Yes none of those words ever get used in today's language.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Any one else think the Niv 2011 went to far in gender Inclusive language in revision?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Yes none of those words ever get used in today's language.
Speaking over overstatements. I'd say yours qualifies in a heartbeat. Do you even own an ESV?
Check out my favorite Lev. 26:1:"You shall eat old store long kept..." LOL!
Umm that's not what the ESV says for Lev 26:1 It says
“You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God.
Yet in this example, the ESV far surpasses the NIV in the ease of reading.
An exception does not invalidate a general rule.
Umm that's not what the ESV says for Lev 26:1 It says
“You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God.
Pardon me. I left off the 0. It should be Lev.26:10.
Yes none of those words ever get used in today's language.
You can say that again;unless you are Yoda or Tonto.
How can the NIV 2011 have been #1 for 30 years!!?? What in the world are YOU talking about?
-- Edit. Shoulda read the rest of the thread.
That is an easy one, rotate your stock.
Given the examples here, I would not be comfortable using the 2011 niv.
I do have and use an older NIV with no problems.
I can not buy a newer one just to compare. Perhaps when I find one in a yard sale for $1 I will get one. That is where all my Bibles but 5 have come from (of those 1 was inherited and 3 were gifts and 1 I bought new to study in paper back for $5)
Of all the bibles I have studied I have found the 3 easiest to use are the original NIV, the KJV and my favorite the ESV.
I use them interchangeably, reading all 3 to get a well rounded idea of what is said. Mixing in an amplified now and then if I still need more info.
Given the examples here, I would not be comfortable using the 2011 niv.
I do have and use an older NIV with no problems.
I can not buy a newer one just to compare. Perhaps when I find one in a yard sale for $1 I will get one. That is where all my Bibles but 5 have come from (of those 1 was inherited and 3 were gifts and 1 I bought new to study in paper back for $5)
Of all the bibles I have studied I have found the 3 easiest to use are the original NIV, the KJV and my favorite the ESV.
I use them interchangeably, reading all 3 to get a well rounded idea of what is said. Mixing in an amplified now and then if I still need more info.
I am wondering if that response was sarcasm based on Calvinist determinism.
mine, or his?
Umm - I know someone says that the ESV is stilted in it's readings but, oh my, the NIV is terrible here!
"a son of man"? What article goes with that? Is "a" the correct article or "the" because they are not the same thing. Oh - and how many mankinds are there? Mankind is singular.
think that it dilutes the meaning of jesus identifying himself as being the son of man, correct?
How about
Romans 16:7, which reads in the 2011 NIV, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
wouldn't that seem to be making the female Junia an Apsotle in early church?
Or
1 Timothy 2:12, a passage dealing with church roles which the 2011 NIV rendered, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Any reason why they picked 'assumed authority?"
Assume means to take or accept or place oneself in as well as the usually idea of deciding on sketchy thought.
So that one I can understand.
Since there were only 13 Apostles (not counting Judas who betrayed Christ) and since they are all named early on this is a blatant misstatement.
as·sume
transitive verb \ə-ˈsüm\
as·sumedas·sum·ing
Definition of ASSUME
1
a : to take up or in : receive
b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2
a : to take to or upon oneself : undertake <assume responsibility>
b : put on, don
c : to place oneself in <assume a position>
3
: seize, usurp <assume control>
4
: to pretend to have or be : feign <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5
: to take as granted or true : suppose <I assume he'll be there>
6
: to take over (the debts of another) as one's own
So that one I can understand.
Since there were only 13 Apostles (not counting Judas who betrayed Christ) and since they are all named early on this is a blatant misstatement.
as·sume
transitive verb \ə-ˈsüm\
as·sumedas·sum·ing
Definition of ASSUME
1
a : to take up or in : receive
b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2
a : to take to or upon oneself : undertake <assume responsibility>
b : put on, don
c : to place oneself in <assume a position>
3
: seize, usurp <assume control>
4
: to pretend to have or be : feign <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5
: to take as granted or true : suppose <I assume he'll be there>
6
: to take over (the debts of another) as one's own
think that it dilutes the meaning of jesus identifying himself as being the son of man, correct?
How about
Romans 16:7, which reads in the 2011 NIV, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
wouldn't that seem to be making the female Junia an Apsotle in early church?
Or
1 Timothy 2:12, a passage dealing with church roles which the 2011 NIV rendered, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Any reason why they picked 'assumed authority?"
Well, according to Paul she was an apostle, so what's the problem?
The Timothy passage could also say wife instead of woman, husband instead of man. Plenty of room for this rendering.
Well, according to Paul she was an apostle, so what's the problem?
No, he doesn't say that she was an apostle. He says that she was "outstanding" among the apostles or as the KJV says, they were "of note" among the apostles. This shows that they were very well thought of amongst the apostles - not that they were one of them.
No, he doesn't say that she was an apostle. He says that she was "outstanding" among the apostles or as the KJV says, they were "of note" among the apostles. This shows that they were very well thought of amongst the apostles - not that they were one of them.
I agree with you here.
No, he doesn't say that she was an apostle. He says that she was "outstanding" among the apostles or as the KJV says, they were "of note" among the apostles. This shows that they were very well thought of amongst the apostles - not that they were one of them.
point is that the Niv 2011 seems to subtle changed some of the rendering to give impression that she was, that females could be pastors etc!
I admit there is some question to the translation, but most critics (those without an axe to grind about women in ministry) wouldn't go with your interpretation. It could also mean, prominent, which would back up her being an apostle. Though what isn't exactly clear, because both are possible, is what or who were these wider group of people known as apostles?
Of note apostle, could mean missionary, one sent.
Of note apostle, could mean missionary, one sent.
I admit there is some question to the translation, but most critics (those without an axe to grind about women in ministry) wouldn't go with your interpretation. It could also mean, prominent, which would back up her being an apostle. Though what isn't exactly clear, because both are possible, is what or who were these wider group of people known as apostles?
Of note apostle, could mean missionary, one sent.
that is where the critics charge though that they tarnslated their references to the person, tried to get a female Apostle, and also in tomothy a female pastor is OK!
that is where the critics charge though that they tarnslated their references to the person, tried to get a female Apostle, and also in tomothy a female pastor is OK!
Uh, say again?
Uh, say again?
"The 1984 revision of the NIV did not particularly generate controversy, but with subsequent editions, all bets were off. In fairness to the editors of the NIV, they did not and do not state that they had or have a feminist agenda. Their argument is that language in the Bible must conform to modern usage. But what, I ask, has driven the change in the English language as it relates to masculinity and femininity? It is the political agenda of feminism. Philosophically, the editors of the NIV are committed to the translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence. That means they are more committed to the reaction of the receptors of the translation (in this case, the English readers) than they are committed to representing with fidelity the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. So whether the NIV editors admit it or not, concessions to political feminism became, as codified in 1992, and remain a major goal in their translation work. They have become more concerned about appearing tolerant as defined by the feminist agenda than they are about "the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." What a tragedy. Let me illustrate with a brief history of the advance of the feminist agenda in the New International Version."
www.wordexplain.com/A_Critique_of_NIV_2011
http://www.wordexplain.com/
Also, follow the link there to the Bible researcher, regarding feminism in the translation process!
"The 1984 revision of the NIV did not particularly generate controversy, but with subsequent editions, all bets were off. In fairness to the editors of the NIV, they did not and do not state that they had or have a feminist agenda. Their argument is that language in the Bible must conform to modern usage. But what, I ask, has driven the change in the English language as it relates to masculinity and femininity? It is the political agenda of feminism. Philosophically, the editors of the NIV are committed to the translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence. That means they are more committed to the reaction of the receptors of the translation (in this case, the English readers) than they are committed to representing with fidelity the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. So whether the NIV editors admit it or not, concessions to political feminism became, as codified in 1992, and remain a major goal in their translation work. They have become more concerned about appearing tolerant as defined by the feminist agenda than they are about "the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." What a tragedy. Let me illustrate with a brief history of the advance of the feminist agenda in the New International Version."
www.wordexplain.com/A_Critique_of_NIV_2011
http://www.wordexplain.com/
Also, follow the link there to the Bible researcher, regarding feminism in the translation process!
Oh, I see now what your saying. I don't believe that for a second. Language has changed, it was always has, that's why all translations update. That and better information about the manuscripts becomes available.
Oh, I see now what your saying. I don't believe that for a second. Language has changed, it was always has, that's why all translations update. That and better information about the manuscripts becomes available.
the Esv "updated', as has the Nasb, but neither of them went into the gender language nearly as much!