Nope, just quoting Him from the scriptures!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CSB?
- Thread starter SovereignGrace
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The majority of translations seem to have seen Jesus in that Psalm, so what was the big thing that changed to have the Niv translators going off against the other more formal translations here?I don't have a problem with that. Adelphoi is not necessarily gender-specific and the reader can see from the italics that 'and sisters' is not in the original. Where I have a problem is with the CSB translating andres adelphoi as 'brothers and sisters in Acts 2:29.' Aner (plural andres) is gender-specific. If you do it in verse 29, you are suggesting that there were female apostles since verse 37 also has andres adelphoi. Why should it not be 'brother and sisters' there?
I hope it should be obvious by now that my real beef is not with changing anthropos from 'man into 'person' but with using the plural to obliterate the possibility of finding the Lord Jesus in the text. I accept that not everyone may agree with me that Psalm 8 is, partially at least, about Christ-- that's OK-- but a translation should not unilaterally take away the ability of the reader to find Him there.
How can the Niv translators overrule the Holy Spirit here then?The Holy Spirit speaks for Himself and saw the Lord Jesus in Psalm 8. We know that because He says so in Hebrews 2.
As yet another example of saying utterly untrue things about the NIV, see the above.The Niv was transalted in order to have evengelical feminist views creep in, as in the areas of women being equal to men in all areas, even as pastors/elder.
How can you, as a professing Christian engage in such complete rubbish year in and year out?
It's like me saying that you beat your wife regularly. I have no proof. I can't back it up with any substance. I'll just throw mud and hope people believe me anyway. You cannot go on behaving this way Y-1. Your conduct reeks.
You throw out rubbish accusations habitually with no proof whatsoever, and you just don't care. You remind me of the fringe left in the political world. If you support Judge K against the insane charges leveled against him --you are being incredibly inconsistent.
They are not. You pretend to speak for the Holy Spirit.How can the Niv translators overrule the Holy Spirit here then?
Was he telling lies here then about the Niv?As yet another example of saying utterly untrue things about the NIV, see the above.
How can you, as a professing Christian engage in such complete rubbish year in and year out?
It's like me saying that you beat your wife regularly. I have no proof. I can't back it up with any substance. I'll just throw mud and hope people believe me anyway. You cannot go on behaving this way Y-1. Your conduct reeks.
You throw out rubbish accusations habitually with no proof whatsoever, and you just don't care. You remind me of the fringe left in the political world. If you support Judge K against the insane charges leveled against him --you are being incredibly inconsistent.
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
The Holy Spirit already said Jesus in to be found in there, so His view trumps theirs!They are not. You pretend to speak for the Holy Spirit.
He certainly was. It is encapsulated in his concluding sentence.Was he telling lies here then about the Niv?
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
Jesus is not in that Psalm. You think that son of man in Ps. 8:4 refers to Christ. But it means people.The majority of translations seem to have seen Jesus in that Psalm, so what was the big thing that changed to have the Niv translators going off against the other more formal translations here?
I will quote from the NLT :
"what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them,"
The first phrase in all translations of that verse means the very same thing as the second phrase.
Mortals = human beings
Mankind ==human beings
Man == son of man
It's not even Son of Man, but son of man. Humanity is being referenced.
Many others feel the same way though, incuding the SBC and the Guidelines on Gender group, all of them liars then?He certainly was. It is encapsulated in his concluding sentence.
The problem is that the Holy Spirit saw Him in there, and he inspired that Psalm!Jesus is not in that Psalm. You think that son of man in Ps. 8:4 refers to Christ. But it means people.
I will quote from the NLT :
"what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them,"
The first phrase in all translations of that verse means the very same thing as the second phrase.
Mortals = human beings
Mankind ==human beings
Man == son of man
It's not even Son of Man, but son of man. Humanity is being referenced.
It is sinfully untrue. You need to change your ways.Many others feel the same way though,
There you go again. You quote my entire post with no comment on its content. Grow up. Engage with substance.The problem is that the Holy Spirit saw Him in there, and he inspired that Psalm!
The SBC and those who made uo the Coolrado Guidelines agree with me though! Think one of the Lutheryn groups agree also!It is sinfully untrue. You need to change your ways.
So the Holy Spirit view saying that Jesus is found there is overruled by them?And remember, D.A. Carson said that 75% of his commentaries on Hebrews [regarding chapter 2] do not think that "son of man" here functions as a messianic title --neither does Psalm 8.
The "Holy Spirit view"? Get off your high horse.So the Holy Spirit view saying that Jesus is found there is overruled by them?
He stated that Jesus is to be seen as the Son of man....The "Holy Spirit view"? Get off your high horse.
By the way, you mentioned the SBC a few times regarding the NIV.
That resolution was read on the floor, not by the committee. The committee declined to offer it for consideration.
When one member had read it from the floor he was clueless. He got rounds of applause when he said things to the effect that "We don't need Bible translations that neuter God!" Just totally off the wall remarks that uninformed folks just lapped up.
That resolution was read on the floor, not by the committee. The committee declined to offer it for consideration.
When one member had read it from the floor he was clueless. He got rounds of applause when he said things to the effect that "We don't need Bible translations that neuter God!" Just totally off the wall remarks that uninformed folks just lapped up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.