http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/april-2011/translation-101
Some Lutherans like the 2011 NIV. and so should you!
Some Lutherans like the 2011 NIV. and so should you!
-
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!
2011 NIV Is Praised
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf
I'm sorry,this is the correct link.
I'm sorry,this is the correct link.
And the wheel is what? These are some choices:
The original autographs
The 1978 NIV
The 1984 NIV
The TNIV
No thank you. I will not support this not because I have reviewed the NIV and don't like it but because the parent company lied to Christians, broke their promise, and was very deceptive in how they did all this.
There are great translations out there and I do expect a company producing Bibles to not lie, break promises, and be deceptive to a vast amount of Christian scholars and leaders.
There are great translations out there and I do expect a company producing Bibles to not lie, break promises, and be deceptive to a vast amount of Christian scholars and leaders.
It's okay NOT to love a particular version, but it is distressing when the only reasons given for it are reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the translation itself.
The wheel has been reinvented and will continue to be until the Lord returns, and Ruiz' complaints could be leveled against other versions also. How about adding some substance if you want to list negatives of a particular translation.
I daresay that if Rippon posted a thread entitled, "KJV is praised" some of you would find something bad to say just because he posted it. It's NOT supposed to be "tit for tat", folks.
The wheel has been reinvented and will continue to be until the Lord returns, and Ruiz' complaints could be leveled against other versions also. How about adding some substance if you want to list negatives of a particular translation.
I daresay that if Rippon posted a thread entitled, "KJV is praised" some of you would find something bad to say just because he posted it. It's NOT supposed to be "tit for tat", folks.
Don't care for:
The 1978 NIV
The 1984 NIV
The TNIV
so I doubt I'd like the "new" NIV
but that's just my personal preference. Don't understand why, since 1978, there needs to have been FOUR NIV translations. Don't think "language" has changed FOUR different times in 33 years.
Antiquated language. Isn't that the "reason" people use for all the new versions?
It's getting a little ridiculous to me.
The 1978 NIV
The 1984 NIV
The TNIV
so I doubt I'd like the "new" NIV
but that's just my personal preference. Don't understand why, since 1978, there needs to have been FOUR NIV translations. Don't think "language" has changed FOUR different times in 33 years.
Antiquated language. Isn't that the "reason" people use for all the new versions?
It's getting a little ridiculous to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Will you please elaborate on this. I have no idea what you are talking about?
Let's see, how many revisions of the KJV were there during the first 30 years of it's existence? Check that out and get back to me if you still have complaints.
http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/april-2011/translation-101
Some Lutherans like the 2011 NIV. and so should you!
Oops.
Here is why they like it so much:
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf
Is that why you like it too, Rippon?
Could this be the reason?:
I have a copy of the NIV Study Bible which I consult now and again, but I've got to agree with you on this point. How can the language change significantly four times in 33 years?
http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/april-2011/translation-101
Some Lutherans like the 2011 NIV. and so should you!
Some do, but not all. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod uses the ESV in their publications and hymnal. The Lutheran Study Bible by Concordia also uses the ESV.
Oops.
Here is why they like it so much:
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf
Is that why you like it too, Rippon?
"for all have sinned and fall short of the golry of God,and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (2011 NIV)
I do not agree with the wels interpretation of the 2011 rendereing.
The first "all" in verse 23 is entirely universal in scope. However, the second "all" in verse 24 cannot be universalistic. All have not been justified or else everyone is going to glory.
The 2011 wording is the same as the TNIV rendering. It's not one of my favorites in the 2011 NIV. It can cause some confusion.
It's not just that language changes significantly every 8.25 years --but discoveries are made and other advances are implemented. It's good to have a well-honed translation rather than stay stuck in the mud and rejoice in one's entrenched traditions.
And that is the crux of the matter.
After further contemplation do you wish to do away with the wheel analogy?
According John Dyer's research the 2011 NIV is 91.47% the same as the TNIV.
Per Robert Slowley the two are in agreement 91.9% of the time.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
All that have sinned indeed have come short (the entire human race, minus One), and all that are indeed justified are only justified by grace through Jesus Christ. Or to say it another way, every justified person that comes to redemption through Christ Jesus was once a sinner. This 'new' NIV rendering isn't really a problem.
In context, it is perfectly clear that the "all" is speaking of all categories, types, or kinds of believers --
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
The "all" from v.22 is still the "all" in the first part of v.23 which is an implied "all" in v.24; that is, it is the same group of believers from v.22 through v.24. Paul's line of argumentation here is that the Gentile and the Jew ("all") were lost, then saved in the same way. I imagine that it was at least as shocking to the Jews that they were as lost in sin as Gentiles, as was the sheer idea that God would save Gentiles! Ironically, v.23 is often used to explain to an unsaved person that every one is a sinner (which they are, but not precisely what this verse states in context).
Last edited by a moderator: