Hcsb

And that is no different than the way the 2011 operates.

I don't know why you put the NIV in a different category than the HCSB. They have a common kinship. The NLTse is rather dynamic (a little less so since its revisions in 2004 and 2007). It is not a mediating translation like the HCSB,2011 NET Bible,NAS and ISV.

However,i wouldn't say that the NLTse is a "very simple" one. The CEV or NCV might better fit that designation.

 

With ONE major difference... The HCSB does not do away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct. Gender matters in Scripture, Galatians 4, for instance, where Paul (correctly) says that we will ALL (male and female) be adopted "sons" of God and joint heirs with Christ. That is not a typo nor a sexist remark. That is a fact due to the adoption laws of Paul's culture that stipulated that only male sons could inherit the estate of their father, whether natural born or brought into the family. Each son had to be "adopted" when they came of age before they could inherit. Paul was making an explicit claim that even women who are "in Christ" could be adopted to the same level as sons, for all are seen -- in a legal sense -- as "sons" who qualify to inherit Daddy's estate. Good news indeed that could otherwise be wiped out by gender neutral language.

Because the NIV2011 (and earlier versions, as well as NET, etc.) all are based completely in dynamic equivalence, and none concord in a word-for-word fashion.

Depends on whom you ask. Every translation has an intended reading level, and the NIV has typically been geared to a 7th grade readling level. Some others lower than that. Some so low that they are suitable for 1st grade levels, but they also tend to wash away some of the critical "meat" of the Word.

The KJV is the most difficult reading level, and that not because of the particular words used, but rather that so many of the words are now archaic and require a word study of their own before they can rightly be understood by an average congregation.

Here is one chart -- there are many other similar ones:



Translation Grade Level

KJV 12

RSV 12

NASB 11

NRSV 11

ESV 10

NIV 7-8

HCSB 7-8

CEB 7

NKJV 7

NLT 6

GW 5

Message 4-5

NCV 3

NIRV 2

 

Well,you are leveling false charges with that remark. People like you say those kind of things so flippantly. You do know who the translators are --don't you?

Perhaps amidst the hoopla some folks have made of things -- some truth needs to be spoken. This is from Galatians 4:6 in the 2011 NIV:

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

Neither the NIV nor the NET Bible were based on dynamic equivalence. That's a mistaken notion that you have. As I have time again explained --both are in the mediating range along with the ISV,NAB and HCSB.

The chart is error-filled.

The NRSV is slightly less difficult to read than the ESV. So slight that they both should be put at the same numerical value.

NKJV at only 7? Come on. It has to be at least number 11. The CEB would be a lot less taxing. It's probably around a 6 or so.

The Message though very free still is not easy reading. It's probably around an 8 or 9.

 

have used both HCSB/Niv 2011, but prefer HCSB due to not having the ole Gender issues coming into the textrenderings!
use mainly the 1977 NAS/HCSB, and find the 1984 NIV actually better suited to me than 2011 revision!

 

Yup... Some good scholars, but wrong in the way that they interpreted a few things -- and they admit it up front in the preface along with their reasoning for doing so.

By the way, do you own stock in NavPress? :laugh:

 

They do no such thing,and you know it.

You,in essence were saying in your earlier post that the 2011 NIV has done away with critical gender distinctions.That is a totally bogus charge. I will not let you go ahead with your hand grenade attacks.

You have said they have obliterated gender distinctions because they wanted to be politically correct. Since your premise is completely false --so is your conclusion of the matter. Instead,they wanted to be gender-accurate. You're not going to find egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.

Try to be truthful in the future.

You are trying to lighten the mood. However,I will not stand idly by while slander is coming from your keystrokes.

 

IM A HCSB / KJV MAN
join me, you wont regret it
peace!

 

From the preface of the NIV 2011:

In other words, the interpretations of the translators, instead of as accurate as possible word-for-word translation.

In other words, "We have fiddled about with the gender distinctions that God placed in His Word."

 

Your wild interpretation of perfectly reasonable translation practices shows absolutely no discernment or a willful disregard for truth.

And there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. That is a silly ideal that would be tortuous to read --IOW,not a real translation.

The translators of the HCSB,NET BIble and ISV do virtually the same things in their respective versions as the 201 NIV.

You are spouting nonsense. You have a complete disdain for the NIV that is irrational. Any good sense that you may voice in other areas is negated by your reckless remarks here.

Look in vain for egalitarianism in the 2011 NIV.

 

Well... I didn't expect you to agree with me. :laugh:

I'm not actually being reckless, and I'm also probably not the person you think concerning this issue. I have issues with translators skewing the words that God clearly gave us, and in the original languages, gender is always evident as you well know.

As far as modern translations, you will find that I am a big fan, for I believe that the Word of God SHOULD be brought in the common language of the people, as it was when it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- the languages of the marketplace and commonly used. God could have caused the Scriptures to be written in Classical Greek, but He did not. That is a clue to us that perhaps the gift of "speaking in tongues" is nothing more than making the Word of God accessable to God's people in a way that they can readily understand, take to heart, and obey. Remember, I am arguing FOR the HCSB, and I have used the NIV, Message, NLT, and other modern translations in my every day ministry work. I naturally prefer a translation that can concord, and the NIV does not, so other than use as a reading tool, it is limited for me.

I have the same issues with the newest version of the NIV that a LOT of other biblical scholars have -- they took a couple things too far. Otherwise, I would greatly prefer that pastors use the NIV in any guise than say the KJV, which leads to greater errors in doctrine than any other version I've seen used (save the ones published by the cults).

So, try to understand the nuances of my argument instead of just (wrongly) thinking that I am just another NIV basher.

 

What you have said in posts 22 and 28 is reprehensible. Misrepresentation is a nice way of describing what you have done. Please retract your remarks. The way you toy with words is disgraceful.

Yes,you are.

You certainly have.

Please furnish some specific examples and we shall see who is doing the skewing.

You need to explain yourself.

All of the above applies to the 2011 NIV as well.

If you have problems with specific renderings --that's one thing. But you should not condemn a fine translation of the Word of God by your demeaning attitude. It is not godly. Falsehoods never are.

You cannot "nuance" your way out of what you have done. An apology is in order.

 

Huh?

Not gonna happen... I've not said anything that about half the Evangelical world has not said. You are VERY vested in the NIV 2011. Do we now start a new category, NIV 2011 only? :tonofbricks:

 

The Evangelical world that believed the tripe put out about the TNIV?! The Evangelical world is not very discerning and some of its leaders are at fault.

Who cares what half of the Evangelical world says if it is wrong? Are you a parrot?

Why don't you follow Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15?

Let me make this very plain for you.

By saying that the 2011 NIV does away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct -- you are promulgating two lies.

When you have said that the 2011 NIV is completely based on dynamic equivalence --you are either utterly uninformed or lying.

When you wrest the words of the 2011 NIV Preface to arrive at perverse conclusions you are sinning. This is especially so when you said your completely unfounded IOW :"We have fiddled about with gender distinctions that God has placed in His Word."

When you twist words in this fashion you are being reckless and irresponsible. You have no right to say anything to Robert Snow,Winman or Van accusing them of twisting words. You would be a hypocrite because you have evidenced a considerable twisting of yourself in your campaign against the 2011 NIV.

I have said before that if you have objections regarding certain renderings in the 2011 NIV then have at it. I don't regard it as a perfect translation. I have sent in suggestions for its improvement. But to castigate it in such a juvenile fashion is disgraceful. You should retract your ill-considered words.

 

Wow that reply was a tad over the top there man.

(Yes, I await your reply...)

 

I stand on what I said.

 

Just curious, do you hold the NIV 2011 superior to NASV/ESV/HCSB then?

 

Back to the OP. I have just started reading the HCSB and I enjoy it very much. I find that once I start reading I can't seem to put it down. My current SS class uses the same material as yours Robert and it's helping in that respect too. I still use the NKJV as that is what the pastors preaches from, but it's nice to read a fresh version for a change. So far I give the HCSB a big :thumbsup:.

 

This is a reminder for GLF.

 

You're standing the truth on its head.

Your charges are absurd and sinful.

The way you have "translated" the words in the Preface to the 2011 NIV is such a wresting of the meaning -- I fear that you would take any translation of the Bible and do the same sort of twisting.

Instead of engaging in gossip on the topic of gender roles in the 2011 NIV--prove your contentions with specific examples. If you have nothing then just stop making stuff up --or parroting others.

 

I prefer the 2011 NIV. Others prefer other translations. Variety is the spice of life.

Each of the three you mentioned have their particular strengths and weaknesses. The 2011 NIV has advantages and disadvantages. I just think in a general sense it is better all-round than any other English version on the market.