Featured Christian Standard Bible 2017

Ok. So the NIV84 is as inclusive as a Bible should get. But how are you measuring that? What verse(s) did the HCSB or ESV go to far in inclusive language?

To just decide that the NIV84 is the minimum standard for a proper translation in regards to inclusive language --without being able to sight verses and considering orginal language and context-- is similar style argumentation to some KJVO people.

Yeshua1, you have to be careful to place the NIV84 as the default minimum standard bearer just because it is the NIV84. It is almost using the "because I said so" argument or "because someone else said so" argument.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

That link is scoring words as inclusive that it should not be counting. It counts any time the NIV2011 uses "people" instead of "foreigners". That is a bogus knock on the NIV2011. "People" is the #1 inclusive word used that is cited in the study....and the study had to ingore previous inclusive language to get it that high. Or can only men be foreigners?

The #2 most increased inclusive word is "ancestors". Which seems largely to have been a change for "forefathers". According to William Mounce's dictionary, the Hebrew word here at times, providing context, can refer to "ancestors". The website does not clarify this or even acknowledge the possbilty. It just leaves the reader with the impression that all of the increased usage of ancestors is wrong.

I obviously haven't went through every change, but already the #1 and #2 words have shown to be unfairly represented. It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make the NIV2011 look as if it misusing inclusive more than it really is.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Understand your points here, but also think that the list does reflect a real change in english from the 1984 version, and not all for the better!

 

You cannot possibly be as dimwitted as you appear. Is your reading comprehension that poor?

This is not about the NIV.

I have asked you numerous times to specify where the HCSB,CSB and ESV have gone too ar with respect to their use of inclusive language. Point out passages in particular. Is that clear? How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you?

 

My points of contention with any version would be how they treat the comcept of male leadership headship in family and church! Also, how they see jesus in Psalms and prophecy! Such Him identifing with Son of man, Messiah etc!

 

Y1 : Cite the passages in the HCSB, CSB and ESV where they have gone too far with respect to inclusive language as you have claimed.

If you are unable to do so, just say you made the whole thing up and resolve to be honest from now on.

 

You do realise that MANY have had troubles with the Niv 2011 in particular on this very issue, correct?

 

You are daft. Read my posts 92,104 and 106 with eyes of understanding. If you can't prove your allegations you need to rescind them. You do not have the right to condemn something and yet not even try to demonstrate anything. You do this constantly. You need to change your ways.

 

Y1: Read the above and respond with specifics.

 

Interesting fact: one of the moderators on the CSB/HCSB Fan Page on Facebook is Catholic. Looks like Holman's desire for wide ranging acceptance has gained some traction.

 

Words Matter: Why We Can’t Recommend the NIV 2011
aithtoyou.com/s/burk2011niv.pdf
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-conte...uation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf

 

If you can't understand the plain English above, just say so and I'll set you up with some ESL materials in Detroit.

My perpetual question which you have weaseled out of answering has nothing to do with the NIV --you know it. So stop your evasive tactics and get particular with real answers for once.

You could never share your beliefs with JWs and Mormons with your vain ways.

 

Have many timnes, as each time it was the gospel and real Jesus shared, and use of the Kjv only bible they accept!

 

None of these links adress the supposed excessive inclusive language of the CSB, HCSB or the ESV. Wayne Grudem actually thinks pretty highly of the ESV, so I wouldn't be posting things from him of this issue.

Or is your view that the CSB, HCSB and ESV have not engaged in excessive inclusive language?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

My point is that there is nothing wrong with using some inclusive language, but not OK when it involves changing the intended message as regarding male leadership/authority, or when it fails to see jesus in the Psalms, as Son of Man etc!
So long as it does not alter/effect the intended message from God....

 

The content from above will be ignored by Y1, as usual.

 

The above is from post 92, which Y1 will ignore.

 

The above is from post 95, which Y1 will ignore.

 

The above is from post 104, which Y1 will ignore.

 

The above is from post 106, which Y1 will ignore due to his dishonesty.