Featured NIV vs CSB: which do you prefer?

Oh goodness no. It's even more dynamic than the NIV>

 

When translations go astray is when eisegentical interpration is read into the text. Colossians 1:15 is a classic case. Colossians 1:15 is literally about the incarnate Christ being part of His creation and being the first resurrected (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14). Not the eisegentical misinterpretation of His preexistence as Creator. Arianism is based on that error. Both Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 do in fact refer to Him as part of His creation (Colossians 1:16-17; John 1:3; John 1:10). See also Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

 

Wait, are you suggesting Jesus Christ is a created being?

 

The Nlt is superior to the Niv 2011,I will grant you that!

 

They fit in between the Esv and the Niv 2011....

 

The Nas and Nkjv to me seem to be a bit more formal/literal then the Esv....

 

Actually, those passages do indeed refer to Jesus as being the Creator of the creation and its Lord!

 

Is it as much into the gender language issues though?

 

Oh, so you are now prepared to be honest? In your fanciful world you maintain feminist plots abound with respect to the NIV. You insist that the NIV wants women to be elders and pastors. And you aver that it condones women as heads of households. All of that fiction and more you have leveled at the NIV --and by way of extension, its translators.

However, though the NLT uses more inclusive language than the NIV it has no such contaminates in your book? It is as pure as the driven snow, while the NIV is a worldly production fueled by a P.C. conspiracy. Right. Your inconsistency is noted.

 

I do not use either one to study with, is it true then that the Nlt uses as much inclusive language as the new Niv does?

 

Not "as much" -- more. Probably 20% more. Is this news to you? Why haven't you fed misinformation about the NLT instead of aiming your squirt gun exclusively at the NIV?

 

Interesting. Every chart I have seen on equivalencies puts the ESV as more literal than the NKJV and the KJV as well for that matter.

 

What????
Not even close. The NIV is a much better product.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Charts, like statistics, can be manipulated. Haven't you heard?

 

You sound like Van.

 

Probably due to the fact that the Niv 2011 is claiming to be much more than it really is!

 

Still not nearly as good as more formal translations for serious bible studying though!

 

I get a kick when I see charts showing that The Message is at a 4th or 5th grade level. It doesn't really qualify as a translation, but the reading level is quite high. The Phillips translation (the 1958 or 1972 edition) quite clearly is at a higher register than an 8th grade level. Those particular charts were trying to show that the more dynamic a Bible version is --the lower the reader level. And that is just not the case.

 

the chart that I saw on translations had the nas as most formal, then the 2 Kjv versions, and then the esv....

 

Your reply, as usual, had nothing to do with my post.