If improvements can be made why not incorporate the improvements? Things don't stand still. The ESV has even made some modest improvements to its text since the original publication in 2001.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LCMS Theology Commission
- Thread starter Jerome
- Start date
If improvements can be made why not incorporate the improvements? Things don't stand still. The ESV has even made some modest improvements to its text since the original publication in 2001.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Theology Commission of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod issues stern warning against use of NIV2011:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/l...ect-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/
In my opinion the NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase. A gender neutral or feminized version can only make it worse. The Missouri Synod is to be commended!
If improvements can be made why not incorporate the improvements? Things don't stand still. The ESV has even made some modest improvements to its text since the original publication in 2001.
Since EVEN the KJV was revised several times.....
In my opinion the NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase.
That's a totally whacked opinion.
A gender neutral or feminized version can only make it worse
You need to buy a clue.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Is this better?That's a totally whacked opinion.
The NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase.
You need to buy a clue.
It is not a mystery!
The NIV is little more than a brief paraphrase.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Would say that the Niv 2011 would be in the same ballpark as say the HCSB, and that it is good to use for bible studies, but would still say also use a more formal/literal version to compliment it such as Nasb/Nkjv!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Would say that the Niv 2011 would be in the same ballpark as say the HCSB, and that it is good to use for bible studies, but would still say also use a more formal/literal version to compliment it such as Nasb/Nkjv!
In my opinion, regardless of Rippon's extremist reaction, neither constitute what I consider a Bible! And I thought I had gotten snotty remarks from dispensationalists and freewillers on the Theology Forum. But Rippon always rises to the occasion.
In my opinion, regardless of Rippon's extremist reaction, neither constitute what I consider a Bible! And I thought I had gotten snotty remarks from dispensationalists and freewillers on the Theology Forum. But Rippon always rises to the occasion.
what specific reasons do you use to deny them as being viable translations of the Bible?
In my opinion, regardless of Rippon's extremist reaction, neither constitute what I consider a Bible! And I thought I had gotten snotty remarks from dispensationalists and freewillers on the Theology Forum. But Rippon always rises to the occasion.
You are blind. Denying that the NIV is a Bible is utterly contemptible. Talk about extremism!
And I just noticed that you deny the HCSB is not a Bible. Man,you are out on a broken limb.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are blind. Denying that the NIV is a Bible is utterly contemptible. Talk about extremism!
And I just noticed that you deny the HCSB is not a Bible. Man,you are out on a broken limb.
Rippon, you have a serious problem.:laugh: You apparently think you are the "grand poo-pa" of the validity of translation of Scripture. You are not.:laugh: Furthermore, you always resort to personal attacks. Really strange.:flower: I have noticed this in the past!
Rippon, you have a serious problem.:laugh: You apparently think you are the "grand poo-pa" of the validity of translation of Scripture. You are not.:laugh: Furthermore, you always resort to personal attacks. Really strange.:flower: I have noticed this in the past!
Just curious as to what your educational basis would be to critique those versions?
You apparently think you are the "grand poo-pa" of the validity of translation of Scripture.
You make the outrageous claim that both the NIV and HCSB are not Bibles with the wave of your pontiff's hand. Yet you demean me for maintaining the very reasonable position that they certainly are Bible translations. You have apparently no idea how far out and nonsensical (in addition to being dishonoring to the Lord) your "opinion" is.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Just curious as to what your educational basis would be to critique those versions?
I would say on par with you and Rippon!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You make the outrageous claim that both the NIV and HCSB are not Bibles with the wave of your pontiff's hand. Yet you demean me for maintaining the very reasonable position that they certainly are Bible translations. You have apparently no idea how far out and nonsensical (in addition to being dishonoring to the Lord) your "opinion" is.
I am not demeaning you at all Rippon. I just point out that you get all "hyper" when someone expresses a negative opinion of the NIV.
The Southern Baptists had the opportunity to produce a translation on par with the NASB or the ESV. They produced the HCSB.:tear::tear:
I just point out that you get all "hyper" when someone expresses a negative opinion of the NIV.
Wake up man! You don't merely express negative views of the NIV and HCSB...you say they aren't even Bibles. That is many steps away from merely being negative on your part OR.
The Southern Baptists had the opportunity to produce a translation on par with the NASB or the ESV. They produced the HCSB.:tear::tear:
Most of the translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible are not even Southern Baptists.
The Southern Baptists had the opportunity to produce a translation on par with the NASB or the ESV. They produced the HCSB.:tear::tear:
The wording of "on par with" needs to be fleshed out. The HCSB is neith the NASBU nor the ESV. But it certainly stands among them as a very fine Bible translation.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The wording of "on par with" needs to be fleshed out.
Then start "fleshing".
The HCSB is neith the NASBU nor the ESV. But it certainly stands among them as a very fine Bible translation.
Big difference between you and me Rippon. You get all hyper when I express my opinion about the NIV. Frankly I don't care what you think about any version! If you like the HCSB then well and good. You happy makes me happy!
The Southern Baptists had the opportunity to produce a translation on par with the NASB or the ESV. They produced the HCSB.:tear::tear:
Yes, the Southern Baptist "publishing arm" did change the direction of their translation project.
The roots of the HCSB can be traced back as early as 1984, when Arthur Farstad, general editor of the New King James Version of the Bible, began a new independent translation project. In 1998, Farstad and LifeWay Christian Resources (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention) came to an agreement that would allow LifeWay to fund and publish the completed work. Farstad died shortly thereafter, and leadership of the editorial team was turned over to Dr. Edwin Blum, who had been an integral part of the team. The death of Farstad resulted in a change in the Greek New Testament text underlying the HCSB, although Farstad had envisioned basing the new translation on the same texts used for the original King James Version and New King James Version. After Farstad's death, the editorial team replaced this text with the Greek New Testament as established by modern scholars.[2] The editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece were those primarily utilized, along with readings from other ancient manuscripts when the translators felt the original meaning was not clearly conveyed by either of the primary Greek New Testament editions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCSB
Rippon wrote:
Most of the translators of the Holman Christian Standard Bible are not even Southern Baptists.
What is the HCSB?
100 scholars and English stylists from 17 denominations, prayerfully, translated what is one of the most significant Bible translations available, the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).
http://hcsb.org/
Lifeway chose the translation team, thus they were under SBC supervision. Rather than refuting Old Regular's opinion, your post reinforced it. The SBC could have produced a better Bible, IMO.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Yes, the Southern Baptist "publishing arm" did change the direction of their translation project.
Rippon wrote:
Lifeway chose the translation team, thus they were under SBC supervision. Rather than refuting Old Regular's opinion, your post reinforced it. The SBC could have produced a better Bible, IMO.
Thanks for the info. I posted the following on a thread with my name but thought I would throw it in here.
Now for the HCSB: My statement that I did not consider it a Bible was a deliberate exaggeration but not without cause. [My statement regarding the NIV or any paraphrase, brief or not, still stands.] When I learned that the Southern Baptists were sponsoring a new translation I was really looking forward to something in the order of the NASB except better. Needless to say it is a disappointment. Thinking of the HCSB I am reminded of Volume 1 of the Baptist Commentary that came out many years ago.