why did the other MV seemed not to see this then?
-
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
why did the other MV seemed not to see this then?
Those guidelines I posted were what the Tniv based the revision upon, so where is the dishonesty here?
As I clearly said before. Read the preface to the TNIV.
As I clearly said before. Read the preface to the TNIV.
I have , and there seems to be a difference as to what theey said they were planning to do,and what they actually did!
Give us accuracy, not feminism or masculinism.
Otherwise you get the silliness of not referring to Jesus as Son of God or Son of Man because "Son" is male--feminist drivel.
Or get the Baptist preacher I knew who figured God was totally unconcerned with females because after all, the scripture says "what is man that thou art mindful of him?"--masculinist drivel.
So who can tell me--what version comes closest to ditching both feminism and masculinism?
Otherwise you get the silliness of not referring to Jesus as Son of God or Son of Man because "Son" is male--feminist drivel.
Or get the Baptist preacher I knew who figured God was totally unconcerned with females because after all, the scripture says "what is man that thou art mindful of him?"--masculinist drivel.
So who can tell me--what version comes closest to ditching both feminism and masculinism?
I have , and there seems to be a difference as to what theey said they were planning to do,and what they actually did!
Specifics please.
Specifics please.
The commitee for the 2005 Tniv adopted those policies that I have already posted, as they were seeking to make sure the revision addressed concerns that the Bible was not speaking down to women, not giving them due worth, and that the scriptures were viewed not thru biblical times views, but more current culturally!
The commitee for the 2005 Tniv adopted those policies that I have already posted, as they were seeking to make sure the revision addressed concerns that the Bible was not speaking down to women, not giving them due worth, and that the scriptures were viewed not thru biblical times views, but more current culturally!
You are one stubborn fellow. I told you to read the preface to the TNIV. Read it.
You are one stubborn fellow. I told you to read the preface to the TNIV. Read it.
Thinks that label could fit both of us in this!
Why do you keep rejecting what is plain to see?
DrJamesAch
New Member
First of all, Romans 16:7 does not say that either Andronicus or Junia were apostles, it says they were "OF NOTE among the apostles".
Secondly, neither of them met the criteria for being an apostle listed in Acts chapter 1. It was clear that there was a particular number that was included for those having authority as an apostle by the fact that Judas office needed a replacement. The only exception to that was Paul (1 Cor 15:8) because Christ had a different ministry in mind for him (an apostle to the Gentiles) Romans 15:16.
Now regarding the gender of Junia, whoever said this was a feminine noun is off their rocker.
*Not only are the 2 called Paul's kinsmen, but also his fellow PRISONERS. Neither Rome nor Greece had co-ed jail cells!
*Considering Pauls standards for those in authority over the churches in Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14, it is highly unlikely that Paul would forbid a woman from having pastoral authority, but then recognize a female apostle.
*Even though most major manuscripts including some in the corrupt A and B line, have the circumflex over the ultima in 'Iounian, which clearly show it is a male noun, liberal scholars take a few 4th century examples of 3 women that used that name and applied them as retroactive examples of the usage of that name.
Julias can be a feminine name, but it is used of a Roman king. Bobby, Lauren, Jerry (or Jeri) or Blair, can be a man or a women's name. Johnny Cash even wrote a song called "A Boy Named Sue". Thus it is the name as well as the context and other rules throughout scripture regarding the permissions of authority within the church that dictate whether this person was male or female, and the context shows that it was neither a female nor an apostle.
Secondly, neither of them met the criteria for being an apostle listed in Acts chapter 1. It was clear that there was a particular number that was included for those having authority as an apostle by the fact that Judas office needed a replacement. The only exception to that was Paul (1 Cor 15:8) because Christ had a different ministry in mind for him (an apostle to the Gentiles) Romans 15:16.
Now regarding the gender of Junia, whoever said this was a feminine noun is off their rocker.
*Not only are the 2 called Paul's kinsmen, but also his fellow PRISONERS. Neither Rome nor Greece had co-ed jail cells!
*Considering Pauls standards for those in authority over the churches in Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14, it is highly unlikely that Paul would forbid a woman from having pastoral authority, but then recognize a female apostle.
*Even though most major manuscripts including some in the corrupt A and B line, have the circumflex over the ultima in 'Iounian, which clearly show it is a male noun, liberal scholars take a few 4th century examples of 3 women that used that name and applied them as retroactive examples of the usage of that name.
Julias can be a feminine name, but it is used of a Roman king. Bobby, Lauren, Jerry (or Jeri) or Blair, can be a man or a women's name. Johnny Cash even wrote a song called "A Boy Named Sue". Thus it is the name as well as the context and other rules throughout scripture regarding the permissions of authority within the church that dictate whether this person was male or female, and the context shows that it was neither a female nor an apostle.
Thinks that label could fit both of us in this!
Why do you keep rejecting what is plain to see?
Why do you run,duck and hide on so many things. I made a simple request of you. READ the preface to the TNIV. If you want to find out about something go to the sources;not from seconhand biased reports. How many times will you practice evasions?
saturneptune
New Member
Why do you argue and demean every poster you encounter? On second thought, why would anything be expected different with someone who uplifts a murderer.Why do you run,duck and hide on so many things. I made a simple request of you. READ the preface to the TNIV. If you want to find out about something go to the sources;not from seconhand biased reports. How many times will you practice evasions?
First of all, Romans 16:7 does not say that either Andronicus or Junia were apostles, it says they were "OF NOTE among the apostles".
Secondly, neither of them met the criteria for being an apostle listed in Acts chapter 1. It was clear that there was a particular number that was included for those having authority as an apostle by the fact that Judas office needed a replacement. The only exception to that was Paul (1 Cor 15:8) because Christ had a different ministry in mind for him (an apostle to the Gentiles) Romans 15:16.
Now regarding the gender of Junia, whoever said this was a feminine noun is off their rocker.
*Not only are the 2 called Paul's kinsmen, but also his fellow PRISONERS. Neither Rome nor Greece had co-ed jail cells!
*Considering Pauls standards for those in authority over the churches in Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14, it is highly unlikely that Paul would forbid a woman from having pastoral authority, but then recognize a female apostle.
*Even though most major manuscripts including some in the corrupt A and B line, have the circumflex over the ultima in 'Iounian, which clearly show it is a male noun, liberal scholars take a few 4th century examples of 3 women that used that name and applied them as retroactive examples of the usage of that name.
Julias can be a feminine name, but it is used of a Roman king. Bobby, Lauren, Jerry (or Jeri) or Blair, can be a man or a women's name. Johnny Cash even wrote a song called "A Boy Named Sue". Thus it is the name as well as the context and other rules throughout scripture regarding the permissions of authority within the church that dictate whether this person was male or female, and the context shows that it was neither a female nor an apostle.
Very well done!
watch out though, for you just joined me in 'slandering' the Niv 2011!
Would that mean that they deided to revise the translation NOT due to any textual new evidence, nor new understandings of english, but due to a feministic undertone?
DrJamesAch
New Member
Very well done!
watch out though, for you just joined me in 'slandering' the Niv 2011!
Would that mean that they deided to revise the translation NOT due to any textual new evidence, nor new understandings of english, but due to a feministic undertone?
No, it means they revised it because the copyright is about to expire and they need to make adjustments so they can reproduce it as a new version and continue making $$$$ off the sales.
But that can be a yes, too. With the constant move toward progressive Christianity and emergent churches, when the ebb and tide of Christianity requires a new tolerance for what was traditionally considered unacceptable and sinful, someone in that camp needs to make a new "Bible" so that they can point to some sort of authority on the subject that nobody can question if they can get some "scholar" to say "well the 'best' manuscripts say......"
No, it means they revised it because the copyright is about to expire and they need to make adjustments so they can reproduce it as a new version and continue making $$$$ off the sales.
But that can be a yes, too. With the constant move toward progressive Christianity and emergent churches, when the ebb and tide of Christianity requires a new tolerance for what was traditionally considered unacceptable and sinful, someone in that camp needs to make a new "Bible" so that they can point to some sort of authority on the subject that nobody can question if they can get some "scholar" to say "well the 'best' manuscripts say......"
Think we have the example of what happens when we strat decide what to keep and discard in the bible, as evidenced by the "QueenJames" bible!
Why do you argue and demean every poster you encounter?
You need to find a constructive hobby.
On second thought,...
For a moment there was a ray of hope that you wanted to repent;but then... you just want to wallow in the same old muck again.
Would that mean that they deided to revise the translation NOT due to any textual new evidence, nor new understandings of english, but due to a feministic undertone?
Absolutely no to your old tired and worn slander. You refuse to interact with Dr. Moo's comments. You just want to repeat your drivel. It gives you a certain sense of happiness I now suspect. But you know that sin gives pleasure for only a short while.
Absolutely no to your old tired and worn slander. You refuse to interact with Dr. Moo's comments. You just want to repeat your drivel. It gives you a certain sense of happiness I now suspect. But you know that sin gives pleasure for only a short while.
What did you think about the posting that seems to be in agreement with me on this?
Why do you argue and demean every poster you encounter? On second thought, why would anything be expected different with someone who uplifts a murderer.
Just praise the Niv 2011 as being the greatest English translation ever made, thatwill get you a Christmas bonus!
What did you think about the posting that seems to be in agreement with me on this?
You have done your very best in ignoring primary sources and want to engage in slander over and over again. May shame rest on you.