Christian Standard Bible 2017

[Rippon]

I am not accusive the Niv of anything,

Of course you have. Reread your post #32.

just saying that they have chosen to ue much more inclusive renderings than somemore formal versions chose too! And Csb did aslo, as does NLT!

That's not what you said in your post #32.

The use of more inclusive language is not a mark of liberalism, or caving to political correctness, nor any other senseless things you have charged the translators of doing.

 

[Rippon]

I have cited this before. Bill Mounce, former N.T. head of the ESV team, was invited to become a part of the NIV 2001 team. He said:"All Bible translations are constantly being updated. English changes. New research teaches us new things. I can tell you there is absolutely no watering down to the truth in the NIV. The NIV and ESV have different translation philosophies; depending on where you are in life and ministry, you may find one more helpful than the other. But on both committees I never for a second saw the slightest urge to be liberal or politically correct. People who make these charges should read what the translators have written elsewhere, and you will see there is not an ounce of truth to te charges."

 

[Deacon]

Why Update a Beloved Translation? An Interview with Tom Schreiner [LINK]

Dr. Thomas Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Co-Chair of the Translation Oversight Committee for the CSB.

One of the most discussed changes has been the replacement of “Yahweh” with “Lord” in the Old Testament. Can you speak to why the committee opted to make this change?

Traditionally, English Bible translations have chosen not to supply vowels in order to make the name of God (YHWH) pronounceable; they simply render this name as a title (LORD). The CSB Translation Oversight Committee chose to come into alignment with other English translations, departing from the HCSB practice of utilizing “Yahweh” in the text. The HCSB was inconsistent, rendering YHWH as “Yahweh” in only 656 of 6,000+ occurrences of YHWH, because full consistency would be overwhelming to the reader. Yet feedback from readers also showed that the unfamiliarity of “Yahweh” was an obstacle to reading the HCSB. In addition, when quoting Old Testament texts that include an occurrence of YHWH, the New Testament renders YHWH with the word kurios, which is a title (Lord) rather than a personal name. This supports the direction of bringing the CSB is in line with most English translations, rendering YHWH as LORD.

Are there any other translation differences with the HCSB?

We no longer capitalize pronouns referring to God. The original text of Scripture does not distinguish pronouns referring to God by capitalization. Most Bible translations (including the King James Version) have followed this example and do not capitalize pronouns that refer to God. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) adopts the traditional approach of not capitalizing pronouns and referents for two primary reasons. First, the original text of Scripture is not always clear about to whom a particular pronoun may be referring; translations that capitalize any reference to a divine person are often forced into making unnecessary judgment calls in passages where the interpretation is debatable. Second, since Scripture sometimes includes prophecies that have double fulfillment, the choice to capitalize a pronoun can have the unintended outcome of erasing the additional, non-divine meaning.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course you have. Reread your post #32.

That's not what you said in your post #32.

The use of more inclusive language is not a mark of liberalism, or caving to political correctness, nor any other senseless things you have charged the translators of doing.

It is if/when it changes meaning of the text, and adds more of an interpration/commentary into the translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have cited this before. Bill Mounce, former N.T. head of the ESV team, was invited to become a part of the NIV 2001 team. He said:"All Bible translations are constantly being updated. English changes. New research teaches us new things. I can tell you there is absolutely no watering down to the truth in the NIV. The NIV and ESV have different translation philosophies; depending on where you are in life and ministry, you may find one more helpful than the other. But on both committees I never for a second saw the slightest urge to be liberal or politically correct. People who make these charges should read what the translators have written elsewhere, and you will see there is not an ounce of truth to te charges."

The newest Niv did tough decide to do renderings that would in certain areas go against traditinal understandings of the text...

 

[rsr]

Why Update a Beloved Translation? An Interview with Tom Schreiner

I wasn't aware the Holman was "beloved." It was more like "I guess we'll use it because all the Sunday School lessons are based on it because it's kind of like the NIV but we don't have to pay royalties."

 

[Rippon]

It is if/when it changes meaning of the text, and adds more of an interpration/commentary into the translation!

Again, it is not a mark of liberalism or a sign of caving into political correctness when a translation uses inclusive language appropriately. You have lost and degree of reason about this long ago.

 

[Rippon]

The newest Niv did tough decide to do renderings that would in certain areas go against traditinal understandings of the text...

"Tough decide"? "Traditinal"?

Be specific (something you hate to do.)

 

[Yeshua1]

Why Update a Beloved Translation? An Interview with Tom Schreiner

I wasn't aware the Holman was "beloved." It was more like "I guess we'll use it because all the Sunday School lessons are based on it because it's kind of like the NIV but we don't have to pay royalties."

Its the Version fo our SBC bethren!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, it is not a mark of liberalism or a sign of caving into political correctness when a translation uses inclusive language appropriately. You have lost and degree of reason about this long ago.

It is when itallowst Bible to be saying something not intended!

 

[Deacon]

Yeshua1, it's going to be impossible to change the feeling you have about inclusive language unless you can define specific areas where the problem exists.

As Rippon said,

Be specific (something you hate to do.)

Offer a list of four or five verses where the inclusive versions differ from your version of choice.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, it's going to be impossible to change the feeling you have about inclusive language unless you can define specific areas where the problem exists.

As Rippon said,


Offer a list of four or five verses where the inclusive versions differ from your version of choice.

Rob

No problem!
http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
http://matthewstarner.com/problems-with-the-niv-2011-translation/
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/niv-errors/
Hope that helps!

 

[banana]

The online version is out now

http://csbible.com/read-the-csb/

 

[Rippon]

It is when itallowst Bible to be saying something not intended!

Prove it! Your stock-in-'trade is to make unwarranted accusations. You offer no substance to back up your reckless charges.

 

[Rippon]

No problem!
http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html
http://matthewstarner.com/problems-with-the-niv-2011-translation/
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/niv-errors/
Hope that helps!

No, none of them do. What you need to is to do your own homework.
Marlowe offers is pronouncements in a condesceding manner. It's really irritating.
He doesn't offer much in the way of real substance in what was your homework
assignment. Besides, here is how he concluded his essay about the NIV:"a dubious presentation of the Word of God." That's just a reflection of Marlowe's character.

I have had complaints about the ESV. My issue always centers around its grammar. I have always
said it is a solid evangelical Bible translation. But Marlowe heads for the sewers in his critique.

Starner and Jacoby do not address inclusive language at all. Your reading comprehension is very poor.

 

[Rippon]

The online version is out now

http://csbible.com/read-the-csb/

In Psalm 23:4 it says "through the darkest valley" (as does the NIV,NLT,NRSV and CEB) World magazine thought that the NIV wording here was an example of bad translation.

Romans 8:29 :"so that he would be the firstborn among many braothers and sisters."
It's like the NIV,CEV,NLT and others. It should not be an issue.

Philippians 4:8 : "Finally brothers and sisters..." Again, if someone has a problem with that rendering they are like those who complained decades ago that the neewer translations "removed" the words thee, thine, thou etc.

Mark 7:7 : "teaching as doctrines human commands"
Mark 7:8 :"human tradition"

Those two snips from Mark are nothing to have a conniption over. It converys the message quite clearly.

As I said before, the CSB moves even closer to the NIV and NET. It leans in the direction of the CEB and NLT too.

It's time for the ESV to come up to the plate now. But the PR department, Wayne Grudem and Leland Ryken & Co. will have to eat a lot of crow to make that step.

 

[Rob_BW]

16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

 

[Rob_BW]

It's time for the ESV to come up to the plate now. But the PR department, Wayne Grudem and Leland Ryken & Co. will have to eat a lot of crow to make that step.

Would you mind expanding on this statement? You have my curiosity up.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, none of them do. What you need to is to do your own homework.
Marlowe offers is pronouncements in a condesceding manner. It's really irritating.
He doesn't offer much in the way of real substance in what was your homework
assignment. Besides, here is how he concluded his essay about the NIV:"a dubious presentation of the Word of God." That's just a reflection of Marlowe's character.

I have had complaints about the ESV. My issue always centers around its grammar. I have always
said it is a solid evangelical Bible translation. But Marlowe heads for the sewers in his critique.

Starner and Jacoby do not address inclusive language at all. Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Marlowe mkes VERY credible accusastions!
Try this http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/thoughts-on-gender-neutral-language-in.html

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have cited this before. Bill Mounce, former N.T. head of the ESV team, was invited to become a part of the NIV 2001 team. He said:"All Bible translations are constantly being updated. English changes. New research teaches us new things. I can tell you there is absolutely no watering down to the truth in the NIV. The NIV and ESV have different translation philosophies; depending on where you are in life and ministry, you may find one more helpful than the other. But on both committees I never for a second saw the slightest urge to be liberal or politically correct. People who make these charges should read what the translators have written elsewhere, and you will see there is not an ounce of truth to te charges."

You Spelt "The" wrong! LOL