The 2011 Niv translates Son of Man in a gereruc sense, as referring to mankind, and not Jesus as unique son of man!
-
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!
Exercise Common Sense
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Just what was "stated here"?
It depends on the context. There are a number of occasions when the expression is not dealing with Christ.
Lack of specificity is your grand weakness.
You quoted my entire post without looking at it. You do that a lot. Most of the questions you pose are completely unnecessary if you would just pay attention.
The writer of Psalms tied that into coming Messiah, as Hebrews did also! Niv 2011 mistranslated those...
I do, its just that your pet version flaws somehow get overlooked!
Baptist Brother
Active Member
1) For what reason are you arguing about discontinued translation?
2) Why are you calling someone ignorant for very rightly pointing out that that discontinued translation is better than the one that has replaced it?
There is reason to bringing up the current NIV. It's the relevant NIV.
Y, do you agree with the above or not?
Because it used very limited inclusive language --considerably less than the ESV and NASB.
People like Y don't think logically. Folks like him think the ESV has got to be a better translation for a number of reasons --but a priority is its supposed restraint in the use of inclusive language. Yet in comparison with the 1984 NIV it falls very short. But Y isn't consistent enough to condemn the ESV as he does versions that use more than the ESV.
I didn't use the word "ignorant", I said he doesn't comprehend posts even though he quotes them in their entirety. He asks questions that are easily answered if he would take the time to read posts and remember the content.
If you want to discuss the current NIV you may start a thread on the topic. Just follow the OP.
BB, what was your former handle on the Baptist Board?
Baptist Brother
Active Member
On the contrary, these are examples of the ESV using "gender neutrality" where the NIV84 doesn't. The ESV is not more literal when it engages in soft gender neutrality (vs. hard gender neutrality, such as changing a word that only means a male to a word that means either a male or female).
For an example of what soft gender neutrality might look like, take the verse "God created man male and female". "Man" means male and female. So, why not translate it to, "God created people male and female"? Not a single gender-inclusive translation that I can find says "people". Every English translation says "man" (or something with "man" as the root word). Why? Because the Hebrew word is Adam, which is the name the man, not the woman, took. Yet, these same gender-neutral translations, and also the ESV, will translate words like Enowsh in gender-neutral terms (ESV, Job 5:17"blessed in the one..."), even though this word is sometimes used specifically for males but never specifically for females. It injects feminism and erases the patriarchal tone of the original Hebrew.
The most literal translation of Enowsh is man, as in "blessed is the man...", where "man" means male and female. The patriarchal tone is preserved.
An example of another kind of soft gender neutrality distortion is when a gender-neutral word, like "person", is inserted in the text, not as a translation of any specific word but for readability. The original Hebrew might have been consistently masculine, but the translators reason that because they're not translating any specific word that they can freely use a gender-neutral term. But, this injects feminism and changes the tone.
Literal does not mean accurate.
Many verses in the KJV,NKJV,ESV and NASB use the words "man" or "men" when the context obviously applies to females as well as males.
Most of the time it refers to both genders.
You're being nonsensical.
You're getting soft in the head.
The truth is that we of course would understand that the terms male/he in contex would also refer to females also!
And God did have a masculine structure set up as established headship leadership in both israel and the Church, correct?
Just fail to see where the Niv 2011 was superior overall to the 1984 edition it replaced!
Son of man does refer to Jesus, is that not THE term he choose to use for Himself?
And there are also male headship leadership in the church and the home!
You need to read with comprehension. I had said it depends on the context. There are a number of places in which the expression has nothing to do with Christ.
Last edited:
Well, then, you to to actually read and compare instead of making blanket condemnations.
There have been many who felt the same way as I do concerning the 2 versions!
I fully agree on context, and in psalms and Hebrews, seems to me to be seeing Jesus as THE son of man!