman]

 

[desmalia]

Sad to say... By some of the posts that I have read on this "Conservative" Page - you aren't necessarily preaching to the choir. For some pornography is what you find in magazines and sleazy internet sites. Yet, what some pass off as individual "liberty" was at one time found in the immoral magazines. Yet, if you have morals and standards in this regard you are considered old fashioned, narrow minded and conservative - oops! Did I say conservative?

Isa 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good , and good evil;

I know that not all here belong in the choir. For instance - the fact that I got ridiculed just last night on this site for trying to make a point that evil (lewd) avatars (and signatures) should not be allowed in this forum - is quite telling. People came out of the woodwork to defend a woman's right to post herself breastfeeding her child. I was in essence called a pervert, a prude and a rebel rouser - on this Christian site!!! For some... you are not preaching to the choir. For the rest of us - we fully agree with you. Now for the rest of ya... just a second... Okay, I have my kevlar on - let the bullets fly!

I hope that you don't think I was one who was trying to ridicule you for that. I agreed with your reasons for being upset about the avatar. My response was to try and point out that the member was just trying to get a rise out of you (and non-libs in general for that matter). That was (and I'm sure still is) her intention. To get under your skin so she can go post on other boards about how closed minded, etc. prudish you (and all of us who agree with you) are, and have a good laugh and pat herself on the back. It's a childish game. That's why I just think it's better to report and not draw attention in those cases. She wanted that attention, and she got it. So she won the game.

Here is a question: Why does this Christian Forum allow this? I think that there needs to be a few more rules added to this list! Do you agree? If enough of us request this... maybe we can make a difference!

Some of us have been asking questions like that for a long time. There are other issues, like people very *carefully* promoting anti-Semitic rhetoric, promoting and proudly boasting all sorts of perversions (as the OP shows), promoting universalism, etc. etc. The core issue is that the definition of "Christian" is kept pretty vague in the name of ecumenicism. Believe it or not, it's actually gotten a fair amount better in some ways over the past few months. But these problems have always been here, even before the 7/7/7 disaster. Probably the best thing we can do is contact the owner directly to voice our concerns. Posting threads about it doesn't really do anything other than require staff to delete or shut them down.

 

[Zecryphon]

I agree Des. But if I remember correctly it's against the rules to contact LeeD directly. There are other places for complaints & suggestions about this forum. what they are escape me at the moment though.

 

[desmalia]

I agree Des. But if I remember correctly it's against the rules to contact LeeD directly. There are other places for complaints & suggestions about this forum. what they are escape me at the moment though.

Really? Hm, oops on my part.

 

[Nadiine]

Here is a question: Why does this Christian Forum allow this? I think that there needs to be a few more rules added to this list! Do you agree? If enough of us request this... maybe we can make a difference!

We've asked this 2 yrs now. Good luck getting an answer.
It's been ignored.

And again, this is the reason alot of Christians left CF in droves. If they want to consider a Christian someone who likes open nudity & porn & homosexuality- and even promotes them all, then they have a different definition than my bible has.

& yes I have a huge problem with breastfeeding avatars as well. That is a private moment that doesn't need publicizing on a forum board.
I certainly wouldn't think it's fine for a mom to be breastfeeding openly in church either - it's inappropriate.

No doubt people just want to try to cause CC or CF more problems and drive us out.

 

[Oklahoman]

I hope that you don't think I was one who was trying to ridicule you for that. I agreed with your reasons for being upset about the avatar. My response was to try and point out that the member was just trying to get a rise out of you (and non-libs in general for that matter). That was (and I'm sure still is) her intention. To get under your skin so she can go post on other boards about how closed minded, etc. prudish you (and all of us who agree with you) are, and have a good laugh and pat herself on the back. It's a childish game. That's why I just think it's better to report and not draw attention in those cases. She wanted that attention, and she got it. So she won the game.



Some of us have been asking questions like that for a long time. There are other issues, like people very *carefully* promoting anti-Semitic rhetoric, promoting and proudly boasting all sorts of perversions (as the OP shows), promoting universalism, etc. etc. The core issue is that the definition of "Christian" is kept pretty vague in the name of ecumenicism. Believe it or not, it's actually gotten a fair amount better in some ways over the past few months. But these problems have always been here, even before the 7/7/7 disaster. Probably the best thing we can do is contact the owner directly to voice our concerns. Posting threads about it doesn't really do anything other than require staff to delete or shut them down.

Very much appreciated. It was not my desire to be seen as a rebel rouser. I have seen stuff for awhile and last night I had had enough. I am still relatively new to how things run and what's allowed around here. I obviously do not know the rules. Your explanation was very helpful and now I understand your spirit and perspective. Thanks!!

 

[Nadiine]

I know that not all here belong in the choir. For instance - the fact that I got ridiculed just last night on this site for trying to make a point that evil (lewd) avatars (and signatures) should not be allowed in this forum - is quite telling. People came out of the woodwork to defend a woman's right to post herself breastfeeding her child. I was in essence called a pervert, a prude and a rebel rouser - on this Christian site!!! For some... you are not preaching to the choir. For the rest of us - we fully agree with you. Now for the rest of ya... just a second... Okay, I have my kevlar on - let the bullets fly!

wish I was there - but I just read Des's post - she might be right about trying to get a rise out us.

All I keep in mind is, whatever their motive is, it doesn't escape God's judgment; He sees it all and will deal with their games and traps.

You're conscience is clear and you did the right thing - the more blessed you are for it and it's to their shame!

 

[Oklahoman]

We've asked this 2 yrs now. Good luck getting an answer.
It's been ignored.

And again, this is the reason alot of Christians left CF in droves. If they want to consider a Christian someone who likes open nudity & porn & homosexuality- and even promotes them all, then they have a different definition than my bible has.

& yes I have a huge problem with breastfeeding avatars as well. That is a private moment that doesn't need publicizing on a forum board.
I certainly wouldn't think it's fine for a mom to be breastfeeding openly in church either - it's inappropriate.

No doubt people just want to try to cause CC or CF more problems and drive us out.

I am so glad that you responded! I have read your posts and knew that people like you see this for what it is. As long as there are true conservatives on this site I think I can stay... as long as they don't kick me off.