• 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!

LCMS Theology Commission

R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OldRegular said:
Then start "fleshing".
Click to expand...

You're confused. you are the one who needs to explain why the HCSB can not stand on par with the NASBU and the ESV.


Big difference between you and me Rippon. You get all hyper when I express my opinion about the NIV.
Click to expand...

You deny that the NIV is the Word of God! That far out contention is not merely being negative --it is repugnant.
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
sdonahue1 said:
I totally support the findings of the LCMS.
Click to expand...

Actually what they say is most profound and should serve as a message to all believers. It is worth repeating:

The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church.
Click to expand...
 
TC

TC

Active Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
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/
Click to expand...


Their first example does not hold much water. They said of the first man in Gen 1:26 The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him., but their preferred version (the ESV) says in a footnote for v26 that the first man refers to mankind. So, who is right? The ESV translators or the LCMS? IMO, the LCMS commision already decided that the NIV11 was bad before they ever cracked the cover and latched on to any excuse to justify not reading it any farther.

The LCMS commision should not be commended for their stance - they should be challenged to actually study the NIV11.

I will try to look at the second example later.

​
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
TC said:
Their first example does not hold much water. They said of the first man in Gen 1:26 The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam-the one man who is father of all creation, created in God's image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)-to the male and female, which is paralleled to him., but their preferred version (the ESV) says in a footnote for v26 that the first man refers to mankind. So, who is right? The ESV translators or the LCMS? IMO, the LCMS commision already decided that the NIV11 was bad before they ever cracked the cover and latched on to any excuse to justify not reading it any farther.

The LCMS commision should not be commended for their stance - they should be challenged to actually study the NIV11.

I will try to look at the second example later.

​
Click to expand...

To be perfectly clear the footnote in the ESV states: "The Hebrew word for man {Adam} is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam."
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
what Rippon states would be the position of most who are not KJVO!
Click to expand...

Well using Dr. Bob's classification I would call myself a KJVO#1 person. I have indicated on other posts that I prefer the KJV. I have other versions, even the brief paraphrase NIV, {Take note Rippon.} but I prefer the KJV because, as I have said elsewhere, I believe it uses a superior Greek text and has stood the test of time.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OldRegular said:
Well using Dr. Bob's classification I would call myself a KJVO#1 person. I have indicated on other posts that I prefer the KJV. I have other versions, even the brief paraphrase NIV, {Take note Rippon.}
Click to expand...

Why should I take note? Taking note is something said that is new. Your view is old and stale and utterly wrong.

but I prefer the KJV because, as I have said elsewhere, I believe it uses a superior Greek text and has stood the test of time.
Click to expand...

Well,the Latin Vulgate in its various incarnations has been around a lot longer than the KJV of any stripe. Even you would acknowlege its weknesses. Sorry,you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument.
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Rippon said:
Why should I take note? Taking note is something said that is new. Your view is old and stale and utterly wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why do you waste your valuable time reading them and making snotty comments. You are like a child who dropped his sucker or swallowed his gum, whine, whine, whine! Actually the "take note" comment was inserted just to evoke some snide comment from you.

Rippon said:
Well,the Latin Vulgate in its various incarnations has been around a lot longer than the KJV of any stripe. Even you would acknowlege its weknesses.
Click to expand...

I can acknowledge nothing about the Latin Vulgate since I have not read it!

Rippon said:
Sorry,you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing with you Rippon. On occasion I respond to your snotty comments. But I have told you before that I do not base my beliefs on what other folks believe or, for that matter, what other people think about me.

I could care less about you or what you have to say Rippon. You apparently have some psychological problem related to the NIV because you become irrational when someone raises a question about it. There are half dozen or so threads on this Forum where folks have remarked about the NIV. Anything negative prompts an insulting or snotty response from you. It is really quite strange?
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OldRegular said:
I could care less about you or what you have to say Rippon.
Click to expand...

Then that means you have the capacity to care more.

You apparently have some psychological problem related to the NIV because you become irrational when someone raises a question about it. T
Click to expand...

Not at all. I become extremely reasonable and then you have your tirades that it isn't even the Word of God and that it is a mere paraphrase which no knowledgeable New Testament scholar has ever even hinted at.
 
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Rippon said:
Then that means you have the capacity to care more.



Not at all. I become extremely reasonable and then you have your tirades that it isn't even the Word of God and that it is a mere paraphrase which no knowledgeable New Testament scholar has ever even hinted at.
Click to expand...

A perfect demonstration of what is wrong with a paraphrase. You have taken my description of the NIV as a "brief paraphrase" and expanded it to a paragraph. You must learn to control your emotions Rippon! I am sure there are anger management classes available to you. At least you could talk to your pastor!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Snips from Craig L. Blomberg

He was reviewing The Word of God in English by Ryken.

"Independent analysts have more helpfully described it [the NIV] as attempting to carve out a middle position between the purer forms of consistently literal and consistently dynamic equivalent translations...I can attest that it is closer to an 'essentially literal' translation in far more instances than those in which it resembles the 'pure' dynamic-equivalence model of Eugene Nida,the Good News Bible and the United Bibles Societies' numerous other modern language translations...
 
TC

TC

Active Member
Site Supporter
OldRegular said:
To be perfectly clear the footnote in the ESV states: "The Hebrew word for man {Adam} is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam."
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the entire footnote in my ESV Study Bible even though I did not quote all of it. The study bible says it became the proper name in the latter half chapter 2, 3,4, and 5 wherever it references the one man Adam. So, it appears that they thought the word in chapter 1 meant mankind in general. Hence, my point stands - the LCMS commission is latching on to any excuse to justify not reading the NIV11.

I would actually like to see them do a scholarly critique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top