Featured Exercise Common Sense

How so? As many churches dropped the Niv 2011, as they saw it made much worse!

 

Yes, they did drop it, but many in Western Kentucky went to preaching from the NLT. Which shows they had no understanding of why they were rejecting the NIV2011.

I'm ok with people not liking what the NIV 2011 did, but they need to be consistent. The NLT uses inclusive language more than the NIV2011

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

CT: Surveys and searches suggest the translation that most Americans are reading is actually not the bookstore bestseller

"When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll."

"The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV."

"The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith."

"'Although the bookstores are now crowded with alternative versions, and although several different translations are now widely used in church services and for preaching, the large presence of the KJV testifies to the extraordinary power of this one classic English text,' Noll commented"

 

The Niv 1984 is still recommended for use over the 2011 version by many Conservative baptists though, and by churches/groups!

 

many seem to have switched when Niv changed to the Esv!

Think the mian point Jerome makes is still valid, as the Kjv and I would assume other formal translations used more than was thought!

 

Maybe, but I dont see it in SBC churches im my area. In fact there is good chance in the DMBA in the owensboro area, if you use the ESV you will not be allowed in the baptist association. The local baptist association is rabidly anti-calvinist and they are not allowed in the assciation. The DOM checks to see what transaltion thr preacher uses....if it is ESV the witch hunt begins.

So, the options other than the NIV are NLT and NKJV basically. I know of no other SBC, KBC, DMBA (local association) affliated pastor that uses anything other than the NIV, NKJV, KJV or NLT. I uses the ESV to preach in ohio county, since it does not have an unoffical ban on that transaltion.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

That must be why the esv has the reputation of being the calvinist version of choice!

 

The problem I have in replying to all this is the fact that I know no Hebrew. If the Hebrew noun which the 1984 NIV translates 'men' can reasonably be applied to both genders, then I have no problem except in 21:19, where the translation is quite different and again I would need a knowledge of Hebrew. But 'a man' is singular and 'their' is plural. One is right and the other is wrong. We have no right to muck about with the Bible by translating singulars as plurals or vice versa.
Here I do have an issue.

If the Hebrew word for 'my' is not in the text, the ESV has no right to put it there.

If the NKJV or NASB came out with a new revision which in the NT translated adelphoi as 'brothers and sisters' in various places, I would have no problem because the italics would indicate that the 'and sisters' is not in the original Greek text. But in Acts 2:5, we read (NKJV), 'And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men.' Here it would be quite wrong to translate 'men' as 'people,' because the Greek word is andres, which is used almost invariably for the male sex only. The same applies in Acts 2:14, 22 and 29. It appears that the crowd was exclusively male. If there had been women present, the Holy Spirit would have used the word anthropoi, which also means men, but can apply to people of both sexes.

Note particularly Acts 2:29, 'andres adelphoi,' which the KJV and NKJV quite correctly translate 'Men and brethren' signifying that the 'and' is not in the text but has been added to help it read smoothly in English. To translate that as 'brothers and sisters' would be quite wrong. I note that the ESV translates it just as 'brothers,' which is sort of OK, but misses out the word adelphoi.

I am not a big fan of the ESV.

This may seem pedantic, but the Bible is the very word of God and we take liberties with it at our peril.

 

Van has been on my 'ignore' for some time, but I don't recall him ever limiting his comments due to a lack of knowledge of the original languages. If i is the case that no one is worthy to comment on translations because the translators are above criticism, then the mods should close this forum down forthwith.

Does your knowledge of Hebrew tell you that this is the case here?

I disagree. I find them exceedingly helpful and not at all unworkable. I don't need them everywhere, but I do think there are places where it is important to know that certain words have been added to the inspired text. I think the NKJV and NASB have it about right. The most obvious (but by no means the only) place is 1 John 2:2. Here it is in the NIV (1984): 'He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.' Readers of the NIV and ESV would never know that the words in brackets are found in no ancient MSS whatsoever.

Oh, come on Rippon! You're better than that!

 

I am in a stronger position here because I do know some Greek (though I am certainly open to correction by those who are experts, like JoJ).
The inspired Greek tells us four things about the people living in Jerusalem that are being described:
1. They were Jews (Gk. Ioudaioi).
2. They were men; that is, people of the male sex (Gk. andres).
3. They were devout (gk. eulabeis).
4. They were from lots of different races (Gk. apo pantos ethnous hupo ton ouranon).
I think we need to know all four of these facts, since the Holy Spirit has taken the trouble to put them all into the word of God for us.

I really don't care. I know what the original Greek text says, and it is not for the translators, however learned they may be, to alter it.

 

I don't know that at all. You have told me that the translators know much more than I do, and that neither you nor I are worthy to tie their shoelaces. The first part is undoubtedly right, but the second part sounds rather like man-worship. If we are not worthy to tie their shoe-laces then we are certainly not worthy to criticize their translations. Therefore we are back in the position of the Middle Ages when no one could criticize the Vulgate, and the mods should close the forum.

I can't give you the missing Greek words for the very good reason that they are missing. In every manuscript.