Exercise Common Sense

[Rippon]

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

Since C (the NKJV) agrees with the NIV here (A), then you somehow are saying that the ESV (B) is less literal and somehow less faithful in its rendering?

 

[Rippon]

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

Marginally so. It's stated translational methodology is different from its actual practice which is very much like the NIV.

 

[Rippon]

There are several portions of Scripture where changing the singular to a plural obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Don't be shy, be specific. Name them.

Psalm 24 is an obvious example, but there are others.

Please point out what you are referencing in Ps. 24.

Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby,

What in the world are you talking about? The ESV is doing no such capitulation. You yourself
said you had no problem with any of the renderings.

 

[Rippon]

Here in the U.S. some of our Top Divinty schools are now requiring God to be refered to in neutral pronouns.

That's just plain stupid.

Just as matter of time before gender neutral language of God hits a major translation.

I say balderdash to that notion.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since C (the NKJV) agrees with the NIV here (A), then you somehow are saying that the ESV (B) is less literal and somehow less faithful in its rendering?

No; exactly the opposite. The NKJV places 'men' in italics to show that it is not in the text. Therefore the ESV, which avoids saying 'men' altogether may be the best rendering. But frankly, any of them are OK.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't be shy, be specific. Name them.

Please point out what you are referencing in Ps. 24.[/QUOTE]
Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far. But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy. The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down. I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/

What in the world are you talking about? The ESV is doing no such capitulation. You yourself
said you had no problem with any of the renderings.

I didn't say it is.

 

[Rippon]

Please point out what you are referencing in Ps. 24.

Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far. But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy. The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down. I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/
[/quote]
Your gratuitous use of gratuitous is grating.

I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.

I didn't say it is.

Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far. But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy. The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down. I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/

Your gratuitous use of gratuitous is grating.

I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.

Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.[/QUOTE]
So you have no have no rebuttal of my article and therefore resort to gratuitous insult.
No problem.

 

[Yeshua1]

Marginally so. It's stated translational methodology is different from its actual practice which is very much like the NIV.

Just not as much into the inclusive issues. correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well I didn't want to wander of the subject too far. But since you ask, here is something I wrote a few years ago which expresses my translation philosophy. The mention of Psalm 24 is about two thirds of the way down. I also mention the problem of the gratuitous use of the plural in Hebrews 2:5-9.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/the-f-i-e-c-and-the-n-i-v-2011/

Your gratuitous use of gratuitous is grating.

I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.

Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.[/QUOTE]
the Nin translators stated one of their main objectives was to make sure the version took away the overly masculine emphesis of the times when wriiten to reflect modern culture views, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Your gratuitous use of gratuitous is grating.

I agree with the people who disagreed with your ideas : cmain and Ian.

Your inane remarks about "capitulating to the feminist lobby" is, well, inane. The more you say those kinds of things about solidly conservative translations -- the more shame you bring upon your head.

So you have no have no rebuttal of my article and therefore resort to gratuitous insult.
No problem. [/QUOTE]
Rippon just refuses to see that the 2011 Niv made a good translation worse!

 

[Rippon]

So you have no have no rebuttal of my article and therefore resort to gratuitous insult.
No problem.

Rippon just refuses to see that the 2011 Niv made a good translation worse![/QUOTE]
That version is not the subject of this thread as I have said time and again.

 

[Rippon]

MM: You forgot to prove that any of the above renderings in the NIV here were not as literal as the ESV.

I asked the above in post 20, but MM is hesitant to reply.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I asked the above in post 20, but MM is hesitant to reply.

See my post #12.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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!

Please translate that which I bolded...

 

[Rippon]

MM, you forgot to prove that any of the 14 examples I gave from the 84 were not as literal as the ESV.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

MM, you forgot to prove that any of the 14 examples I gave from the 84 were not as literal as the ESV.

See my post #12.

 

[Rippon]

See my post #12.

You are probably as hard of hearing as you are at have difficulty understanding plain English.

In post 12 you merely recorded that four ESV verse snips were closer to the language of the NKJV.
I had cited 14 passages. You have ignored the bulk of them and barely tried to answer my initial question.
Give it another go.

(By the way, the current NIV has the same wording as the ESV in 16:11, 17:8 and 19:14)

 

[Yeshua1]

Rippon just refuses to see that the 2011 Niv made a good translation worse!

That version is not the subject of this thread as I have said time and again.[/QUOTE]
But what was stated here was the truth, correect?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are probably as hard of hearing as you are at have difficulty understanding plain English.

In post 12 you merely recorded that four ESV verse snips were closer to the language of the NKJV.
I had cited 14 passages. You have ignored the bulk of them and barely tried to answer my initial question.
Give it another go.

(By the way, the current NIV has the same wording as the ESV in 16:11, 17:8 and 19:14)

He already answered you!