[Linux4christians] Re: NIV Bible for Linux (off list topic)

[Karl Kleinpaste]

Lincoln Fessenden <l4c at thelinuxlink.net> writes:
> You are making excuses.

You are making self-justifications.

Now that we've traded childish insults, can we move on to adult discussion?

> Given that Christians would also be reading it with the benefit of
> having the Holy Spirit present, it would, therefor, be that much
> easier to grasp.  You are selling both God and people *way* short here.

What I'm "selling" (hmph) is the idea that I will not manufacture an
extraneous, unneeded, and artificial stumbling block in front of blind
men.  Given a man with a certain level of interest in learning about
this faith of ours, and a choice to offer that man either an
antiquated and ridiculous¹ grammatical structure -vs- a modern
translation that utilizes numerous more of the ancient sources for the
benefit of resolution of all manner of translational difficulty, the
answer to "Which shall I use?" goes without saying.

Yes, the Holy Spirit leads.  So, will I dare to stand arrogantly in
the Holy Spirit's way, by making the path from the blind man's present
place to the one he needs to reach _yet more rocky_?  Certainly not.

> I worked with gang bangers, muggers, homeless on all levels, rich
> and poverty stricken.

Son, don't presume to lecture me.  You're exchanging email with a man
who spent years inside the fence of FCI Elkton.  Don't feed me any
$#!+ about "working with."  I *lived* there, and unless you did the
same, you are absent a context from which even to begin to speak.

For a grounded Christian with a reasonable grasp of English, KJV is
fine for study.  This is especially true for those wishing to put
serious language tools to use (Strong's and more).  But I "work with"
a metric buttload of people who are neither yet well grounded nor who
are at _all_ literate.  Speak to me of how *you* will compel the Spirit
*to work harder*, with men who have failed GED exams multiple times.

You make your choice; I've made mine.  Mine is indeed well-grounded.

--karl

¹ I am a very precise user of language, and I use "ridiculous" with
its very precise meaning: "Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd,
preposterous, or silly."  In that single verse (Rom 1:19), we have not
less than [a] "known of God", whereas every modern translation
correctly replaces the preposition with "about"; [b] "shewed", which
needs no explanation for its irrelevance to modern language; and [c]
the italicized or bracketed (depending on medium of reading) "[it]",
leading to the necessity of explaining translators' routine filling in
of words that are clearly necessary in modern language but which are
not present in the ancient texts.  That is, in its more technical
sense...ridiculous.