You are pitiful. I welcome criticism of individual texts from the 2011 NIV. What I detest are hit-n-runs --which you engage in. You do not substantiate your wild claims. You just throw a grenade and then run away.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hcsb
- Thread starter Robert Snow
- Start date
- Status
You are pitiful. I welcome criticism of individual texts from the 2011 NIV. What I detest are hit-n-runs --which you engage in. You do not substantiate your wild claims. You just throw a grenade and then run away.
Very.
To keep up your mantra despite the overwhelming number of scholars who insist that the NIV is not DE. Such as:
Rod Decker
Donald Burdick
Sake Kubu and Walter Specht
J.William Johnson
Philip W.Comfort
Kenneth L.Barker
Marten Woudstra
Ron Rhoades
Darrell L. Bock
Gordon Fee
Mark Strauss
Rick Mansfield
Daniel Wallace
Allan Chapple
D.A Carson
John R. Kohlenberger
Jack Lewis
And.... the very man who invented the term --Eugene Nida --never called the NIV a dynamic-equivalent translation.
Howda' like dem apples?
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
Funny, I'm still here... I've substantiated my claims with outside references and could fill this thread with more.
Again, I am not against the NIV 2011 per se, but I am against a few of the ways that they translated or otherwise took liberties with the original text.
None of this means much in our current dialogue. All I ask for is the right to agree with some scholars without your insults. "Immature"? Please!
Of course you are still here. That is not exactly a defense.
You have not backed-up any of your claims. And I am especially interested with your reckless charges that the translators have fiddled with gender distinctions. I have been waiting for a long time for you to document your empty assertions --but you are rather timid to do so.
Again, I am not against the NIV 2011 per se, but I am against a few of the ways that they translated or otherwise took liberties with the original text.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is relevant. You claim that most New Testament scholars identify the NIV as being dynamic equivalent. I produce a list of those who insist it is not.
Give me some names of those who know what they are talking about. Ron Rhoades from my list is the only one who is not a scholar as such --the rest are.
To answer Amy's question. The above was post #2.
Dr.Bell's figures are just a tad off. The difference between the HCSB and the NIV per the passages that he itemized is 2.5%. They are very similar in other words. So this business of the NIV being so dynamic is nonsense. If they want to make that claim then to be consistent the HCSB has to join its ranks as dynamic equivalent as well.
I was wondering if anyone wanted to actually address the OP?
I like and use the Holman. I prefer it to the NIV for general reading, although it does have some idiosyncrasies.
Aha. So now you believe that the majority is correct, righr? So now you are a majority text advocate, right?
I'm not going to play your game here. Having a majority of scholars on your side proves absolutely nothing. If it did than I could prove Calvinism to be wrong in that way.
Oh, and stop putting words into my mouth. I never said that the majority of scholars believe the NIV to be DE.
You didn't include a smiley face. You are conflating two entirely different issues. By the way,please correct me if I am wrong,but Maurice doesn't use the numbers game to convince folks to come over his side,does he?
On 2/8/09 you said:"Ever since the NIV first came out it has been hailed as a DE translation."
On 2/9/09 you said "quite a few scholars classify T/NIV as DE."
Mea Culpa. :smilewinkgrin::tongue3::1_grouphug:
But you are correct. Byzantine priority concentrates on transcriptional probability. A history of the text is essential for correct textual criticism.
Wow, I'm flattered that you pay such attention to what I have said, even years ago. But you know English, right? Being in China hasn't made you forget your English. So you should realize that neither of these statements have the meaning of "the majority of scholars."
According to Longman Advanced Learner's Dictionary -- quite a few means a fairly large number.
In other words -- Quite a lot = Quite a few.
I have a JoJ file of sorts. But I normally just use the search function.
And neither phrase means "majority." Words are important. Words mean things. So once again, please don't put words in my mouth, as much as you might wish I had said a certain thing.
And by the way, your inability to make these simple distinctions in meaning make your statements on translation suspect.
Alright then, we are agreed. Only a minority of scholars have called the NIV DE.
Are you really so poor at English comprehension? I did not say this either. And frankly, without a poll of scholars (something beyond the scope of the BB), this is impossible to determine.
It is is either one or the other. Either the majority of New Testament scholars believe the NIV is not DE,or a minority of N.T. scholars believe it is. Simple.
I have provided names of a number who believe it is not DE. I can provide more. How is it "impossible to determine"? We're not speaking of something that can't be quantified.
Last edited by a moderator:
But you see, it doesn't even matter who can line up the most scholars. Truth is not determined by the majority. "I have more scholars than you" is simply irrelevant.
- Status