Featured HCSB to the CSB

No, he is an ESV man who has misrepresented the TNIV terribly and he continues on the same path when it comes to the 2011 NIV.

You just can't be man enough to post passages from the NIV that back up your nonsense claims --so don't say completely untrue things in the first place.

 

So you reject out of hand someone far more authority than either of us in this area?

 

It is unusual, but not without support. The Reformation Study Bible gives support to the CSB translation by noting that the literal phrasing may indicate a loss of bodily functions. Respected OT scholar Tremper Longman III also indicates that losing control of his bodily functions maybe in view as well, in his commentary on Daniel.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

There's a rather literal (and archaic) rendering in the Authorized Version

“Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” (Daniel 5:6, AV 1873)​

An article of note is found in the Journal of Biblical Literature: [A. Wolters, “Untying the King’s Knots: Physiology and Wordplay in Daniel 5,” JBL 110 (1991): 117–22.]

"My proposal is that v. 5 refers to the king’s panic-stricken loss of sphincter control and that vv. 12 and 16 are a mocking and ironic allusion to this ignominious incontinence on the king’s part. …

…In the first occurrence of qitrin with the verb sera (v.12), he puts the phrase in a series of three expressions describing the skills of a Babylonian sage, so that the reader has clear pointers to a divergent interpretation of “untying knots” in this context. The case is similar in the third occurrence of the phrase (v. 16). The difference in context thus clearly separates the untying of knots in v. 6 from that in vv. 12 and 16, but the identity of vocabulary binds them together. It is the interplay between difference and identity that makes the wordplay work.

Modern translations consistently obscure the wordplay because they interpret each instance of the relevant phrase according to its immediate context. The results is that qitrin is usually taken to mean “joints” in v. 6, whereas in vv. 12 and 16 it us usually taken to mean “problems,” even though these senses are attested poorly, if at all, in Aramaic literature elsewhere. ...

…A modern translation would be well advised to give the literal translation “untying knots” in each case, perhaps with a footnote explaining the different specific references."
Al Wolters, Redeemer College, Ancaster, ON L9G 3N6 Canada
​

A parallel passage is found in Isaiah 45:1

“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have holden, To subdue nations before him; And I will loose the loins of kings, To open before him the two leaved gates; And the gates shall not be shut;” (Isaiah 45:1, AV 1873)
​

Pity the CSB didn't follow the allusion.

“The Lord says this to Cyrus, his anointed, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and disarm* kings, to open doors before him, and even city gates will not be shut:”

*lit. unloose the waist of​

(Isaiah 45:1, CSB)​

Rob

 

Once again, you provide no truth and not even any verse comparisons and context. Except for the main article by Denny Burk, not a single link works. 404 404 404.......................................

I say again, show the proof.

 

Colossians 3:18

CSB : Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
NIV : Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-13

CSB : A woman is to learn quietly with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
NIV : A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

 

I Corinthians 11:3,7,8,9

CSB : But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
NIV : But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is is man, and the head of Christ is God.
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

I have observed the same issues. Bold statements without a quark of proof.

God bless

 

Interesting. Was hoping this might be available (freely), but alas, I found it not. Did find Wolters makes some of his articles available HERE.

 

JBL offers articles for free. Register and you are allowed to view a few.

Rob

 

Thanks. That reminded me that I could view it read-only with my JSTOR log-in.

Rob, I'm glad you brought this up. When you did I thought sounded weird, but now I'm wondering if I haven't been reading a "polite" rendering of this in the KJV all along.

Loins in the Bible seem to be the the region of bodily function (e.g. Genesis 35:11; Genesis 46:26), and I'm not sure it ever means hips particularly. So the "joints" of the loins could easily be the sphincters rather than skeletal joints, and the loss of control of that variety. Plus, maybe losing control of the hips would cause one to fall down, while knees knocking is usually a standing up condition?

 

Words Matter: Why We Can’t Recommend the NIV 2011
www.waynegrudem.com/.../An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pd.

 

After numerous years Y-1 (and his alter-ego names) has not produced a single passage from the NIV to back up his absurd claims.

 

CSB ： ”In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands...."

NIV : "Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands...."

1 Peter 3:1

 

So Y1, in my posts citing key Scripture passages regarding the role of men and women in both the CSB and NIV did you notice a distinct difference or a marked similarity?

In post 106 I cited Col. 3:18 and 1 Tim. 2:11-13. In post 107 I cited 1 Cor. 11:3,7,8,9. In post 114 I cited 1 Pe. 3:1.
As I said, these are key passages dealing with the roles of men and women --husbands and wives in the Bible.
You won't find anything remotely related to the irresponsible accusations you have leveled at the NIV for almost seven years.
It's time for you to fess up and tell the truth once and for all. If you don't you will continue to a lying man who professes to know Christ.

 

www.waynegrudem.com/.../An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pd.
ww.sbc.net › Resolutions › Resolutions Search
Pastor, what Bible is good to use? NOT the NIV 2011
Notht the SBC and Missouri Lutherans see it as being not acceptable, so I am not alone in this!

 

Y1, once again you are doing the same dishonest thing you have done hundreds of times before. Deal with what I said in my post #115. It's very easy to understand. It should be very easy to answer.

You continue to quote my entire posts without dealing with the very content whatsoever. That is a nasty habit of yours.

 

1 Peter 3:5
CSB : "For in the past, the holy women who put their hope in God also adorned themselves in this way, submitting to their own husbands."

NIV : For in this way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands."

 

1 Peter 3:7
CSB :" Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker partner, showing them honor as coheirs of the graced of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."
NIV : "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

 

This thread is about the CSB, so why are you continually posting broken links about the NIV? You have stated that the CSB goes too far in inclusive language. I want to know where you think the CSB goes too far - ie post the verses from the CSB.

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk