Featured NIV vs CSB: which do you prefer?

Firstborn as in his rank/authority, correct?

 

No. ". . . the firstborn among many brethren." -- Romans 8:29. ". . . the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." -- Colossians 1:18. Romans 1:4 and Acts of the Apostles 13:33; Psalms 2:7.

 

Well chalk up another falsehood for Y-1. To go against the 2011 NIV an that I object to anyone saying they don't think some passages were properly. You know that. I object to irresponsible remarks made by you over a 15 period regarding the NIV. You attribute things to it that are entirely untrue. None of the charges you have made (and that I have itemized) against it are in the text of the translation. None. When you make up stuff without repentance it shows your conscience is being suppressed.

I gave the example earlier of a John MacArthur book. Someone comes along and says that JM believes in all the stuff you have been saying against the NIV for a decade and a half. You have read the book all the way through. JM didn't make any such statements nor did he imply anything that the critic has charged. You are incensed. "How dare anyone say such lies against John MacArthur." That's just a book. A good one, but still just a book. But you, Y-1 dare say such completely false things against a worthy Bible translation. Your case is far worse than that against a mere human author.

 

I had only guessed about that amount. On key word searches such as :
ancestors
father
fathers
men
people
person

The NLT uses 38.75% more inclusive language than the NIV based on those six key words alone. Of course a more comprehensive search would yield more info and the percentage would change.

 

Again, many who are smarter and wiser then either of us in the scriptures have expressed severe reservations on the Niv 2011, correct? Are all of them wrong also then?

 

Would you ties this into the OT Psalm concerning today "I have begotten you" then?

 

On key word searches for both the NIV and CSB, I found the following:
Ancestor
NIV : 9
CSB : 175

Men
NIV : 1080
CSB : 1059

Person
NIV : 324
CSB : 580

Father
NIV : 313
CSB : 421

Fathers
NIV 49
CSB : 265

People
NIV : 2717
CSB : 2260

So it's split down the middle. But not 50/50. In 443 cases the NIV was less inclusive than the CSB. In 457 cases the CSB was less inclusive than the NIV.

 

Among other things, you have an avoidance disorder. Take my prior post to heart.

 

So I can take it as all those others are wrong also then?

 

The above was a typo. I meant to say : Anyone can have legitimate objections to the way some passages are presented. They can argue for what they believe to be a better rendering. But it stops there. Anyone saying outlandishly false things as Y-1 has done for 15 years is going beyond the pale. Completely false things have been charged. Substantiate them in the text of the NIV. If you can't do that, then the case is over. The charges are groundless. It's a rather straightforward process. It's either in the text or it is not in the text. If not in the text, the accusations are F-A-L-S-E.

 

This reminds me of the false accusations against President Trump in the so impeachment process. All sorts of absurd accusations have been made against him with his phone call. President Trump has repeatedly held up the transcript. Nothing else matters. This is what was actually said. Simply read the text.

 

I have given to you the Bible researcher, the group on Biblical views on men and women, and others bible scholars who were for the 1984 and now against 2011. and yet you always just say they are "ignorant/misguided/wrong"

 

So those experts who agree with me and against you concerning the Niv 2011 are all liarers or else false accusers then?

 

You very well know the specific allegations you have made against the NIV. I have listed them over and over again so that you would finally feel some sense of shame for saying such scurrilous things. It all boils down to what is in the text. None of your accusations are found in the text of the NIV. None. You studiously avoid the obvious. Show, demonstrate, prove, document from the text of the NIV that these mudslinging spectacles of yours are true. If not in the text then what does that say about the accuser?

 

You deny that there are any mistakes in those gender renderings chosen in the 2011 Niv then?

 

"Today" refers to a time. As the prophecy it refers to the resurrection of Christ, Acts of the Apostles 13:33. As concerning today as of right now? That would be crazy talk.

 

Think "firstborn" per the Greek refers to either the source/origin of creation, or position of authority over creation, correct?

 

No. With rhe exception of a first born child. That term is used in the NT regarding the resurrected incarnate Christ. Colossians 1:18 for Colossians 1:15 is a case in point. "of all creation" means belonging to creation in the Greek. Making a special pleading does not change Greek grammar.

 

I'm speaking of you --don't foist the blame on anyone else.