You are the last person to consult about biblical literacy. You really need to secure a copy of the NIrV for your convenience.
-
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!
Any one else think the Niv 2011 went to far in gender Inclusive language in revision?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You are the last person to consult about biblical literacy. You really need to secure a copy of the NIrV for your convenience.
The valid exceptions invalidate your laziness and profit-driven accusations.
If folks want to be an old stick-in-the-mud and retain translations with no revisions because they don't recognize that there are advances in scholarship and the changes that have taken place in commonly used English...they are welcome to remain in the past.
I did indeed say that. How true it is!
The NASBU has "outstanding among the apostles. The NIV has the same rendering. What is your issue?
Do you think if you repeat your common refrain that a lie will transform it self into truth?
Sometimes I just gotta grin.
You didn't reply to the point made earlier. If "non-standard English versons" are a negative, in your viewpoint. Argue for "standard English" that you appear to be supporting. Keeping in mind that your own words in this post indicate there is no such thing as "standard English".
Advances in scholarship: I may be laboring under some misunderstandings.
(1) Thought advances being promoted were due to new source documents being discovered. Have often read this over the last 2.5 years or so as the reason for making more revisions. -- Additional manuscript discoveries, etc.
(2) According to your reasoning with regards to English changing, how do you reconcile "advances in scholarship" with movement further and further away from the languages in use at the time scriptures were penned? Please be a little more specific. What advances? Do you include recent advances in computer technology, as well? (That's a loaded question, BTW.)
In closing, with regards to "stick-in-the-mud", "awkward", etc ... etc. do you take the same viewpoint with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?
Oh, BTW. Before I forget: The "valid exceptions" does not invalidate the other items mentioned. My last reply asked you to prove my comments on "lazy" and "profit" are false claims. So far, you haven't done so. -- Just didn't want that to get lost in this flurry of words.
In the order of inferior to a bit better:The KJV,NKJV,ESV,NRSV. The HCSB largely tries standard English,the NIV is clearer,and the NLT is the most natural-sounding.
The Scriptures are far more important than our nation's founding documents.
Sorry you are overruled.
Will it be easier to read then my Greek NT?
Does God NOT use and speak to us in Kjv/Nas/Niv/esv? Aren't all those the word of God to us, so he can speak to us thru any of them?
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles
wells, lets compare!
BOTh say outstanding among the Apostles. but the NAS, and almost ALL MV render them as being Male Jews like Paul was, but NIV wants to make them just Jews, so opens up a possibility for Junia to be female here!
Any idea why the NIV team went on their own to render it this way, as against almost all other versions?
The term "fellow Jews" does not mean males.
There is some divergence of studied opinion whether Junia was a female. I think the greater weight is that Junia was a female.
The context doesn't say that Junia was an apostle.
What is that "greater weight of evidence", as most seem to support referring to a jewish male, doesn't it?
Y-man,please furnish your proof for these two bold lies of yours. The clock is ticking and you haven't owned up yet.
yoy see the trees, but not the forest my brother!
Look thru all the postings made by me, and you will see just how the Niv 2011 has went with current culture and leanings tio try to water down the firm conviction of men as being the leadership granted the church by god, and that the translators did heed the call by evagelical feminists to make the bible :stop being; so "male dominated/biased!"
trying to get it 'updated" from that bad views of the time/culture of biblical times, and "updated: to reflect modern views!
That's one of the two big lies that you have yet to document. And you have ignored my posts by Dr. Moo on the subject.
That's big lie #2 from you. You have lots of audacity;no integrity,but lots of audacity.
Last edited by a moderator:
[/QUOTE]
i am sure that you know that one of the expressed purposes of the Niv 2005 edition was to get the bible to speak to modern day culturally views, away from the 'male bias" from the culture and times 'reflected' in the texts!
You mean these considerations for the revision?
The following gender-neutral language guidelines were adopted by the NIV Committee on Bible Translation in 1992, (1) in preparation for the Inclusive Language Edition of the NIV published in Great Britain in 1996. They were made public by D.A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), pp. 41-44.
NOTE: The Today's New International Version published in 2002 goes well beyond these 1992 guidelines.
C. Authors of Biblical books, even while writing Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, unconsciously reflected in many ways, the particular cultures in which they wrote. Hence in the manner in which they articulate the Word of God, they sometimes offend modern sensibilities. At such times, translators can and may use non-offending renderings so as not to hinder the message of the Spirit.
D. The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.
The 2011 Revision of the NIV
by Michael Marlowe, August 2011
try as you might like to, they did have an agenda to make the bible be less "male biased/dominated!:
The best manuscripts indicate it to be "Junia" and there is no record of there being a masculine equivalent.
Those guidelines I posted were what the Tniv based the revision upon, so where is the dishonesty here?