1. 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!

Featured The NIV Is In Good Company

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Oct 24, 2015.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 7
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I know. The Alexandrian Textform agrees with the Byzantine Textform 95% of the time.

    What's your point?
     
    #41 TCassidy, Jul 4, 2016
  2. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    I know you don't. What about me?
     
    #42 Smyth, Jul 4, 2016
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, no. Since English does not possess a singular, sex-indefinite pronoun, the pronouns 'he', 'his' and 'him' are frequently used as generic pronouns. In English grammar when gender is unknown or inclusive the masculine noun or pronoun is grammatically correct. That is due to the fact that what is called the masculine gender in English was really the original common gender.
     
    #43 TCassidy, Jul 4, 2016
  4. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is it really THAT close?

    That the W & H text is rather reliable and despite the many papyri that have been newly discovered in past century or so --the two main codices still maintain major sway.Despite the industrious efforts of the NA and UBS--
    they haven't strayed as far as many might imagine from Westcott and Hort.
     
    #44 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In reality you could not be more mistaken. The words he,his and him are not used as generic pronouns as much as you mistakenly believe. You need to review the findings of the Collins report to get up to speed on the subject.
     
    #45 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  6. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    In 1 Corinthians 7:15, we see the phrase "ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ" meaning "brother and sister."
    The NIV2011 often takes ἀδελφὸς (brother) and translates it to "brother and sister", as in Luke 17:3 where only the greek word for brother appears. But, Rippon says "gender accurate is not = to gender neutrality. What nonsense you engage in."
     
    #46 Smyth, Jul 4, 2016
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What's your problem? In both contexts both males and females are being dealt with --not males alone.
     
    #47 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes. And some textual critics say it is even closer when minor spelling variants are ignored.

    Well, as, as you say, the two main codices for the Alexandrian Textform are Aleph and B it would be hard to stray far from those old Uncials. As Westcott and Hort strenuously asserted that Aleph and B were the "Neutral Text" it was only when they differed from each other (which they do about 3,000 times in the Gospels alone) that other manuscript evidence was considered. But as they both considered the Alexandrian Textform to be a corruption of their "Neutral Text" they seldom accepted any reading that disagreed with either Aleph or B.

    And, as their rules of textual criticism have dominated that field for over 100 years it is understandable that the contemporary Critical Texts will agree strongly with the "Neutral Text" of Westcott and Hort as they arrive at their conclusions using the same reasoning as the W&H.
     
    #48 TCassidy, Jul 4, 2016
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not talking about current usage. I am talking about the rules of English grammar prior to the "gender inclusive" emphasis so common today. There is no gender-indefinite pronoun in English. That is why "they" has been co-opted to fill that grammatical void.
     
    #49 TCassidy, Jul 4, 2016
  10. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    The context doesn't always agree with the NIV, but the NIV doesn't leave the reader an option to reach a different conclusion about the meaning of the passage. And, even when the context does agree, the NIV is still changing the tone of the verse.

    I don't want to read a translation made by people who think they need to correct the Bible.
     
    #50 Smyth, Jul 4, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, when you refer to "are frequently used" you are speaking of contemporary usage.
    Your antiquated "rules of English grammar" are indeed outdated. Do you also think that Latin rules of the past should rule over contemporary English grammar?
    Yes, the singular they dominates today --not your ill-fitting ancient notions.

    I have demonstrated in the past that many on the BB use the singular they form --including "them" and "their" when referencing a particular person.

    I have discussed "thon" which started in the 19th century and "tah/ta" borrowed from the Chinese.as possible substitutes for them.
     
    #51 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Listen closely. Take a look at the two verses you cited. Are those verses speaking of both men and women or males only?
    You are using KJVO-speak. Translators do not "correct" Bibles --they translate.
     
    #52 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your 3,000 figure is highly suspect when you are speaking of real differences. There are minor spelling differences which have no real impact. And, as you have said earlier :"those differences, are for the most part insignificant."

    For the most part (aside from their exaltation of "the neutral text" ) their principles are rather sound and accepted by scholars today --even Byzantine ones.
     
    #53 Rippon, Jul 4, 2016
  14. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    So what, I don't want translators changing what the Bible says to fit anyone's interpretation. If the Greek says "brothers", I want the English to say "brothers". If the context is so clear, then the translators need not bother adding to the word of God.

    There are many changes in the NIV which I believe are not supported by context. You'd just argue that the NIV is justified in changing the word of God, as you've just done, because it changed it to what you think it means, never mind that I don't think it means that -- and never mind that the Bible doesn't say that.

    There's still the issue of tone. By adding "sisters", the NIV translators inject a feminist tone where a patriarchal tone exists.
     
    #54 Smyth, Jul 5, 2016
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you KJVO? When you say things like the above it reeks of ignorance.
    The Greek is not English --so it doesn't say "brothers" in the first place.

    And when you say "adding to the Word of God" you again sound like a KJVO'er. The KJV has plenty of additions to the Word of God, although the translators didn't have the knowledge that translators have today. They were not at fault.
    Evidence please. Support your assertions.
    You are being silly. Hope I haven't hurt your feelings.
     
    #55 Rippon, Jul 5, 2016
  16. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    It's the mark of someone who isn't intelligent when they defend paraphrasing of scripture just because the paraphrasing agrees with their views (especially if the paraphrase is arguably wrong, even a little bit wrong). But, I speak of someone who wants to know God's word, rather than an unnecessary alteration of it. I'd go easier on the NIV if it passed itself off as a paraphrase.

    Then why does your NIV say "brothers"?

    You ask for evidence and then up call the evidence silly. I don't think labeling something as silly then dismissing it convinces anyone of anything other than your lack of effort.
     
    #56 Smyth, Jul 5, 2016
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All translations paraphrase to a certain extent because the original languages are not English. All translations are approximations.

    Ditto. I don't note any "unnecessary alteration(s)" in the NIV. So what is your pet English translation?

    Well, your favorite translation is itself a paraphrase as I have said before. I'd go easier on you if you knocked off the nonsense.

    What you need to do is give evidence of your hollow claims.

    What verse are you referencing and what is your point?


    quote]
    You ask for evidence and then up [sic]call the evidence silly.
    [/quote]
    You have not produced any evidence. You have simply made empty assertions.
     
    #57 Rippon, Jul 5, 2016
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To my understanding of this topic, far more important question would be the philosophical understandings of the text that the translator would be bringing here, than to if they have chosen to use the majority/Bzt/Critical texts, as all of them can be said to be the word of God unto us!

    The JW team could have the "best Greek texts" to work from, but their finished product would be far from the word of God!
     
    #58 Yeshua1, Jul 5, 2016
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then why is there still not a gender-indefinite pronoun in English? :)
     
    #59 TCassidy, Jul 5, 2016
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh, "they" is plural. :)
     
    #60 TCassidy, Jul 5, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 7
Loading...