Featured Contrasting The Csb with the Niv 2011

As anyone with honest eyes can see, at no place in the NIV can it be said that it promotes women as elders. To deny the obvious is fundamentally dishonest.

And regarding 2 Timothy 2:12, what part of she must be quiet do you not understand?

 

"Usurp authority" and "be quiet" are phrases straight out of Calvin's Commentary on the verse:

books.google.com/books?id=GC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA68&dq="assume+authority"

 

Oops, what I meant to say is the NIV's "assume authority" is found in Calvin's Commentary from long ago.

What happened to the post that quoted all this from CBMW?:

Again, Calvin's commentary says "assume authority" too, and these guys are portraying the expression as feminist-leaning?
Huh?

 

The NIV is not a holy!! It took out over 66,000 words out of the Holy Bible!!

I only Read the King James Authorized Version 1611 Holy Bible!!

Christ-MESSIAH Jesus-Yeshua is our Only WORLDS HOPE for our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America and Israel-Yisrael and our Christian Earth!!

I Love you all Everyone through Christ Jesus-Yeshua, because HE LOVED EVERYONE FIRST!!

Love Always and Shalom ( ), YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

 

Here's the extract from CBMW again:


1. The 2011 NIV adopts feminist-leaning translations in several key verses dealing with women’s role in the church
We expect that evangelical feminists who claim that women can be pastors and elders will eagerly adopt this 2011 NIV because it tilts the scales in favor of their view at several key verses. This is especially true because the new NIV changes the primary verse in the debate over women’s roles in the church.
1984 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
2011 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)
Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible’s main barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over women’s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.” The NIV’s translation committee says that the translation “assume authority” is “a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open.” In other words, “assume authority” could be understood in two different ways: a negative way (meaning “wrongly assume authority on one’s own initiative”) or a positive way (meaning “begin to use authority in a rightful way”). But in saying this the NIV translators fail to understand the full force of what they have done: They have given legitimacy to a feminist interpretation that did not have legitimacy from any other modern English translation (except the discontinued TNIV). Whether the verb is understood in a negative or positive way, the focus of the verse is now on prohibiting a self-initiated action, taking it on oneself to “assume authority” over men. And so feminists will now quickly say that they are not assuming authority on their own initiative – they are just “accepting” it because others entrusted it to them. In any local church that uses this new NIV, no one will be able to answer their argument from this Bible.
This verse alone in the 2011 NIV gives evangelical feminists the most important advance for their cause in the last thirty years. But the translation is simply incorrect, as many writers 9 have demonstrated in extensive scholarly discussion elsewhere,12 and as all other modern English translations agree: Even the gender-neutral NRSV translates authenteō “have authority” here —along with the NIV, NLT, RSV, Holman CSB, and NKJV, while the NASB, NET Bible, and ESV similarly translate it as “exercise authority.” Thus, the NIV is out on a limb here over against the other main modern English translations. And it is out on a limb precisely because of its attempt to be “neutral” on a passage that even the liberal translators of the NRSV have not attempted to make more amenable to an egalitarian interpretation. The verb authenteō here means “exercise authority” or “have authority,” not “assume authority.”


The point about Calvin is that in the 16th Century he didn't have a bunch of feminists seeking to subvert the Bible and to twist every word to suit their case.

Here's another extract:


2. The 2011 NIV incorrectly changes “father” to “parent” or something else
1984 NIV Proverbs 15:5 A fool spurns his father's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.
2011 NIV Proverbs 15:5 A fool spurns a parent's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence. (same as TNIV)
But the Hebrew text has ’ab, which means “father,” not “parent.” Fifteen other verses in the 2011 NIV make a similar change. Why seek to eliminate “father” when that is the precise meaning of the Hebrew text? There are no cases in the Old Testament where the singular Hebrew word ’ab means "parent" rather than "father." Hebrew lexicons define this word in singular as "father," not as "parent" (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 3; also Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 1-2).
But the new NIV translators in verses like this were unwilling to translate the word with the clear, simple English equivalent "father," apparently because in today's culture it is unpopular to use an example of an individual father to teach a general truth that applies to all parents. Even when that is what the Hebrew text does, the 2011 NIV is often unwilling to allow English readers today to see it. “Father” seems to be a "taboo" word that must be avoided in contexts that teach a more general truth.


Two points here: firstly, the Bible teaches that the father is specifically responsible for the discipline of his children and should not resign the responsibility to his wife, and secondly, in these days of same-sex 'marriage' we are reminded that children need fathers.

 

Whoa there, back to "assume authority."
Why such eagerness to ascribe nefarious motives, for them using the same language as in Calvin's commentary?

 

The above is absolute rubbish akin to KJVO mentality. If you believe this load of garbage then you have lost all sense of reason.

For ease of translation I will cite from the NIrV.
1 Tim. 2:12 : I do not let women teach or take authority over a man. They must be quiet.
1 Cor. 14:34,35 : Women should remain silent in church meetings. They are not allowed to speak. They must follow the lead of those who are in authority, as the law says. If they have a question about something, they should ask their own husbands at home. It is shameful for women to speak in church meetings.

You are out on a broken limb MM. The NIV rendering is very much like the KJV with its use of usurp--a synonym of assume.

You have taken extremely irrational leaps of logic MM. In short --your meanderings are crazy.

If the NIV is subverting anything as you assert why would it retain verses in Proverbs such as:
1:8 --Listen my son, to your father's instruction...
4:1 -- father's instruction...
6:20 --keep your father's command...
13:1 --heeds his father's instruction...
23"22 --listen to your father...

You really need to screw your head on straight and stay away from nonsensical websites.

By the way, the word , father's occurs in the N.T, :
CSB : 21 times
CEB : 20 times
NIV : 19 times
NKJV : 17 times !
NET : 17 times
LEB : 9 times

 

Why are you quoting from the NIrV? That is not the translation under discussion.

If you think that 'usurp' is a synonym of 'assume' your grasp of the English language is rather slight. Queen Elizabeth II assumed the throne on the death of her father. She did not usurp it; it was hers by right.

There was a Bible published in the 17th Century that left the word 'not' out of Exodus 20:14. It got the rest of the commandments right, so nine out of ten is good enough? I don't think so! It has been marked down in history as the 'wicked bible.' So while it's good to know that the NIV gets 'father' right in various places, I want to know why it doesn't in Proverbs 15:5.

These are meaningless statistics, as a moment's thought will reveal. If a translation has 'of a father' instead of 'a father's' the meaning may be identical, but it will affect your bogus statistic. You will have to show me where the NKJV gets it wrong (if it does), not just trot a few numbers at me.

 

It is a simplified NIV. Some, namely you and y1 find the NIV difficult to understand and hence misinterpret. The NIrV is just right for both of you.

Usurp means to take the place of, to topple, to oust.

According to Merriam Webster usurp is a transitive verb which means to seize or exercise authority or possession wrongfully.
And per MW assume is also a transitive verb meaning to seize, usurp, to assume control.

So your comprehension is minimal MM.

 

The instances of the word fathers in various translations within the book of Proverbs:
NIV : 2
CSB : 5
LEB : 2
NET : 2

The word fathers in Psalms:
NIV : 2
CSB : 11
LEB : 2
NET : 1

The word father in Proverbs:
NIV : 21
CSB : 27
LEB : 24
NET : 23

The word father in Psalms:
NIV : 15
CSB : 24
LEB : 8
NET : 13

 

Huh? You chide Rippon for citing another translation in this CSB vs. NIV2011 thread, after you yourself cited numerous others already!:

 

Oops:

Synonyms of assume by Oxford Dictionaries Thesaurus

 

BINGO!!

 

The incidence of the word son in various translations within the book of Psalms:

NKJV : 95
NIV : 77
NET : 74
LEB : 82
CSB : 83

The occurrence of son in Proverbs:
NKJV : 46
NIV : 40
NET : 14
LEB : 7
CSB : 45

The times the word sons is used in Psalms:
NKJV : 32
NIV : 18
NET : 10
LEB : 26
CSB : 23

The incidence of the word sons in Proverbs:
NKJV : 3
NIV : 3
NET : 1
LEB : 0
CSB : 4

 

Man in the N.T:
HCSB : 769
CSB : 703
WOW! The CSB dropped 'man' 66 times!
NIV : 731
WOW! The NIV used 'man' 28 more times than the CSB!
NLT : 724
NET : 711
LEB : 736
Mounce : 785
ISV : 773

So, of eight translations the CSB used 'man' the least.

Man in the O.T. :
HCSB : 1678
CSB : 1398
WOW! The CSB dropped 'man' 280 times!
LEB : 1484
NET : 1308
NIV : 1258
ISV : 1447
NLT : 1253

 

Men in the O.T. :
HCSB : 974
CSB : 915
WOW! The CSB dropped 'men' 59 times!
LEB : 823
NET : 941
NIV : 891
ISV : 780
NLT : 825

Men in the N.T. :
HCSB : 220
CSB : 144
WOW! ;-) The CSB dropped 'men' 76 times!
LEB : 175
NET : 153
NIV : 136
ISV : 195
NLT : 135
Mounce : 226

 

I really don't care. I have given you an example. If you think Queen Elizabeth usurped the throne of Britain, you are quite entitled to think that, but she didn't; she assumed the throne on the death of her father.

 

I appreciate the time you have taken with all this, but I'm afraid it is irrelevant for reasons I've already pointed out.
However, if you enjoy statistics,don't let me stop you compiling them.

 

[Sigh]
From your own post quoting CBMW, explaining the different possible meanings of assume:

 

I do not permit a woman to teach or:
seize authority
arrogate authority
appropriate authority
wrest authority
lay claim to authority
usurp authority
over man; she must be quiet.