Featured Christian Standard Bible 2017

That would be correct!

 

Why is the truth junk? Th niv 2011 transltors were tryingto get rid of too much of the masculine emphasis in the orogionl texts, as they wanted to try to make it more palbleto females nd others now!

 

The truth is never junk. But your first sentence in your post #71 is certainly junk. Those reporting the truth of the matter are, among others, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, D. A. Carson and Doug Moo, who is the head of the NIV team.

 

You would agree that one of thei stated purpose was to take what some perceivd as over masculineemphesi in teOrigial languages/cuture , and restae that in terms more acceptable to modern thoughts on issues?

 

Speaking of restating, don't you ever try to edit your posts? We all make typos and spelling mistakes at times. But you do not proofread your posts at all. I know you rarely read posts of mine even though you quote them. However, you don't seem to read your "finished" product.

 

I'm about a third of the way through my CSB. Genesis and Exodus, the Gospels, Job, Romans and both Corinthians. Proverbs, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

So far, I like it. John 1:14 is one of my favorite verses, and I'm kinda glad they went back to "dwelt" from "took up residence" like the HCSB had. Though I'm sure you literal people would prefer "pitched his tent."

 

How much does it seem to be revised from the HCSB then?

 

Most of the Yahwehs have been replaced with the LORD. That's the most noticeable difference.

 

Do they still use Messiah and Christ, depending on if Jewish/Gentile audience?

 

Why in the world have you asked that question? You have stated that the CSB went too far with inclusive language and have condemned it. Yet you now admit you nothing about the translation, and therefore you spoke falsely in the first place. No wonder that you did not answer my persistent question that I asked about a dozen times --Where has the CSB specifically gone too far with respect to inclusive language?

I hope this teaches you a lesson --Do not speak about things that you have no clue about --especially when you make blanket condemnations. It has to stop.

 

My point on the inclusive language is that the best approach was the amount used by the Nasb/Nkjv versions, and the 1984 Niv would be the dividing line, as more than that would be going over into being unacceptable!

 

Listen Mr. Hard-of-hearing: You claimed that the inclusive language of the ESV, HCSB and the CSB all went too far with respect to their usage of inclusive language. Yet you have never given any specifics whatsoever. You have not cited any verses at all. Yet you make blanket condemnations anyway. You are such a hypocrite and dishonest to boot.

 

I cited that anything that went beyond the amount used by the 1984 Niv would be wrong in my opinion, so have those translations used more?

 

Yes, but those changes don't necessarily "stand out" to me.

 

That is highly subjective. You have to examples to support that. A statement that places the NIV84 as the authority on inclusive language is akin to the KJVO style arguments.

Rippon is asking for a particular verses where the ESV, HCSB or CSB went to far. The context and orginal languages need to be the guide to determine this. Not the NIV84. We must be careful not to elevate any transaltion to be the standard bearer of how God's word should read.

* I don't have a CSB and not read any of it other than citiations. However I have spent a lot of time in the ESV and once upon a time was using the HCSB for text comparison. So I would be interested in looking at any particular issue you have, by verse, with the HCSB or ESV.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The CSB is on Bible Gateway, and their free app is available.

The CSB Mobile App - Now Available - CSB

 

Thanks for posting

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

That was from post #51. And you STILL have not done any homework on the subject. How long do you think you can hand out unwarranted complaints without offering SPECIFICS?

 

My standard bible would be the nasb though, and the 1984 Niv was to me the furthest one could go into inclusive language and stay safe!

 

NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV