Featured Exercise Common Sense

For those who don't recognize the versions:

Version A on top is the old NIV.
Version B on bottom is ESV.

The list is from Rippon's "What's Worse?" thread in 2007:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/whats-worse.37055/#post-975250

 

Think the 1984 Niv still is a better translation than the revision!

 

Exercise Common Sense

Sure it is. It kept Jack LaLanne going to 95!

 

What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV? The ESV is more literal in most of those examples, except in Job 21:19 where the Number is singular, not plural.

The problem with Gender Inclusivity does not appear in cases like these.

 

Just support that the Esv ismoreliteral than either versions of the Niv, correct?

 

True, as one can cherry pick passagesto support our case, but gender inclusive renderings as much as new Niv did are hard to support!

 

To make the case fully I would need to be fluent in Hebrew which I am, like you, I think, certainly not. What I did was to compare the passages with my trusty NKJV, which is generally regarded as a 'Formal Equivalence' translation, and not usually known for its Gender Inclusivity:

16:11
A : evil men
B : ungodly
C. ungodly

17:8
A : Upright men
B : The upright
C. Upright men

17:12
A : These men
B : They
C: They

18:20
A : Men of the west
B : They of the west
C: Those in the west

19:14
A : My kinsmen
B : My relatives
C: My relatives

As I have written before, I believe that Bible translation is a sacred task that calls for humility as well as learning. I have no problem with Psalm 1:1 being translated as 'Blessed is the one.....' instead of 'Blessed is the man.......' (though I see no necessity for it) since the text obviously refers to both genders. But to translate v.2 as 'But their delight.......' instead of 'But his delight......' is to deliberately mistranslate, since the Hebrew is singular, not plural, and we have no license to play fast and loose with the word of God. Also, 'he' and 'his' have been used for both genders since time immemorial.

So I have a principled objection to using the plural for gender inclusivity. I also have a practical objection. There are several portions of Scripture where changing the singular to a plural obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Psalm 24 is an obvious example, but there are others.

Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your foot. After the gender-inclusive bible will come the transgender bible with abominations like 'ze' and 'zar.' Remember you heard it here first.

 

The renderings don by the Niv 2011 are [roblematic at times!

 

Esv ha sa more formal translation philosophy than Niv, correct?

 

I am, as the Esv overall renders more lietrally what originl languagetexts stated!

 

We already have the Queen James version, so the nxt one will be the Mary to Michael edition!
And dotake exception when New iv seem to trat son of a as not referring to Jesus, more to generic Mankind!

 

Just in case anyone thinks I'm being alarmist:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/avoid-sussex-university-students-warned/

 

There is a definite agenda to get th Bible translated in a fshion more "accetable" to modern society views! Problem is that God still views these things same way!

 

Here in the U.S. some of our Top Divinty schools are now requiring God to be refered to in neutral pronouns. Just as matter of time before gender neutral language of God hits a major translation.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...schools-use-gender-neutral-language-refer-god

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk