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

[glfredrick]

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 translation team with ungodly motives.

Is there another scholarly reason for inclusive genders in a text where the gender of the original language is very clear?

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.

I believe that all the current translations have "Abba, Father." That is not my point, and I did cite the NIV 2011 above, at least that was the copyright. I also cited the HCSB and the TNIV. I take odds with the places where "son" or "he" is changed to "child" or "children". That is NOT what the text says, and in this case, making one out to be a mere "child" and not a "son" (male) negates the claim to be an heir with Christ, for SONS are heirs, daughters are not.

When God calls us a "son" and refers to us as "he" in this particular passage, He is making a bold statement about our position in a legal sense, not our gender, and the luggage dare not be gender neutral and retain the integrity of the passage. The assumption that "son" and "he" means all people is gathered from context in the surrounding pericope, but the passage itself needs to be masculine in order for the promise to be true.

 

[Tom Bryant]

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.

The influence of a resolution in the most poorly attended convention for years? You've done more to let people know about the resolution than Baptist Press has. Southern Baptists don't even take it seriously. Years ago, the SBC met in Orlando and passed a resolution asking for a boycott of Disneyt. What happened? The next day after it was over, Disney was filled with 1,000's of southern baptists (including my family and I).

I didn't even know we passed that resolution until you said something. So thanks for spreading the info about how bad the version is. :thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

The influence of a resolution in the most poorly attended convention for years?

I didn't even know we passed that resolution until you said something. So thanks for spreading the info about how bad the version is. :thumbsup:

I spread information about how some poor misguided SBC souls spread disinformation about the 2011 NIV.

 

[glfredrick]

I spread information about how some poor misguided SBC souls spread disinformation about the 2011 NIV.

Why do I think that you are fighting this battle for some other motive than support of the 2011 NIV?

The version will sell with or without your help, or with or without a resolution on the floor of the SBC which few even know about.

Just wonderin' :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

I take odds with the places where "son" or "he" is changed to "child" or "children". That is NOT what the text says, and in this case, making one out to be a mere "child" and not a "son" (male) negates the claim to be an heir with Christ, for SONS are heirs, daughters are not.

In verse 7 of the 2011 NIV it says:"So you are no longer a slave,but God's child;and since you are his child,God has made you also an heir."

The word "children" is not in the NIV text at all.

Let's review.

In verse 2 : "The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father."

Verse 5 : "to redeem those under the law,that we might receive adoption to sonship.

There is a footnote regarding sonship:"The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture."

Verse 6 : "Because you are his sons,God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,the Spirit who calls out,'Abba, Father.'

You have made a big deal about the renderings in verse 7 while ignoring all of the above referenced material. You're into molehills.

 

[Rippon]

Why do I think that you are fighting this battle for some other motive than support of the 2011 NIV?

The version will sell with or without your help, or with or without a resolution on the floor of the SBC which few even know about.

Just wonderin' :wavey:

You ned not have wondered. You just need to have read my previous comments. I do not appreciate lies,slander and judging the motivations of the hearts of godly translators. You have done your share of spreading disinformation about the 2011 NIV.

 

[glfredrick]

You ned not have wondered. You just need to have read my previous comments. I do not appreciate lies,slander and judging the motivations of the hearts of godly translators. You have done your share of spreading disinformation about the 2011 NIV.

Dude..

If you would calm down a bit, you would realize that I cited BOTH the NIV 2011 and the TNIV in my post above. The NIV 2011 uses the world "child" and the TNIV uses the word "children" where the actual text says "he".

Is this the most critical verse in the entire Bible? I don't know. Which one is? They are all co-equal as God's Word to me.

Oh, and I use the NIV 1984 right now as a part of the church I attend, so I'm not all that biased against the translation. Just pointing out that there are SOME issues with the newer versions that are incorrect when they don't have to be, or worse, when they actually corrupt the text in a critical passage that speaks to a very precise theological issue.

As far as spreading lies, slander, etc., I've done neither, toward you or toward the NIV2011. I have just POSTED a verse and made comments. That is fair game.

And, in the end, my question remains. You definitely appear to have a bigger beef than with just the issue surrounding the NIV2011. No one gets that upset over a modern translation that has a large sector of the church world talking about the issues it brings without some additional or ulterior cause. I'm not the only one raising these issues you know...

 

[Rippon]

Dude..

Girlfriend. (Your handle does look like 'girlfriend' at a glance.

Just pointing out that there are SOME issues with the newer versions that are incorrect when they don't have to be, or worse, when they actually corrupt the text in a critical passage that speaks to a very precise theological issue.

That's quite a strong charge that you will have to document and not simply assert.

As far as spreading lies, slander, etc., I've done neither, toward you or toward the NIV2011. I have just POSTED a verse and made comments. That is fair game.

Your slanderous remarks were posted in #14 of this thread. I responded in #19. You didn't counter anything I said there.

A number of your comments in post 14 were deleted because of their slanderous nature. One that remained was in your praise of the HCSB you said it didn't make light of God's Word. You said this seemingly in counterdistinction to the 2011 NIV. And that is despicable on your part.

And, in the end, my question remains. You definitely appear to have a bigger beef than with just the issue surrounding the NIV2011.

Hey,I lived through the period of time when the TNIV was vilified. All sorts of lies by professing Christians were uttered to protect the Christian world from the bad,bad TNIV.

Lately,the voices against the 2011 NIV are kind of mute compared to the onslaught against the TNIV. But I am at-the-ready to counter lies.

 

[JesusFan]

Girlfriend. (Your handle does look like 'girlfriend' at a glance.





That's quite a strong charge that you will have to document and not simply assert.



Your slanderous remarks were posted in #14 of this thread. I responded in #19. You didn't counter anything I said there.

A number of your comments in post 14 were deleted because of their slanderous nature. One that remained was in your praise of the HCSB you said it didn't make light of God's Word. You said this seemingly in counterdistinction to the 2011 NIV. And that is despicable on your part.



Hey,I lived through the period of time when the TNIV was vilified. All sorts of lies by professing Christians were uttered to protect the Christian world from the bad,bad TNIV.

Lately,the voices against the 2011 NIV are kind of mute compared to the onslaught against the TNIV. But I am at-the-ready to counter lies.

I prefer the NASV, as hold to thre translation theology of a more "formal/literal" version for study purposes, but do read and use both NIV/HCSB, as think those are 2 "best " examples available of the "more dynamic" Versions!

 

[Rippon]

I prefer the NASV, as hold to the translation theology of a more "formal/literal" version for study purposes,

I have never heard the term of translation theology. Did you mean translational method?

but do read and use both NIV/HCSB, as think those are 2 "best " examples available of the "more dynamic" Versions!

The NIV and HCSB are more dynamic than the NASBU,but they are not dynamic as such. Do you understand the distinction?

Here are some quotes (neither from a book or article)from Daniel Wallace regarding the 2011 NIV :

"In reality,the NIV produces a more understandable,and ultimately more accurate,rendering of the Bible precisely because the translators were committed to faithfulness to meaning rather than faithfulness to form."

"A faithful translation to the meaning of the original does not have to be faithful to the form of the original."

"A consistently literal translation would be atrocious."

 

[JesusFan]

I have never heard the term of translation theology. Did you mean translational method?

You are correct, meant to use the methodology!



The NIV and HCSB are more dynamic than the NASBU,but they are not dynamic as such. Do you understand the distinction?

yes, that they would still be both trying to get an accurate translation into English, just would be using a "More dynamic" method overall, but not like say the message does!
Here are some quotes (neither from a book or article)from Daniel Wallace regarding the 2011 NIV :

"In reality,the NIV produces a more understandable,and ultimately more accurate,rendering of the Bible precisely because the translators were committed to faithfulness to meaning rather than faithfulness to form."

"A faithful translation to the meaning of the original does not have to be faithful to the form of the original."

"A consistently literal translation would be atrocious."

have to disagree on last point here though, as do tend to see versions like NASV being "more accurate" for study purposes!

 

[Rippon]

have to disagree on last point here though, as do tend to see versions like NASV being "more accurate" for study purposes!

A consistently literal translation wouldn't really be a translation as such --it would be more along the lines of an interlinear. The NASBU is more literal than many English Bibles --but it is not consistently so. -- And that's good! It uses some dynamic equivalency at times because not doing so would be atrocious!

 

[JesusFan]

A consistently literal translation wouldn't really be a translation as such --it would be more along the lines of an interlinear. The NASBU is more literal than many English Bibles --but it is not consistently so. -- And that's good! It uses some dynamic equivalency at times because not doing so would be atrocious!

Agreed! ALL versions use"dynamic renderings" at times, evn the most literal ones!

I thought he meant NASV

Say that Dr Wallace referring to an Interlinear type!