(October 8, 2018 at 3:23 pm)Drich Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 2:56 pm)Reltzik Wrote: That was the New International Version, AS I INDICATED.
Before we go ANY FURTHER, please explain in what sense the NIV is "dead dialect", rather than "a plain modern english version".
And as you explain, bear in mind that the standard of civility you have set for a response includes the phrase "douche bags".
Sure..
Initially a dead dialect was to mean the use of KJV. However since you did use the NIV I can consider the use of 1/2 quotes as 'killing off the words of Christ.' I know several different translation use different words here. I did not know or did not remember the NIV using the archaic poetic interpretation because it uses a different source/uses a different codacee than the KJV does. I know it to use the same as the easy to read, as it is a rework of the world bible (simplfied for the deaf which means the principles are broken down much like the niv but further) and this is how that reads:
25 Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 27 Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower.
28 “If you wanted to build a building, you would first sit down and decide how much it would cost. You must see if you have enough money to finish the job. 29 If you don’t do that, you might begin the work, but you would not be able to finish. And if you could not finish it, everyone would laugh at you. 30 They would say, ‘This man began to build, but he was not able to finish.’
So to review:
For choosing to use a translation that was published less than half a century ago, was deliberately put together to use modern English (not a "thou" or "shalt" to be found) and is one of the most popular (and perhaps THE most popular) English translations today...
... and for quoting a verse in which Christians are told they must hate from the NIV in direct response to your challenge, rather than quoting from whichever translation you are employing... in an argument about Christianity generally, in which the role of the more popular translations in shaping Christian conduct are more applicable than the less-popular ones...
I am a douche bag -- your words -- quoting from a dead dialect -- your words -- and have done so not because it is one of the most rational translations to choose in this context, and also not because I'm only familiar with a few translations rather than having the vast familiarity of some sort of a Biblical sommelier, but rather because I am cherry-picking and must be trying to make it say whatever I want -- again, your words.
.....
...
.
Well, THIS is obviously a charming, rational, sensible individual who clearly has great value to contribute to the dialogue. It would definitely be very productive and not at all be a waste of time or source of constant frustration to engage with him.
*inaugurates his ignore list by adding a fucking douche bag to it*
Being an antipistevist is like being an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)