• 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!

Could the SBC "railed" ON Niv 2011 Because have OWN Bible the HCSB?

Rhetorician

Administrator
Administrator
Rhetorician response to Mexdeaf

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion, I do appreciate the additional thoughts. I have been thinking- can one be a scholar if they are not also a teacher- or the converse?

Mexdeaf my dear brother:

I think that innately in your question can be found your answer:

There are many who are scholars or who are "scholarly." They know their subject matter quite well.

But then again on the other hand, knowing a particular subject matter in a teaching way, then helping others to know or understand it, and then leading them into a deeper knowledge of it can be completely different than "scholarship" alone. Especially if it needs to be understood and applied in a "real life" circumstance.

Do you not agree?

"That is all!" :thumbsup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mexdeaf

New Member
Mexdeaf my dear brother:

I think that innately in your question can be found your answer:

There are many who are scholars or who are "scholarly." They know their subject matter quite well.

But then again on the other hand, knowing a particular subject matter in a teaching way, then helping others to know or understand it, and then leading them into a deeper knowledge of it can be completely different than "scholarship" alone. Especially if it needs to be understood and applied in a "real life" circumstance.

Do you not agree?

"That is all!" :thumbsup:

I agree. Thanks.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Was this dealt with already?

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1218

SBC Resolutions
On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version
June 2011

WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.

8888888888

I am not KJVO, but believe that we must repudiate from Modern Versions which are mostly based on Vatican Text B and BHS compiled by Kittel, which inspires Catholicism.

AV is nothing but the Anglican Version as King James 1 persecuted many Baptists and killed some of the true Believers, but it is based on the correct underlying texts, TR and Ben Chayyim. We don't have many choices based on them, except Webster, KJV, YLT, TMB. Geneva..

Jesus read the Bible in the same compilation as Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts as we read Luke 24:44, Mt 23:35, neither Ben Ashel nor Spetuagint.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1218

SBC Resolutions
On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version
June 2011

WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.

8888888888

I am not KJVO, but believe that we must repudiate from Modern Versions which are mostly based on Vatican Text B and BHS compiled by Kittel, which inspires Catholicism.

AV is nothing but the Anglican Version as King James 1 persecuted many Baptists and killed some of the true Believers, but it is based on the correct underlying texts, TR and Ben Chayyim. We don't have many choices based on them, except Webster, KJV, YLT, TMB. Geneva..

Jesus read the Bible in the same compilation as Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts as we read Luke 24:44, Mt 23:35, neither Ben Ashel nor Spetuagint.

Since NONE of those texts that you referenced here were/are inspired by God, ONLY the original documenets/texts, why would they be superior per say to modrn English versions automatically?
 

glfredrick

New Member

Was this resolution passed or just presented?

EDIT: Yes, it was passed. More info:

http://petrosbaptist.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/two-resolutions-passed-at-the-sbc-today/

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35565



The NIV resolution overwhelmingly approved by messengers "expressed profound disappointment" with publication of the new translation and "respectfully request[ed] that LifeWay" not sell the version in its stores.

The resolution came to the floor when Indiana pastor Tim Overton persuaded messengers to address the 2011 version of the popular translation that his resolution said had "gone beyond acceptable translation standards" regarding gender. His resolution said 75 percent of the flawed gender translation in the TNIV appears in the new NIV. Southern Baptist messengers expressed their disapproval of the TNIV in a 2002 resolution.

Overton, pastor of Halteman Village Baptist Church in Muncie, Ind., told messengers the Southern Baptist Convention needed to address the issue in its role as a leading voice in the evangelical Christian community.

Speaking for the committee regarding its decision not to present Overton's measure, Russell Moore said the members did not believe the issue "rose to the level of needing to be addressed by this year's convention." Moore said the TNIV was "something of a stealth move," which was not true in this case. He also said the NIV is not in the same position now as it was in the past, since such translations as the Holman Christian Standard Bible and English Standard Version are now available. He also said the NIV is "just one of many Bibles out there [with] similar language."

The committee did not oppose passage of the resolution. At the news conference, Moore said, "The committee, of course, shares the concerns that were expressed in the resolution. The issue was not whether or not we would affirm the NIV and its changes but whether or not we thought the current changes were worthy of being addressed" at this year's meeting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Whereas the resolution was inane, hypocritical, and quite stupid --be it resolved that the 2011 will be a big seller and a boon to Christianity. Be it further resolved that such "resolutions" be condemned by more mature believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
Since NONE of those texts that you referenced here were/are inspired by God, ONLY the original documenets/texts, why would they be superior per say to modrn English versions automatically?

So, do you believe your own Bible is not inspired by God?
Autographs are inspired, and the manuscripts are the copies of the Autographs, only the error portions are the errors.

The root of the most modern versions' NT is nothing but Vatican Text B owned and manipulated by Catholic idol worshippers, Babylon Priests!

As for OT, LXX ( Septuagint) and Ben Asher were not used by Jesus, which Mt 23:35 and Luke 24:44 reveal.
 
Last edited:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
So, do you believe your own Bible is not inspired by God?
Autographs are inspired, and the manuscripts are the copies of the Autographs, only the error portions are the errors.

The root of the most modern versions' NT is nothing but Vatican Text B owned and manipulated by Catholic idol worshippers, Babylon Priests!

As for OT, LXX ( Septuagint) and Ben Asher were not used by Jesus, which Mt 23:35 and Luke 24:44 reveal.

NONE of the language texts today actuallt are inspired originals, so why big deal on which texts used to translate from today? as Regardless if MT/CT/Brz etc good reliable English versions are produced!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Whereas the resolution was inane, hypocritical, and quite stupid --be it resolved that the 2011 will be a big seller and a boon to Christianity. Be it further resolved that such "resolutions" be condemned by more mature believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

is there something here that is "more than meets the eye?"

based on HOW adament against NIV 2011 SBC is now!
 

glfredrick

New Member
Whereas the resolution was inane, hypocritical, and quite stupid --be it resolved that the 2011 will be a big seller and a boon to Christianity. Be it further resolved that such "resolutions" be condemned by more mature believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

That's why I shared the link above. Resolutions in the SBC are non-binding for persons, churches, and entities. They are nothing more than one person's lip service, that through emotional appeal get a passing vote on the floor of the convention.

Some of the resolutions that come forward every year would be entertaining, in a Stephen Colbert sort of way, if not inane to the point of ridiculousness. One is the continuing resolution to pull all SBC kiddos out of public schooling. Others are to condemn this or that public person, homosexuality, etc., none of which is Convention business.
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
That's why I shared the link above. Resolutions in the SBC are non-binding for persons, churches, and entities. They are nothing more than one person's lip service, that through emotional appeal get a passing vote on the floor of the convention.

Some of the resolutions that come forward every year would be entertaining, in a Stephen Colbert sort of way, if not inane to the point of ridiculousness. One is the continuing resolution to pull all SBC kiddos out of public schooling. Others are to condemn this or that public person, homosexuality, etc., none of which is Convention business.

I think that's what most people don't understand about the convention. When it's meeting, anyone can put forth a resolution. But they are not binding on anyone. In fact, the convention can do almost nothing that is binding on the churches or the people in those churches.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1218

SBC Resolutions
On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version
June 2011​


WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and​

Well and good.​

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation;​

Gender-accurate would be more accurate. ;)

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture;​

Being committed to the plenary authorty and inspiration of the Scrip[ture and using inclusive language when appropriate are not at odds with one one another.​

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language;​

Ah,Wayne Grudem's thesis that one must lose an iota of male nuance or dire things will happen to the translated text, i.e. it is distorted.​

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards;​

The above is just plain wrong and quite silly. The 2011 NIv certainly has not gone beyond acceptable translation standards. That is unless the pro-ESV lobby think that only translations abiding to the Colorado Springs Guidelines in their entirety are going against acceptable transltion standards. And those who came up with the CSG had to alter the document when it was admitted that a number of items were in fact in error.​

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV;​

Yeah,so what? According to Wayne Lehman,the NRSV used 87.7% inclusive language.​

NLT 82.1%
TNIV 80.2%
NET 59.0%
HCSB 33%
ESV 27.4%
NIV 20.8%​

So the ESV and HCSB are "guilty" of going beyond the acceptable gender-neutral language of the 84 NIV!​

The 2011 NIV uses inclusive language 6% more than the NET Bible. So who really gives a tinker's dime about that?​

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002;​

A whole lot of nonsense was made about the TNIV --sinful nonsense.​

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture;​

The above is pathetic. Saying that the 2011 NIV is an inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture. Why don't you just join hands with the KJVO crowd?​

Scholars can differ with one another over renderings of a given passage. But do not go and say that it doesn't qualify as an acceptable translation.​

And anyone who signed and supports that nonsensical "resolution" of the SBC better not have and appreciate the NLTse. That would be pure hypocrisy.​

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV;​

Yeah,let's go on similiar missions against the "errors" found in the NASB,NKJ,HCSB and ESV. None of those Bible versions have any doctrinal errors and the 2011 has none as well. Get a life!​

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores;​

Yeah,do the wrong and stupid thing. Make a non-issue a prevailing one that consumes time,effort and money away from a more productive use of those energies --like furthering the Kingdom of God!​

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.​

Well,you narrow-minded Galatians --who has bewitched you? Their "resolution" wasn't exactly the 95 Thesis.​

Whereas the premise of each succeeding point was invalid to start with --be it resolved the Word of God condemns such pettiness and sinful conduct.​
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
Well and good.​


Gender-accurate would be more accurate. ;)

Being committed to the plenary authorty and inspiration of the Scrip[ture and using inclusive language when appropriate are not at odds with one one another.

Ah,Wayne Grudem's thesis that one must lose an iota of male nuance or dire things will happen to the translated text, i.e. it is distorted.

The above is just plain wrong and quite silly. The 2011 NIv certainly has not gone beyond acceptable translation standards. That is unless the pro-ESV lobby think that only translations abiding to the Colorado Springs Guidelines in their entirety are going against acceptable transltion standards. And those who came up with the CSG had to alter the document when it was admitted that a number of items were in fact in error.



Yeah,so what? According to Wayne Lehman,the NRSV used 87.7% inclusive language.​

NLT 82.1%
TNIV 80.2%
NET 59.0%
HCSB 33%
ESV 27.4%
NIV 20.8%​

So the ESV and HCSB are "guilty" of going beyond the acceptable gender-neutral language of the 84 NIV!​

The 2011 NIV uses inclusive language 6% more than the NET Bible. So who really gives a tinker's dime about that?​



A whole lot of nonsense was made about the TNIV --sinful nonsense.​



The above is pathetic. Saying that the 2011 NIV is an inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture. Why don't you just join hands with the KJVO crowd?​

Scholars can differ with one another over renderings of a given passage. But do not go and say that it doesn't qualify as an acceptable translation.​

And anyone who signed and supports that nonsensical "resolution" of the SBC better not have and appreciate the NLTse. That would be pure hypocrisy.​



Yeah,let's go on similiar missions against the "errors" found in the NASB,NKJ,HCSB and ESV. None of those Bible versions have any doctrinal errors and the 2011 has none as well. Get a life!​



Yeah,do the wrong and stupid thing. Make a non-issue a prevailing one that consumes time,effort and money away from a more productive use of those energies --like furthering the Kingdom of God!​



Well,you narrow-minded Galatians --who has bewitched you? Their "resolution" wasn't exactly the 95 Thesis.​


Whereas the premise of each succeeding point was invalid to start with --be it resolved the Word of God condemns such pettiness and sinful conduct.​

So did you say anything about it? Stand against it. Tell them that they were wrong and sinful?
 

glfredrick

New Member
I think that's what most people don't understand about the convention. When it's meeting, anyone can put forth a resolution. But they are not binding on anyone. In fact, the convention can do almost nothing that is binding on the churches or the people in those churches.

Except for the word "almost" you are correct.

The Convention can do NOTHING that is binding on the churches or the people in those churches. The SBC is not a top-down sect of Baptists. Each individual and each church is autonomous.
 

glfredrick

New Member
Rippon, in certain cases the gender could be seen as neutral with no harm done to the text. In other cases, such as when the saved are called "the sons of God" much harm is done, for instance:

1 Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. 2 Instead, he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world. 4 But when the completion of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “ Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Gal 4:1-7 (HCSB)

The word "sons" is used inclusive of male and female, and rendering this particular passage gender neutral and making it say "sons and daughters" or perhaps "children" makes the passage null and void, for in the biblical system, SONS inherit, daughters do not. What Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is saying here is that WE CAN ALL INHERIT AS IF WE ARE SONS! Praise God, that is so much more powerful than not being capable of inheritance at all!

It is those who do not understand some of the theological issues involved, and who merely wish to make their readers happy (itching ears!) with the text that they read that change elements such as these that are critical to God's revelation for us as His, yes, SONS.

The NIV dances around this somewhat by carefully selecting the times it uses "children" in place of "sons", but the text is still damaged, for Paul intended to use the term "sons" here. If not, he was capable of using other terms, but his argument is that of a lawyer for the Word -- precise and each word parsed to mean exactly what Paul intended to say.

(NIV) 1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

(TNIV) 1 What I am saying is that as long as heirs are underage they are no different from slaves, although they own the whole estate. 2 They are subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by their fathers. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer slaves, but God’s children; and since you are his children, he has made you also heirs.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is those who do not understand some of the theological issues involved, and who merely wish to make their readers happy (itching ears!) with the text that they read that change elements such as these that are critical to God's revelation for us as His, yes, SONS.

You really need to be careful tossing around your grenades GLF. You level the charge that translators just want to make people happy because the folks have itching ears. You lack discernment. Don't charge the trasnslation team with ungodly motives.

This is Galatians 4:1-7 in the 2011 NIV. Notice how it differs from the TNIV.

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage,he is no different from a slave,although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also,when we were underage,we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come,God sent his Son,born of a woman,born under the law,to redeem those under the law,that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons,God sent the Spirit who calls out,Abba,Father. So you are no longer a slave,but God's child;and since you are his child,God has made you also an heir.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Brave place to stand against a group you're not part of. So why is this a big deal to you?

Because I am sick and tired of the nonsense and will not stand for it. All the boycotts and the lies and disinformation about the TNIV were sinful. They (various folks,not the SBC as suc) also slandered the translation team. I will not allow falsehoods to be spread about the 2011 without responding back with facts.

Why do I have to be part of the SBC in order to speak out? They are issuing misinformation about the 2011 the influence of which goes beyond that particular denomination.
 
Top