The NIV Is In Good Company

[TCassidy]

Maurice Robinson has said that the NA agrees with W&H 95% of the time.

Yes, I know. The Alexandrian Textform agrees with the Byzantine Textform 95% of the time.

What's your point?

 

[Smyth]

You don't know what you prate on about.

I know you don't. What about me?

 

[TCassidy]

No, the exact opposite. Those very words are seen as excluding females. They are seen as exclusive --not inclusive.

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.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I know. The Alexandrian Textform agrees with the Byzantine Textform 95% of the time.

Is it really THAT close?

What's your point?

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.

 

[Smyth]

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."

 

[Rippon]

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."

What's your problem? In both contexts both males and females are being dealt with --not males alone.

 

[TCassidy]

Is it really THAT close?

Yes. And some textual critics say it is even closer when minor spelling variants are ignored.

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.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

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.

 

[Smyth]

What's your problem? In both contexts both males and females are being dealt with --not males alone.

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.

 

[Rippon]

I am not talking about current usage.

No, when you refer to "are frequently used" you are speaking of contemporary usage.

I am talking about the rules of English grammar prior to the "gender inclusive" emphasis so common today.

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?

There is no gender-indefinite pronoun in English. That is why "they" has been co-opted to fill that grammatical void.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

Listen closely. Take a look at the two verses you cited. Are those verses speaking of both men and women or males only?

I don't want to read a translation made by people who think they need to correct the Bible.

You are using KJVO-speak. Translators do not "correct" Bibles --they translate.

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.

 

[Smyth]

Listen closely. Take a look at the two verses you cited. Are those verses speaking of both men and women or males only?

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.

 

[Rippon]

So what, I don't want translators changing what the Bible says to fit anyone's interpretation.

Are you KJVO? When you say things like the above it reeks of ignorance.

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.

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.

There are many changes in the NIV which I believe are not supported by context.

Evidence please. Support your assertions.

There's still the issue of tone. By adding "sisters", the NIV translators inject a feminist tone where a patriarchal tone exists.

You are being silly. Hope I haven't hurt your feelings.

 

[Smyth]

Are you KJVO? When you say things like the above it reeks of ignorance.

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.

so it doesn't say "brothers" in the first place.

Then why does your NIV say "brothers"?

Evidence please. Support your assertions.

You are being silly. Hope I haven't hurt your feelings.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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).

All translations paraphrase to a certain extent because the original languages are not English. All translations are approximations.

But, I speak of someone who wants to know God's word, rather than an unnecessary alteration of it.

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

I'd go easier on the NIV if it passed itself off as a paraphrase.

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.

Then why does your NIV say "brothers"?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would not characterize the Alexandrian textform as "inferior."

I believe the Byzantine textform is more likely to be closer to the original manuscripts than is the Alexandrian textform. However, those differences are, for the most part, insignificant and do not affect any doctrine of Christendom.

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!

 

[TCassidy]

Your antiquated "rules of English grammar" are indeed outdated.

Then why is there still not a gender-indefinite pronoun in English?

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, the singular they

Uh, "they" is plural.