Featured The Holman Christian Standard Version

The backlash against the Tniv and then the 2011 was due to mainly way too muh inclusive language now inserted into the text!

 

Yes, but Rippon's point in his last post is that there is a bias against the NIV. A lot of the same people who denounce the NIV2011, use or ignore the NLT. The NLT uses inclusive language more frequently than the 2011 edition....though i believe the TNIV used it more often or abou the same....can't remember for sure.

If one is against the NIV2011, then that person should be agaisnt the NLT.

Rippon addresses the CSB....i will not speak to its usage since I habe not looked at it. Once I get it on my Olive Tree or Logos I will do some comparison.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The uninformed, ugly and hypocritical backlash was indeed severe. It was mild against the current NIV in comparison. Just some wimpers.

 

But the 2002 Southern Baptist Convention approved this Resolution pushed by Russell Moore!


"ON TODAY'S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, The International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing House have begun to publish a new translation of the Bible known as Today's New International Version (TNIV); and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, The TNIV makes significant changes to the NIV, largely in the area of gender language; and

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the TNIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, The translators erased these gender-specific details in two ways: (1) they eliminated gender-specific terms (changing “father” to “parent;” “son” to “child;” “brother” to “fellow believer;” “man” to “mortals,” “humans,” or “those;” and “he” to “they,” so that gender-specific meanings are eliminated), and (2) they added gender-specific readings that are not found in the original text (such as changing “brother” to “brother or sister”) so that any gender-specific emphasis of the passage is eliminated; and

WHEREAS, This translation obscures significant biblical references to the person and the work of our Lord Jesus Christ by altering references to “father,” “son,” “brother,” and “man;” and

WHEREAS, This translation obscures biblical references to the personal relationship of the individual believer to Christ by changing masculine, third person singular pronouns (“he” and “him”) to plural gender-neutral pronouns (“they” and “them”); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 11-12, 2002, express profound disappointment with the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That, consistent with the Bible translation resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1997, we respectfully request that the agencies, boards, and publishing arms of the Southern Baptist Convention refrain from using this translation in our various publications and from using it in printing copies or portions of copies; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the TNIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community."

 

The TNIV was in full accord with accepted standards of translation and the members of the team entirely agreed with the full inspiration and authority of Scripture.

It was not a gender-neutral translation of Scripture. It used more gender inclusive language than most --but it is a mistaken notion to call it G-N. The NRSV and NLT went further in that area. And I have noted the hypocrisy of folks like Mr. Moore, who has never condemned the NLT on the same ground --pure inconsistency.

"Significant changes"? Hardly, alternative wording expressing no difference in meaning.

The above is utter nonsense.

I will continue answering those irrational charges by Mr. Moore tomorrow.

 

So the SBC and the Lutheryns was wrong in not approving the Niv 2011 for use?

 

The Lutherans? There are scores of Lutheran denominations. WELS, which has 1,296 congregations uses the 2011 NIV in its hymnal, with 196 verses.

The SBC is composed of many people. I doubt that most of them devalue the NIV as a translation --especially since there was no hue and cry about the NLT which uses more inclusive language than the TNIV and 2011 NIV.

 

It doesn't alter the meaning at all. It updates the language --that's a big distinction.

The above carries about as much weight as the fuss which was made decades ago when modern translations no longer used antiquated words such as thee, ye, thou and thine.

A lot of backtracking would have to take place if they now endorse the CSB.

The above is sinfully absurd.

How stupid. Take a look at the NKJV or NASB. See how Old Testament prophesies cited in the N.T. do exactly that.

That's a load of bovine excrement.

Yeah, see how far that's gotten ya' in the last 15 years. The NIV is still the best selling English translation.

Lifeway used common sense and rebuffed that inane request.

Good luck with that! ;-)

 

Is the TNIV the same as NIV 2011? Is the TNIV available online?

 

No.

No, it's been yanked from the interweb:

web.archive.org/web/20130303034754/http://www.biblica.com/niv/previous-editions/

 

Hmm. Interesting. Not only dead, but also buried?

Thanks, Jerome.

 

Fow do theydo when compared to say the 1984 edition for inclusive language?

 

I do declare, you have your own unique language:"Fow do theydo."

Please rephrase your question. What translation/translations do you want to compare with the 1984 NIV? Care to be specific?

 

Nlt/Niv 2011, in the area of inclusive language!

 

If you have a copy of each, then you can open them up and look for yourself.

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk

 

I bought the HCSB when it first came out and while it did have some unique readings, it doesn't hold a candle to versions such as the NASB & NKJV. At this time, I am not inclined to get the new update of it.

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk

 

I just have the 1984 Niv of those 3 versions!

 

TC: "At this time, I am not inclined to get the new update of it."

Perhaps even they recognize this? The CSB folks just offered to send ETS members a new copy of the final version, after already giving them a nicely bound goatskin copy of the preliminary CSB at the ETS meeting last November.

 

I've been reading the CSB and I am liking it so far

 

I have given an extensive number of comparisons with respect to inclusive language in the major translations. I have even done a thread or two that did not include the 2011 NIV or TNIV. The ESV, NET and HCSB have a good deal of inclusive language --a great deal more than the 1984 NIV. Any rational person would have to agree that the inclusive language in those versions were perfectly reasonable.

The new CSB has more I.L.than its predecessor. That puts it close to the level of the NET. And the NET's usage is a bit less than the current NIV. Hence --the controversy is a tempest in a teacup.