Christian Standard Bible 2017

[McCree79]

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!

Ok. So the NIV84 is as inclusive as a Bible should get. But how are you measuring that? What verse(s) did the HCSB or ESV go to far in inclusive language?

To just decide that the NIV84 is the minimum standard for a proper translation in regards to inclusive language --without being able to sight verses and considering orginal language and context-- is similar style argumentation to some KJVO people.

Yeshua1, you have to be careful to place the NIV84 as the default minimum standard bearer just because it is the NIV84. It is almost using the "because I said so" argument or "because someone else said so" argument.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV

That link is scoring words as inclusive that it should not be counting. It counts any time the NIV2011 uses "people" instead of "foreigners". That is a bogus knock on the NIV2011. "People" is the #1 inclusive word used that is cited in the study....and the study had to ingore previous inclusive language to get it that high. Or can only men be foreigners?

The #2 most increased inclusive word is "ancestors". Which seems largely to have been a change for "forefathers". According to William Mounce's dictionary, the Hebrew word here at times, providing context, can refer to "ancestors". The website does not clarify this or even acknowledge the possbilty. It just leaves the reader with the impression that all of the increased usage of ancestors is wrong.

I obviously haven't went through every change, but already the #1 and #2 words have shown to be unfairly represented. It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make the NIV2011 look as if it misusing inclusive more than it really is.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

That link is scoring words as inclusive that it should not be counting. It counts any time the NIV2011 uses "people" instead of "foreigners". That is a bogus knock on the NIV2011. "People" is the #1 inclusive word used that is cited in the study....and the study had to ingore previous inclusive language to get it that high. Or can only men be foreigners?

The #2 most increased inclusive word is "ancestors". Which seems largely to have been a change for "forefathers". According to William Mounce's dictionary, the Hebrew word here at times, providing context, can refer to "ancestors". The website does not clarify this or even acknowledge the possbilty. It just leaves the reader with the impression that all of the increased usage of ancestors is wrong.

I obviously haven't went through every change, but already the #1 and #2 words have shown to be unfairly represented. It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make the NIV2011 look as if it misusing inclusive more than it really is.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Understand your points here, but also think that the list does reflect a real change in english from the 1984 version, and not all for the better!

 

[Rippon]

NIV2011 comparison with the NIV1984 and TNIV

You cannot possibly be as dimwitted as you appear. Is your reading comprehension that poor?

This is not about the NIV.

I have asked you numerous times to specify where the HCSB,CSB and ESV have gone too ar with respect to their use of inclusive language. Point out passages in particular. Is that clear? How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you?

 

[Yeshua1]

You cannot possibly be as dimwitted as you appear. Is your reading comprehension that poor?

This is not about the NIV.

I have asked you numerous times to specify where the HCSB,CSB and ESV have gone too ar with respect to their use of inclusive language. Point out passages in particular. Is that clear? How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you?

My points of contention with any version would be how they treat the comcept of male leadership headship in family and church! Also, how they see jesus in Psalms and prophecy! Such Him identifing with Son of man, Messiah etc!

 

[Rippon]

This is not about the NIV.

I have asked you numerous times to specify where the HCSB,CSB and ESV have gone too far with respect to their use of inclusive language. Point out passages in particular. Is that clear? How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you?

Y1 : Cite the passages in the HCSB, CSB and ESV where they have gone too far with respect to inclusive language as you have claimed.

If you are unable to do so, just say you made the whole thing up and resolve to be honest from now on.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y1 : Cite the passages in the HCSB, CSB and ESV where they have gone too far with respect to inclusive language as you have claimed.

If you are unable to do so, just say you made the whole thing up and resolve to be honest from now on.

You do realise that MANY have had troubles with the Niv 2011 in particular on this very issue, correct?

 

[Rippon]

You do realise that MANY have had troubles with the Niv 2011 in particular on this very issue, correct?

You are daft. Read my posts 92,104 and 106 with eyes of understanding. If you can't prove your allegations you need to rescind them. You do not have the right to condemn something and yet not even try to demonstrate anything. You do this constantly. You need to change your ways.

 

[Rippon]

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.

Y1: Read the above and respond with specifics.

 

[Rob_BW]

Interesting fact: one of the moderators on the CSB/HCSB Fan Page on Facebook is Catholic. Looks like Holman's desire for wide ranging acceptance has gained some traction.

 

[Yeshua1]

Y1: Read the above and respond with specifics.

Words Matter: Why We Can’t Recommend the NIV 2011
aithtoyou.com/s/burk2011niv.pdf
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-conte...uation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf

 

[Rippon]

Y1 : Cite the passages in the HCSB, CSB and ESV where they have gone too far with respect to inclusive language as you have claimed.

If you are unable to do so, just say you made the whole thing up and resolve to be honest from now on.

If you can't understand the plain English above, just say so and I'll set you up with some ESL materials in Detroit.

My perpetual question which you have weaseled out of answering has nothing to do with the NIV --you know it. So stop your evasive tactics and get particular with real answers for once.

You could never share your beliefs with JWs and Mormons with your vain ways.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you can't understand the plain English above, just say so and I'll set you up with some ESL materials in Detroit.

My perpetual question which you have weaseled out of answering has nothing to do with the NIV --you know it. So stop your evasive tactics and get particular with real answers for once.

You could never share your beliefs with JWs and Mormons with your vain ways.

If you can't understand the plain English above, just say so and I'll set you up with some ESL materials in Detroit.

My perpetual question which you have weaseled out of answering has nothing to do with the NIV --you know it. So stop your evasive tactics and get particular with real answers for once.

You could never share your beliefs with JWs and Mormons with your vain ways.

Have many timnes, as each time it was the gospel and real Jesus shared, and use of the Kjv only bible they accept!

 

[McCree79]

Words Matter: Why We Can’t Recommend the NIV 2011
aithtoyou.com/s/burk2011niv.pdf
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-conte...uation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf

None of these links adress the supposed excessive inclusive language of the CSB, HCSB or the ESV. Wayne Grudem actually thinks pretty highly of the ESV, so I wouldn't be posting things from him of this issue.

Or is your view that the CSB, HCSB and ESV have not engaged in excessive inclusive language?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

None of these links adress the supposed excessive inclusive language of the CSB, HCSB or the ESV. Wayne Grudem actually thinks pretty highly of the ESV, so I wouldn't be posting things from him of this issue.

Or is your view that the CSB, HCSB and ESV have not engaged in excessive inclusive language?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

My point is that there is nothing wrong with using some inclusive language, but not OK when it involves changing the intended message as regarding male leadership/authority, or when it fails to see jesus in the Psalms, as Son of Man etc!
So long as it does not alter/effect the intended message from God....

 

[Rippon]

None of these links adress the supposed excessive inclusive language of the CSB, HCSB or the ESV. Wayne Grudem actually thinks pretty highly of the ESV, so I wouldn't be posting things from him of this issue.

Or is your view that the CSB, HCSB and ESV have not engaged in excessive inclusive language?

The content from above will be ignored by Y1, as usual.

 

[Rippon]

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.

The above is from post 92, which Y1 will ignore.

 

[Rippon]

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. I would be interested in looking at any particular issue you have, by verse, with the HCSB or ESV.

The above is from post 95, which Y1 will ignore.

 

[Rippon]

This is not about the NIV.

I have asked you numerous times to specify where the HCSB,CSB and ESV have gone too ar with respect to their use of inclusive language. Point out passages in particular. Is that clear? How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you?

The above is from post 104, which Y1 will ignore.

 

[Rippon]

Y1 : Cite the passages in the HCSB, CSB and ESV where they have gone too far with respect to inclusive language as you have claimed.

If you are unable to do so, just say you made the whole thing up and resolve to be honest from now on.

The above is from post 106, which Y1 will ignore due to his dishonesty.